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

131–140 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#131

Post by cfn »

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.

"My channel got demonetised but my videos shows ads."

https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/105920334/my-chann...

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#133

Post by iamtedd »

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…

As a gay man, I most certainly do not!

Please stop making such pseudo-intellectual sweeping statements.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#136

Post by coldtea »

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 when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation.

Thankfully men know better than her what she is (as opposed as what she claims to be), and can put her in her place

After all this demonization happens to everybody who claims to be X when they're something else (e.g. a champion of rights vs an opportunist careerist, or a tech reviewer vs a sponsor shill).

/s

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#138

Post by gorgoiler »

It’s the advertisers who should be getting it in the neck for being anti-boob* prudes, right? YouTube are just parroting Nabisco’s requirements that Oreos only appear alongside bosoms in or below the Nth percentile deemed acceptable by focus groups of parents in the 28 to 40 core biscuit buying demographic.

*I know it when I see it.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#139

Post by throwaway_4ever »

SexyCyborg wrote: post #70
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She is a conundrum: is she titillating or expressing herself, or maximising her reach? It is a sad fact that if you took two women on youtube with equal talents and content - the one that "dressed up a little" would be more successful. I don't think that's the case with men (although Colin Furze and Integza do wear ties, maybe that's a factor in their success) It hard to see how YouTube can defend their actions - her…

>She is a conundrum: is she titillating or expressing herself, or maximising her reach? Initially, before I was Outed I could not explain any of it. Which was...frustrating at the time to say the least. Now, as shitty as getting Outted was I can at least reference part of the explanation: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/139660466709473690... But as to the rest, I'm still on the fence. I'd like to explain, b…

No post body was provided.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#140

Post by coldtea »

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?

Why she shouldn't have the right to be seen as sexualized if she wants to?

Because sex is bad, and tempting/teasing people is bad? - as some certain cultures say (but hardly bat an eye with portrayals of "fun" violence or tons of other issues).

Post reply on HN