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

291–300 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#291

Post by Borrible »

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…

> Yes, I play the cards I've been dealt.

For what it's worth, you're a great woman, a great tech and a great entertainer.

Some around here apparently wouldn't win the game of life even with a Royal Flush on hand.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#292

Post by ezconnect »

OJFord wrote: post #286

I don't really get why it has to be 'demonetised' anyway, I suppose that's $Company's prerogative, but the 'here's someone else wearing the same top' tweet is a pretty weak argument - if you know that's the issue, then... yes, one person is wearing a top that covers their (yes, smaller) chest, and the other isn't? I don't think that's 'punishing topography', that's punishing the choice of clothes to suit it (or not).…

It is not demonitized it get limited advertisement because of nudity and that is the problem, there is no nudity on her video. Her video is now in adult with nudity content and most big spending advertisers don't advertise on those class of videos.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#293

Post by dragonwriter »

M4v3R wrote: post #288
xenomachina wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> she's clearly making a bust of herself naked. I'm sure if I put my balls on YouTube they'd be more than demonetized. She's posted many examples of videos by other YouTubers (most, if not all, men) that show reconstructions of nude female busts. Here are some: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/148435177122526003...

Her videos are not taken down, just have what YT calls "limited monetization". How does she know the same does not apply to other YouTubers she pointed out? Afaik the monetization status is not displayed anywhere on the site for anyone else than the channel owner.

> How does she know the same does not apply to other YouTubers she pointed out?

She could have just watched the videos from a non-Premium account (or not logged in) and tracked the kinds of ads shown.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#294

Post by helmholtz »

SexyCyborg wrote: post #264
raxxorrax wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really support to ban anything that could be seen as sexual, but if you put it out, some people will always judge you on that merit. It will also net you attention and can overshadow your other feats. Should she be condemned for that? I don't think so. But the engineering feats alone will never be the focus as a consequence.

>But the engineering feats alone will never be the focus as a consequence. There's a line between "never be the focus" and "we will erase you". This sort of thing is constant- but I'll give you a recent example- NPR recently ran this story: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1047691984/decades-after-poli... About an American lady who needed some parts for her iron lung and how no one would help her. Only the thing is, th…

Man, you're sooooo well spoken! I'm loving your responses up and down this thread.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#295

Post by whybother1 »

blueflow wrote: post #279
Animats wrote: post #155

Naomi Wu seems to upset a lot of people. She makes things, and was accused by the publisher of "Make" magazine of being a fake, with some guy doing the actual work. She replied by posting long, detailed videos of her making stuff. An hour of cutting aluminum extrusions with a chop saw and putting together a frame. Soldering PC boards. Eventually, the guy apologized. One of the useful things she's done is to put up lo…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#296

Post by ezconnect »

bamboozled wrote: post #101

What is big tech's problem with tits anyway? The fact that women have to censor photos of their nipples on Instagram is outrageous to me.

Because babies might get near the TV and suck on the tits and the TV might fall on them and that is dangerous.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#297

Post by M4v3R »

aloisdg wrote: post #134
bamboozled wrote: post #101

What is big tech's problem with tits anyway? The fact that women have to censor photos of their nipples on Instagram is outrageous to me.

USA. that's why.

Except it's not an USA thing. Here in Europe showing nipples in a public place is also considered nudity and generally frowned upon. It's a cultural thing, no need to attribute ideology to it. And the culture is shifting - just a century ago it was considered not modest if you wore shorts or short skirts, or two-piece swimsuits, now it's normal and accepted.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#298

Post by raxxorrax »

SexyCyborg wrote: post #264
raxxorrax wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really support to ban anything that could be seen as sexual, but if you put it out, some people will always judge you on that merit. It will also net you attention and can overshadow your other feats. Should she be condemned for that? I don't think so. But the engineering feats alone will never be the focus as a consequence.

>But the engineering feats alone will never be the focus as a consequence. There's a line between "never be the focus" and "we will erase you". This sort of thing is constant- but I'll give you a recent example- NPR recently ran this story: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1047691984/decades-after-poli... About an American lady who needed some parts for her iron lung and how no one would help her. Only the thing is, th…

I believe you might not fit into the story they want to paint onto the tech industry in general.

You think your successes would have been harder to achieve if you didn't advertise with sex appeal? You don't need to justify yourself for anything but you still sound like you feel the need to do so.

I don't even know their exact angle to be honest, they probably don't want to make the impression that sex appeal is a necessity for success in tech. But that is speculation. I understand the want to keep it "clean" but I hope you can appeal the demonetization.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#299

Post by chii »

blueflow wrote: post #279
Animats wrote: post #155

Naomi Wu seems to upset a lot of people. She makes things, and was accused by the publisher of "Make" magazine of being a fake, with some guy doing the actual work. She replied by posting long, detailed videos of her making stuff. An hour of cutting aluminum extrusions with a chop saw and putting together a frame. Soldering PC boards. Eventually, the guy apologized. One of the useful things she's done is to put up lo…

Quoted post unavailable.

It's because other people stir shit up with her as the topic, either for fun/trolling, or they truly feel she's somehow threatening (their masculinity and world-view).

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#300

Post by chrischen »

lelanthran wrote: post #278
chrischen wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I address that point that some woman want to wear burkas, just as some women don't want to show their boobs. Just because most men don't want to be tempted by seeing boobs, some women don't want to see boobs either. But regardless of men or women neither should be dictating how some woman want to show their body. Also, while I use the term "men" I really mean "any person that sexualizes a woman over their physical ap…

> But regardless of men or women neither should be dictating how some woman want to show their body. But, they can dictate how some men want to show their body? *shakes head* Firstly, you claimed that men are the problem, not that people who object are the problem. This new claim is a different claim. Secondly, whether you like it or not, women are more likely to complain of male nudity in a venue than men are to com…

> But, they can dictate how some men want to show their body? shakes head

You're making this a gender war thing. It's not about who gets to dictate what to whom. It's about why something is dictated and who it's benefitting.

For genitalia, both genders are not allowed to show theirs. This is acceptable because it's fair.

For breasts, men can show theirs, yet women cannot.

For skirts: too short and a woman is labeled slutty. Why? Because people who sexualize them (often men) view them as sexy and wanting sex. And so these people then dictate that they should wear longer skirts so that they don't feel so guilty themselves. This ends up being one party dictating how the other should appear in order to accommodate their own needs.

Men can wear short or long. It's ok because generally women do not sexualize men in that way. But the point here is that the viewpoint of immodesty comes from the viewer, and women have no control in how they are viewed by others, therefore they should not have to adjust themselves to accommodate for something they have no control over.

> 1. Does a person have a right to show whatever part of their body that they want to? >> Sure.

No that is not my argument. I accept the laws that both genders cannot show their genitals or sexual organs. If we enacted a law that said all people have to hide their mouths I'd be in full support. We don't have such a law but we are close to it (face masks for covid). What I am against is unequal laws enacted by one group on another to accommodate the first or other group.

> 3. Should the rule be based on whether the viewer/displayer is female or male? >> Most definitely not.

This is not about male or female. This is about one group forcing their preference on another group to accommodate their own needs.

Post reply on HN