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

391–400 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#391

Post by akaij »

This is a sad failing on YouTube's part. There must be many words, in addition to hypocrisy, that describe precisely this situation, in which a company is openly engaging such double standards while covering itself with legal and fiduciary shields. Of course it's their prerogative to decide what is monetised and what isn't, and they have all these rules and guidelines to shape it, but they apparently follow them selectively. I guess I don't have to carry a thesaurus around anymore, as I can just use YouTube as an example.

I think one action to take is to gather and show as many examples as possible, like she did on her Twitter account. In addition to discussing for pages after pages here, people can also retweet to amplify the message. Because it is the prerogative of those that sympathise with her, to point out hypocrisy of YouTube. They can't do as they will, punish selectively, and not expect public backlash, can they?

I also wonder if it would make sense for Naomi and other sympathetic content creators to make videos with different characteristics (same kind of demonetised video, but with the full spectrum of what YouTube deems questionable) to figure out more precisely where they draw the line, which would more clearly define YouTube's obviously malleable boundaries and paint them in a corner, for the purpose of giving people like her more opportunities to point out the double standard publicly. Just off the top of my head, the examples in this instance could be re-shooting the video with

- another cardboard clone that has a penis

- another cardboard clone with its nipples taped (I'm serious)

- Naomi in winter clothing

I know that this might come across as a stupid idea, and it shouldn't even be needed in the first place, but since all politics is shaped by public opinion, every weapon in our arsenal that can move it, even by a millimeter, should be used. It's hard work, really.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#392

Post by naasking »

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.

You seem to be implying these are somehow mutually exclusive. I don't see how that follows though. Pushing the boundaries by purveying a weird type of titillation could very well be a form of women's rights activism.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#393

Post by sorenjan »

The title ("Naomi Wu Demonetized on YouTube") makes it sound as if her whole channel is demonetized, while it's actually just one specific video of her making a nude bust of herself from cardboard.

Youtube is a fickle beast, and there's plenty of examples of creators and videos getting demonetized seemingly without a good reason [0]. I would guess that this particular video got hit because she´s pushed the limits before, and Youtube has their eyes on her. There might be some mass reporting from haters as well.

In a different tweet she writes "YouTube's criteria are patriarchal, and male gaze focused". I kind of agree with that, at least that women's bodies seem to be more sexually loaded than men's according to Youtube and the US culture Youtube bases its rules on. I don't think men can monetize sexually loaded videos on Youtube either, but the rules for what's deemed sexually loaded are different for women.

There's really two problems converging here. One is that women's bodies are considered inherently more sexual, and the other is that anything that can be considered sexual is deemed immoral and wrong.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AFVlGnXMsc

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#394

Post by numpad0 »

bayindirh wrote: post #334
stavros wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Make: is Make:. Once they set up an isolation ward for nerds away from main exhibit in Maker Faire Tokyo to keep unsightly EE/HAM nerds away from handsome Makers.

They made huge contributions to their Maker movement and gave me $9 Pro Micros, and I’m thankful of it, but I won’t forget that they always are like that.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#395

Post by alangibson »

Wu has done more for the Maker subculture than almost any of her critics. Details have been well documented in other posts.

I wish Wu's critics would just be honest for once. I try not to be reductive, but I her case it's patently obvious that she gets flack because she's got extremely big tits.

Given the boxes she checks (female, clearly very intelligent, creative, STEM stuff, good content creator) she'd be held up as a hero by everyone sans implants.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#396

Post by nefitty »

WesternWind wrote: post #371
Jach wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A user (I'll leave them unstated) deleted a reply with a metaphor along the lines of "what do you expect if someone wears a clown suit when speaking at a technical conference?" Well, here's her speaking at a tech conference, in "context-appropriate" attire that is neither skimpy nor a clown suit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt1OLgGIqhc In "She wears skimpy outfits sometimes", sometimes is really the operative wor…

If you have the skills, it generally shouldn't matter what clothes you wear. Even if you don't have the skills, it generally shouldn't matter what clothes you wear. Like don't strap knives to your arms, and do wear a good mask, but generally we spend a lot of time policing other folk's bodies and attire, and for what?

Brains run on heuristics and shortcuts. A group of brains will develop shared signals to aid in that energy-conservation. They will then refine their signalling, ie contextual, implicit, misleading, covert, etc.

Some signals are loud and drown out more complex ones. "Sex sells." The more those types of signals are tolerated or incentivized on a platform, the further it will be dominated by noise masking covert signals.

I once attended a round table discussion in a previous job. The topic was women and work. I'm male, and was a manager, and figured that if half my directs are women I should do what I can to listen and support them.

Anyways, the guest of honor proceeded to advise the 100+ female managers in the room to, among other things, "use their assets" to influence people in the organization. This was met with a stunned but approving clamor.

I felt embarrassed, as if I had accidentally crashed a private sleepover. The person sharing the advice had a proven track record. Why hang onto sexuality signals? Because they work.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#397

Post by rambojazz »

aspaviento wrote: post #390
kragen wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I think you haven't heard about the new trend of naked yoga in youtube.

It's not a new trend either. I've heard about it for years.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#398

Post by bryanlarsen »

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…

In Canada, indecency laws prohibiting bare breasts in females but not males were found to be unconstitutional. Despite the lack, social mores and cold weather fairly successfully keep breasts covered here.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs became more popular in reaction to the ruling, but the expected wave of bare female breasts did not happen, disappointing immature males.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#399

Post by bspammer »

penjelly wrote: post #377

never heard of her. Just checked her channel and every episode is her in a tube top and short shorts. Maybe she's technical, but the way shes dressed is clearly with the intent to draw people in sexually. When she leaves the house she puts on a full set of clothes, so even shes consciously aware of how she looks in her videos. From what ive seen, she doesnt deserve demonetization because youtube has worse.. and shes…

> Maybe she's technical, but the way shes dressed is clearly with the intent to draw people in sexually.

She explains herself well enough in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30097069

I also take issue with the word "but" in your sentence, as though the latter discredits the former.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#400

Post by rob74 »

badRNG wrote: post #271
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 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. This is actually a common apologetic in defense of Burqas and similar objects of "modesty" for women.

Of course, once you are at the stage of Burqas, any feats that women may achieve will be strictly limited to their household...
Post reply on HN