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

361–370 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#361

Post by pdkl95 »

chii wrote: post #299
blueflow wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

While some people certainly seem to subscribe to "feeling their masculinity/world-view is threatened" interpretation, the fundamental problem that q lot of people don't seem to understand is that the internet changed the mechanics of fame.

The best explanation I've seen - and possibly the most important video on youtube - is "This Is Phil Fish"[1] by Innuendo Studios. It's not really about Phil Fish; it's about everyone who isn't Phil Fish acted when they decided he became "famous". In the past, being "on tv" or "in a band" or other traditional examples of fame required some amount of buying into fame. Becoming famous required media access that was controlled by gatekeepers. You had to work with those gatekeepers if you wanted to be "on tv" or whatever, and because you had to choose to participate, people often see the decision to become famous as also accepting some amount of responsibility to "act like famous people are supposed to act".

This internet fundamentally changed the mechanics of fame, because the internet IS media access. Now it is possible to become famous - to become a "celebrity" with a "responsibility" to act in a certain way - simply by being yourself in your normal everyday life.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#362

Post by meheleventyone »

caskstrength wrote: post #354
meheleventyone wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't accept it though and there is a massive double-standard in the treatment of the merit of women who are also sexy and men who are also sexy. We don’t question the merit of Ronaldo as a footballer because he also uses his body in a sexy way to advertise for example. Another aspect as well is homogenising around the social mores of America by default which particularly in the aspects of sex and sexuality ar…

> We shouldn't accept it though and there is a massive double-standard in the treatment of the merit of women who are also sexy and men who are also sexy. We don’t question the merit of Ronaldo as a footballer because he also uses his body in a sexy way to advertise for example. Of course we do! I'm not into football, but several of my friends who are dislike him explicitly because of this.

Dislike isn't the same thing as questioning his merit as a footballer though. Especially as he is widely heralded as the being one of the best players of all time. I'd also suggest that disliking Ronaldo because he poses in sexy adverts is also pretty closely aligned with the same cultural issues that lead to dismissing women. And whilst I can definitely agree there will be some men who dismiss Ronaldo's merit as a footballer for being too sexy there is a massive difference in degree when compared to the general treatment of women for the same.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#364

Post by boopmaster »

There’s nothing inherently amoral about nudity. Demanding modesty of others, and expressing how bad they make you feel, is a reflection of yourself and the damage that others have done to you.

While fascinating to read through the thread here on all variations and manifestations of evil in each eye of the beholder, please bear in mind that these are uniquely held disturbances from the writer.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#366

Post by spacechild1 »

dncornholio wrote: post #211
SexyCyborg wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/139660466709473690... There's more, but again, until/if I can explain it more fully, it's on me.

This explains nothing. I don't think you do yourself much favours here. Because there's a subculture of people like you, it's OK to be half naked in front of kids?

> it's OK to be half naked in front of kids?

Yes, it's totally ok. What's the problem? For someone from Central Europe, this dicussion seems very bizarre. Go to a random lake in Germany or Austria and you will see women sun bathing topless. I mean, kids literally see boobs from the first day they are born. I am really sick of this puritanical BS!

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#367

Post by Zak »

meheleventyone wrote: post #85
stale2002 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, thats fine if she wants to do that type of content (if you don't like the words "sexual content" then make up a new word, because that's not the point). But sometimes advertisers do not want to advertise on that type of content, and since it is their money, thats alright. Like sure, go ahead. Make that type of content. But don't be surprised when advertisers don't want to buy ads on it.

Except advertisers can’t make a choice to advertise on her channel through YouTube so this comparison misses the point.

It seems to me Youtube could solve the problem by providing advertisers fine-grained controls.

I remember an earlier discussion on HN about Youtube demonetizing other content - videos about guns, I think. My thought then and now is that there are many advertisers on Youtube who would like their ad to run on "ForgottenWeapons shoots a pre-WWII anti-tank rifle" and many (probably not with a lot of overlap) who would like to advertise on "SexyCyborg builds a sexy mannequin". Large, conservative brands probably wouldn't, but Youtube is leaving money on the table if it caters exclusively to those.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#368

Post by fvdessen »

caskstrength wrote: post #354
meheleventyone wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't accept it though and there is a massive double-standard in the treatment of the merit of women who are also sexy and men who are also sexy. We don’t question the merit of Ronaldo as a footballer because he also uses his body in a sexy way to advertise for example. Another aspect as well is homogenising around the social mores of America by default which particularly in the aspects of sex and sexuality ar…

> We shouldn't accept it though and there is a massive double-standard in the treatment of the merit of women who are also sexy and men who are also sexy. We don’t question the merit of Ronaldo as a footballer because he also uses his body in a sexy way to advertise for example. Of course we do! I'm not into football, but several of my friends who are dislike him explicitly because of this.

Clearly not nearly to the same level since not only Ronaldo's videos are not demonetized, he's in the actual ads !

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#369

Post by Mikeb85 »

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…

> But she's clearly making a bust of herself naked.

I mean, who else would you make a bust of if not yourself?

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#370

Post by saalweachter »

batekush wrote: post #162
4gotunameagain wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Female breasts were, are, and will be secondary sexual characteristics. With whatever implication. Male and female bodies will never be the same, and they shouldn't be. That should have zero implications on equality though. It means that it is trickier to achieve

And so are hairy arms on men. Do you have a point?

I think beards would be a better analogy.
Post reply on HN