Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

Post by alpaca128 » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 9:28 AM UTC

twofornone wrote: post #20

SexyCyborg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

>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…

Post by coldtea » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 9:32 AM UTC

jb1991 wrote: post #156

coldtea wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

She completely has that right. I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized. I’m not talking about this particular video by the way, but more than likely the reactions to her other videos have affected how this particular video is judged, which is probably not fair.

Post by enw » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 9:33 AM UTC

kstenerud wrote: post #26

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…

So did Madonna. And for good reason. Quite often one needs to take a more direct approach because these misogynistic policies are so ingrained that people actually believe them to be natural . One needs to be in-your-face to get past that. We like to scoff at Muslims and their backwards policies about women, and yet somehow Western societies are blind to their own - so much so that we need to be told from time to tim…

Post by throwaway4good » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 9:35 AM UTC

throwaway4good wrote: post #92

throwaway4good wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

And I am only slightly joking. YouTube is chuck-full of soft porn, so that is obviously not the problem here. Moderation and demonetarization of this sort is done by an (anonymous) human not by an algorithm. So why is mrs. Sexy controversial? Look at her twitter-profile and see where she is getting the most flak ...

Post by thaumasiotes » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 9:36 AM UTC

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?