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

111–120 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#111

Post by imsaw »

SexyCyborg wrote: post #44
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 Yes, I play the cards I've been dealt. >by wearing revealing clothing. No, the clothing and gender expression predates YouTube and is for other reasons, is usually more conservative when I'm filming for YouTube, and is for myself. I've never worn anything for my audience. >Can we acknowledge that some probably significant proportion of your c…

>being able to encourage technical proficiency in a demographic that was not looking to learn anything

Great perspective. Most people (most likely not on HN's highly productive community) find it hard to stay focus following education materials.

Some content creators put soothing bg music, animations, funny jokes. Something to engage. It's an art, be creative of what you have.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#112

Post by rvnx »

SexyCyborg wrote: post #88
stale2002 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, thats fine if she wants to do that type of content (if you don't like the words "sexual content" then make up a new word, because that's not the point). But sometimes advertisers do not want to advertise on that type of content, and since it is their money, thats alright. Like sure, go ahead. Make that type of content. But don't be surprised when advertisers don't want to buy ads on it.

>Ok, thats fine if she wants to do sexual content. You are sexually attracted to dressmakers dummies made out of 4mm cardboard?

Seems like he is not the only one: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201311/lov...

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#115

Post by Taurenking »

Jansen312 wrote: post #55

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 equival…

No post body was provided.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#116

Post by bamboozled »

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.

Would it be hard for Google, for all their greatness, to have adds for...adults?

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#117

Post by chrischen »

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…

Youtube has a checkbox for not for kids and she points out that she checks this for all her videos.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#118

Post by emptyparadise »

post_from_work wrote: post #87
emptyparadise wrote: post #72

You'd think a non-white non-American female engineer not afraid of self-expression and her own sexuality would be a darling given the big talk of diversity and inclusion, but in the end she gets rejected because her boobs are too big for America to handle. It's comical.

Quoted post unavailable.

The brilliance of an oppressive system like ours is allowing some of the oppressed to buy in and become the oppressor as long as they obsessively work to be "one of the good ones" and disavow any deviancy.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#119

Post by dr_dshiv »

twofornone wrote: post #52
ghosty141 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 tak…

Yeah, but what about the music video and commercial advertising argument? E g., That sexiness is commonly used in western society? Why single her out?

Also, if it were about the "onus", where does it stop? I'm regularly attracted to women and OBVIOUSLY I have to suppress my visceral urges. Do you want women to wear a burkha?

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#120

Post by chrischen »

jb1991 wrote: post #53
kstenerud wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Sexualization is in the eye of the beholder. In most cases, men. So men can’t keep it in their pants so women have to surgically reduce their breast sizes to accommodate some boundary of sexualization set by men?
Post reply on HN