Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#51

Post by robinduckett »

SexyCyborg wrote: post #6
oceanghost wrote: post #5

Sigh... while talented, she is constantly pushing the boundaries of taste and the YouTube TOS to gain subscribers. She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation. Yes the algorithm is capricious, yes its arbitrary, and yes YouTube is evil. But she's clearly making a bust of herself naked. I'm sure if I put my balls on YouTube they'd be more than dem…

"She pretends to be some women's rights activist" I'm a mainland Chinese citizen with a high profile on Western Social Media, I can assure you I work very hard to make sure no one confuses me as a women's rights activist. Particularly not these days. "Yes the algorithm is capricious," Not the algorithm- all human moderation. "she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation" Why not just have an Only Fa…

> mainland Chinese citizen

Which is a hugely touchy subject around here on its own, for some reason

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#52

Post by twofornone »

ghosty141 wrote: post #32
twofornone wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why not just have an Only Fans, weekly photo video sets, and a decent copywriter and make 10x as much money? Why go through all this work? I mean, I cant help but agree that you're being a little dishonest here. Without passing judgement on whether what you're doing is right or wrong, a quick glance through the Twitter link in the OP and its quite obvious that you are well endowed and using it to your advantage by w…

>its quite obvious that you are well endowed and using it to your advantage by wearing revealing clothing What is "revealing clothing" to you. We are not in the 1900s where it's a crime to show a little ankle. Her clothing is nothing out of the ordinary in many videos. If you have big boobs people will notice no matter what you wear, youtube shouldn't act different based on your body... If another youtube would exist…

It's so weird that this is the default response.

Again, I'm not making a moral judgement. But the first three tweets in the linked thread:

1. Bare midriff and tiny shorts 2. Deliberately fully exposed cleavage 3. A tiny spaghetti strap

Wear whatever you want, but don't be surprised when you get sexual attention, and don't pretend that as a public figure who makes money off of eyeballs that you're not deliberately taking advantage of your assets.

It's like we're not allowed to acknowledge that people dress for attention without being accused of puritanism or shaming.

And while we're on the subject, it is disingenuous to ignore the fact that the female figure induces a instinctual physiological and psychological responses in men. Social norms around modest dress may exist for a reason beyond oppression or patriarchy or what have you. It's tens of millions of years of evolution - not quite fair to pretend that revealing clothing does not force an onus onto men to suppress visceral urges.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#53

Post by jb1991 »

kstenerud wrote: post #42
jb1991 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Madonna explicitly wanted to be seen that way and did not attempt to suggest otherwise.

Yes, she did. And she wanted the right to do it. She wanted the right to do with her body as she pleases, and the right to be seen as she pleases. And in doing so she fought censors, TV networks, the FBI, you name it. She fought her whole life against this kind of bullshit. And now Naomi has taken up the fight too, and is probably discovering just how unnecessarily heavy a burden it is.

My point is different. Is it the same fight? Is explicitly pushing boundaries because you want to be seen as sexualized and have the right to do so the same as trying to push those boundaries while claiming not to aim for sexualization?

Honest question as they don’t seem the same. But maybe they are?

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#54

Post by MomoXenosaga »

arpa wrote: post #12

What I don't get is how in year 2022, having landed on the moon and tricked silicon into computing for us, we as a western civilization still haven't come to terms with our own bodies, other peoples' bodies, the fact that we have a sex drive, the fact that we can and do have sex for pleasure and punish ourselves for all of these things. It's insane.

There is no such thing as Western civilization, cultures are different. This one is all on America.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#55

Post by Jansen312 »

Technically we can view entire Youtube as being mysogynist. If she is an American she will have a very strong case to bring this lawsuit on (possibly class action lawsuit). I recalled there was a case regarding women showing topless and won (if any legal expert here can chime in). It only take a cursory search to show that Youtube showing men's nipples without demonetization while a simple cardboard of female equivalent getting "women-hate" from Youtube.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#56

Post by richardfey »

londons_explore wrote: post #43
ajross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people insist on conflating demonitization with censorship? Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Seems like a dumb move on YouTubes part. Instead just only show ads from advertiser's who want to be associated with this kind of content. There aren't many of that kind of advertiser, so prices will be low. YouTubers will then soon find out that while that sort of content might get lots of views, it earns few dollars, so will produce other content. Having a binary 'you have been demonetized' flag just seems like a w…

That's what their email says. You will receive less revenue because less advertisers will want them on adult content.

She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#57

Post by helsinkiandrew »

gpt5 wrote: post #40
solarmist wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except sexually. The US is significantly repressed there compared to all other aspects. Worldwide I’d put the US just on the conservative Side of the middle line regarding sexuality.

I was curious to find which countries oppress sexuality, and found this interesting map: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-95129...

I think most naturists would argue that nude and topless sunbathing has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. If they are political at all they would say they are taking back nudity from sexuality.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#58

Post by richardfey »

totony wrote: post #16
arpa wrote: post #12

What I don't get is how in year 2022, having landed on the moon and tricked silicon into computing for us, we as a western civilization still haven't come to terms with our own bodies, other peoples' bodies, the fact that we have a sex drive, the fact that we can and do have sex for pleasure and punish ourselves for all of these things. It's insane.

Isn't it understandable that people want separate spaces for sexual and non sexual content? I wouldn't jump the gun on allowing sexualization everywhere since it can have pretty bad effects on some people. Now whether this is sexual or not is another matter.

The core of the problem here seems to be that the video was classified as adult because her breasts are larger (that's also what she hints at), while other videos with smaller breast dummies are not classified as such.

I would also probably feel offended if Google told me that my breasts are pornographic just because of their size.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#59

Post by SexyCyborg »

ajross wrote: post #36
drawfloat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being funny, but there are plenty of western countries that don't go around censoring this stuff. There's one massive leader in it.

Why do people insist on conflating demonitization with censorship? Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

>Google isn't saying she can't put her body on YouTube, they're saying they don't think they can sell ads on that content. If advertisers would pay for controversial content, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The assumption being in this case that advertisers will pay for ads when a man creates a nude female torso and not when a woman creates a nude female torso and YouTube is simply acting on their behalf?

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#60

Post by SexyCyborg »

richardfey wrote: post #56
londons_explore wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a dumb move on YouTubes part. Instead just only show ads from advertiser's who want to be associated with this kind of content. There aren't many of that kind of advertiser, so prices will be low. YouTubers will then soon find out that while that sort of content might get lots of views, it earns few dollars, so will produce other content. Having a binary 'you have been demonetized' flag just seems like a w…

That's what their email says. You will receive less revenue because less advertisers will want them on adult content. She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue.

>She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue.

Correct

Post reply on HN