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

331–340 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#331

Post by tromp »

chrischen wrote: post #300
lelanthran wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#332

Post by danielrpa »

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.

Not defending YouTube, but I think that the letter said that some advertisers won't accept "sexual" content and thus her income would go down? The big question here, as I see it, is whether it's fair to call that "sexual" content.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#333

Post by zelphirkalt »

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…

As I see it, you "cannot do it right". Here is what I mean by this:

Some people in the comments here have noted, that wearing anything that is more revealing than people are used to, might be seen as "fighting for the right to display yourself in whatever way you want" for women in general and see it as a positive thing. Whether that is interpreting too much into the action, I cannot say. On the other hand there are other people, who interpret it as means to attract more viewers, and does not add to the technical content.

So there are at least 2 contrary interpretations. Perhaps it could be named "polarizing". I would not say that this is "your fault" in any way. It is simply the state of our society currently and how we are being socialized. It can be improved. The human body is in itself nothing criminal. It is our interpretations of expression, that gives meaning. There will always be critics, who see it one way or another.

I did not know your channel before. I congratulate you for making some GPL happen. Good job on that! One thing I personally would value is, if you put emphasis on free (libre) software, when doing GPL and not name it merely open source. I think your content is interesting. I also like to see how it looks in Shenzhen, besides the technical aspects of the channel.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#334

Post by bayindirh »

stavros wrote: post #315
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…

> She makes things, and was accused by the publisher of "Make" magazine of being a fake, with some guy doing the actual work. That's fucked up. Why would someone accuse anyone of being a fake, just because they didn't look a certain way? Detestable.

That event brought down "Make Magazine" a dozen notches permanently in my mind in an instant.

I respect her a ton for doing what she's doing, and if I remember correctly, she had to install a very elaborate and advanced security system at her home to feel safe.

Sad.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#335

Post by pseudalopex »

hd4 wrote: post #324
SexyCyborg wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>how do you know their videos aren't demonetized? “No, there won't be an answer as to why men making nude female torsos will not be subject to the same enforcement and never have been.” I pressed YouTube on are or would those videos with identical content be treated identically, over several emails- they refuse to answer. That model is an extremely common test print in the community and I’ve never heard of anyone bei…

Hold on, this is important. You're claiming gender-based discrimination but you don't actually know for sure if you're being treated differently from the male content creators.

She said many of them are friends. The strongest plausible interpretation is she asked them.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#336

Post by pm90 »

raxxorrax wrote: post #188
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…

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.

This seems like a failure of imagination. Or maybe an expectation of seriousness which can only be associated with certain kinds of people who dress and speak a certain way.

The reality is that anyone can be really smart and make “serious” contributions and they deserve to be taken seriously regardless of how they choose to dress or present themselves. We have chosen a certain definition of normality and we can choose to expand that to be more inclusive.

From what I’ve read about Naomi, she is interested in both the engineering and the social justice aspects of her work. She deserves to be taken seriously and not dismissed simply because of the way she looks.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#337

Post by 3np »

kragen wrote: post #326
3np wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be up for receiving cryptocurrency, either as sponsoring (like your tipeee site) or just as donations? EDIT: See now that you already accept the main ones Pro tip for when you have the time: Generate a new BTC address (native segwit bech32; starts with "bc1" instead of "1"). It will lower fees significantly, which can be a difference between a smaller donation being meaningful or not when fees are higher)

All her recent YouTube videos have cryptocurrency donation addresses for BTC, BCH, LTC, ETH, and XMR (Monero).

You're right! Was on mobile where YT isn't available for me.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#339

Post by kragen »

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…

I wonder what fraction of people here commenting disapprovingly about her choice of wardrobe think YouTube should demonetize videos of bodybuilding competitions, male rock stars, or boxing. Because apparently those are super sexy, though I think the bodybuilding thing appeals to more gay men than to het women.

Also apparently a lot of male gamer Youtubers are considered sexy, even though they don't have exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics like giant muscles, and I've never heard of them getting demonetized for it: https://ar.pinterest.com/madelineulatows/logan-paul-sexy/ https://ar.pinterest.com/ktatianalima203/rubius-sexy-3/

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#340

Post by kragen »

stavros wrote: post #315
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…

> She makes things, and was accused by the publisher of "Make" magazine of being a fake, with some guy doing the actual work. That's fucked up. Why would someone accuse anyone of being a fake, just because they didn't look a certain way? Detestable.

Probably most of us reason from stereotypes a lot of the time. I'm ashamed to admit I've recommended not hiring a guy I interviewed for a sysadmin job basically because he showed up wearing a suit and tie.
Post reply on HN