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

231–240 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#231

Post by kragen »

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…

Nitter link: https://birdsite.xanny.family/RealSexyCyborg/status/13966046...

I fully support your right to sculpt your body however you choose. The people who are uncomfortable with it should take responsibility for their own feelings instead of blaming you for them.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#232

Post by jb1991 »

coldtea wrote: post #183
jb1991 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized What if she's like that anyway, and thus doesn't have to "try" and is correct in saying that? Some women dress like that just fine on their own, enjoy enhacement surgery for certain parts and so on, and they don't have to do it for some audience...

This is not about the body, this is more about the choices. For example if you’re going to wear practically a thong in a bunch of videos unrelated to something sexualized, and then claim you are not trying to make it sexualized, a lot of people will think that’s being disingenuous. Doesn’t even matter what the actual body type is, it’s a question of what people consider to be appropriate in relationship to what someone says they mean by their dress.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#233

Post by lelanthran »

chrischen wrote: post #193

For any Westerners here who seem to have a hard time understanding why this is wrong: Look at an even more women-oppressing culture such as that of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Women are required to cover their faces in public. Why? For "modesty." What it boils down to is that if women show their faces it could have a negative effect on men (sexual attraction). A lot of people where are shaming her for being essent…

Yeah, sub out boobs with genitals in your argument, and replace men/man with women/woman and see if your argument is still sensible[1] when women complain that they have no wish to see male genitalia.

You're complaining that men are the problem because women are the target, but I'm pretty certain a significant number of women also complain when a venue has unexpected partial female nudity.

[1] Every culture draws the line at different points. Turning it into a "men are the problem" conclusion, while being wildly incorrect, is also hilariously sexist to both sexes. Edit your post to demean non-binaries as well and you'll have a hat-trick!

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#234

Post by jb1991 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #189
jb1991 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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? Naomi Wu never claimed not to aim for sexualization. She talks about it pretty frankly. She uses the handle "sexycyborg". She's obviously aiming for sexualization.

Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted other comments that she’s made on the subject. It does feel like a lot of the debate is caused by miscommunication perhaps, or misleading intent.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#235

Post by 4gotunameagain »

pjc50 wrote: post #230
4gotunameagain wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean ? The behaviour of each and every woman should be unquestionably praised and supported in order to support equality ? This is preposterous.

Merely that demonetizing her work is literally setting its value to zero. What do you mean by "valuing"?

I was referring to valuing each other in general, not every random female on youtube just because of her sex chromosomes.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#236

Post by rbanffy »

3np wrote: post #167
Freak_NL wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand it is as often a problem with translation as it a clear political standpoint. What makes the phrase 'mainland China' problematic in English, is that it can mean a number of things. Someone from China using it may do so because: * They were taught to do so and simply understand it to mean 'someone from the People's Republic of China'. No political subtext intended. * They use it to mean that the…

> From what I understand it is as often a problem with translation as it a clear political standpoint. In principle, yes, and I do think this is an underappreciated issue which, if understood better, could have avoided several needless heated arguments in general. However... Where does your understanding come from? It runs contrary to my experience from living in the region. IME, "Mainland China" is one of the least…

It may be a bit similar to when I say I live in "Ireland" referring to the "Republic of Ireland", which exists on the same island as Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. I've been here for about 6 years and I would love to see both countries unified as one, both for historical reasons and to annoy the brexiters. Extra points if we also get Scotland and form the United Republic of Scotland and Ireland. That'd drive the brexiters nuts.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#237

Post by YEwSdObPQT »

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

There are 1000s of videos of young women doing Yoga in such tight clothes you would know exactly what the nether regions look like and even without clothes with no age restriction on there.

If people wanna watch such content that is their business. It is none of my business however maybe have a age restriction for over 18s.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#238

Post by fxtentacle »

chrischen wrote: post #193

For any Westerners here who seem to have a hard time understanding why this is wrong: Look at an even more women-oppressing culture such as that of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Women are required to cover their faces in public. Why? For "modesty." What it boils down to is that if women show their faces it could have a negative effect on men (sexual attraction). A lot of people where are shaming her for being essent…

I agree with you on the moral part. But it seems odd to me that you're ignoring the fact that we are talking about a faceless amoral corporation here.

Most likely, a prudish approach to breasts is simply good for business. That's why advertisers like it. And that's why Google has a hard time selling ads for this video. And that's why Google's algorithms demonetized it.

Also, a lot of people in the US were upset about US companies bending to Chinese demands. But China is a huge market. Sacrificing your morals to gain 1.4 bio potential consumers is the correct decision if you're a die-hard capitalist.

We live in a culture that allows the profit margin alone to dictate almost all moral decisions. I'm not surprised that this has led to questionable morals ...

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#239

Post by nottorp »

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…

> Wear whatever you want, but don't be surprised when you get sexual attention

(Lack of) Self control much?

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#240

Post by op00to »

lelanthran wrote: post #233
chrischen wrote: post #193

For any Westerners here who seem to have a hard time understanding why this is wrong: Look at an even more women-oppressing culture such as that of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Women are required to cover their faces in public. Why? For "modesty." What it boils down to is that if women show their faces it could have a negative effect on men (sexual attraction). A lot of people where are shaming her for being essent…

Yeah, sub out boobs with genitals in your argument, and replace men/man with women/woman and see if your argument is still sensible[1] when women complain that they have no wish to see male genitalia. You're complaining that men are the problem because women are the target, but I'm pretty certain a significant number of women also complain when a venue has unexpected partial female nudity. [1] Every culture draws the…

Breasts are not genitalia. At least where I live in the US, there is no law against women being topless.
Post reply on HN