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

241–250 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#241

Post by 3np »

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…

Just want to point out that many Western countries and cultures don't share this hysteria and shaming around nakedness or female empowerment. Which doesn't mean that gendered power structures don't exist or that you see naked boobs everywhere in the summer city.

Showing naked bodies in various contexts on public television is not controversial in many Western countries.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#242

Post by lionkor »

fdomig wrote: post #73

That is America. We need a European Alternative. Anyways, heading to the sauna right now. Naked.

> Naked

Here we are again, click bait HN comments distracting me from work. How is this allowed? Maybe we should stop paying people who are naked under their clothes. /s

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#243

Post by hypertele-Xii »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #68
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 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…

> 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

Of course it's also the case with men. The dude in a suit will absolutely garner more attention than the one looking like an unwashed hobo. Although some people may rally behind the hobo-look as challenging the norms.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#244

Post by nottorp »

solarmist wrote: post #14
SexyCyborg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's a regular occurrence, not the whole channel yet. And technically it's "reduced monetization" but that works out to a 90% drop in income on those videos. And again, before all of HN jumps on me, yes I get why, and agree why, but no I'm not doing it for the reasons many of you think and will want to chastise me for. I really do just look like this. If it was just a matter of changing outfits like a normal fun…

Let me start with I completely support you and love your Twitter and videos. But this feels uncalled for. > Yelling at me that I have it coming because I'm a lying whore trying to cheat poor innocent simps out of their money isn't going to make it any easier to offer a complete backstory. No one’s said anything like that. From what I’ve seen, HN is generally pretty supportive and respectful of you, even if they disag…

> No one’s said anything like that.

Seen lots of comments implying that.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#245

Post by jraph »

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…

But it is still sensible with the replacement.

In an environment where it's normal, there are no problems. I experienced such an environment myself, I was (surprisingly?) not bothered by this in such a setting and women there neither.

Women may complain that they have no wish to see male genitalia in a setting where it is not normal / can be seen as / is an assault. Intents matter, too.

If you point your middle finger, the finger is still a body part but you are doing something offensive because you intend to insult someone.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#246

Post by rbanffy »

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…

> the female figure induces a instinctual physiological and psychological responses in men.

No. We are not all that shallow. In order to cause such a reaction there has to be some context, some hint of availability. I like her. I enjoy her videos. I'd like to have a coffee or beer with her. I'd love to be her friend. I'd like to ask her a ton of questions (political, technical, social), but I am not sexually attracted to her. Even if I were, I know I'm not what she likes and that she's not single.

> force an onus onto men to suppress visceral urges.

The universe has no obligation to make it easy for a person not to behave like an animal. That's what the sizeable lump of tissue inside your head is for. It's not a space heater.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#247

Post by bayesian_horse »

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 think there must still be some restrictions. Topless nudity is on the verge for me. The only reason why I think there is a case to be made is that so many people around the world DO find it offensive. But that's still a weak argument.

Showing primary sexual organs in my opinion is not a question and shouldn't be tolerated in many venues. It is a form of aggression in almost every culture. Even some hunter gatherers who walk around with genitals visible often have some way of making it less offensive. Very rare exceptions...

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#248

Post by pjc50 »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #235
pjc50 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Valuing "each other", but not "females"?

(Why do people say "females" rather than the more natural English "women" anyway?)

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#249

Post by nirui »

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.

Naomi Wu was influenced by the cartoon (animate) culture. She designed her character according to the public perception of a girl in animation, it's her persona. And based on how I look at it, her wearing style is a rebellion against the traditional idea of what a woman should be wearing, maybe it's a political statement of some sort.

I do agree that she maybe wearing a little too less. If she were my own sister, I would probably constantly annoying her so she can dress more properly at least for her own safety concern (you don't want to test the dark side of people). However, if it was truly an act of political statement, then maybe it's reasonable that she wants to make it louder.

(Seriously, I would recommend that she remove the "Sexy" reference in her banding to avoid serious legal issues)

Post reply on HN