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

441–450 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#441

Post by [deleted] »

akudha wrote: post #359
jb1991 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She completely has that right. I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized. I’m not talking about this particular video by the way, but more than likely the reactions to her other videos have affected how this particular video is judged, which is probably not fair.

I remember getting a book on spirituality whose author is an attractive young woman. She had rather suggestive photos of herself throughout the book and the book's content had nothing to do with the photos (and it was wasting space, the book would have been a few pages shorter without the photos). The book itself was pretty good, but it was really annoying to see her photos everywhere. There is not one reason for sug…

[deleted]

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#442

Post by kragen »

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?

I do know people who have taken swords to programming conferences, and I've personally been given a knife with a belt sheath for presenting at the same programming conference (possibly a different year). Admittedly neither the swords nor the smaller knives were strapped to our arms, just our waists.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#443

Post by torginus »

kragen wrote: post #438
torginus wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a problem that she employs people to help with her work? Putting out novel and high quality videos at a constant rate is hard. Despite a lot of popular youtubers giving off the vibe of being one-person shows, most employ production assistants and editors. Besides, (old) Top Gear was one of the most beloved shows of all time, which constantly featured segments where the Clarkson-Hammond-May trio was implied…

Historically though she's done her builds herself, and she's been careful to call out the exceptions where a friend wrote some firmware for her or something. Not sure about video editing, I think she does that herself too. I don't think it's accurate to accuse her of "movie magic".

I have to admit I haven't checked out her recently, but I'm not accusing her of anything - I'm just saying that even if she delegates a part of her work (which is what all successful business people do) it is not a cause for condemnation.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#444

Post by giantrobot »

SexyCyborg wrote: post #412
raxxorrax wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course appeal is subjective, but I believe she calls herself sexy cyborg. Denying intent is almost as offensive as a denial of existence I believe. Although there can be cases like that.

Because if there's anything to judge a person on the basis of, it's Reddit logins they chose when they were 20 and stuck with as they grew in popularity

At least you didn't use your old FoxyAndroid16@lycos.com address, you'd break the prude sensors.

/s for anyone wondering, I can only hope someone is still using some dumb Lycos e-mail today.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#445

Post by zwily »

SpelingBeeChamp wrote: post #429

Hold on. Naomi Wu is not demonetized. A video that Naomi Wu created was demonetized, or as YouTube puts it, found to not be suitable for all advertisers. Creating content on YouTube has been my full-time job for nearly four years. There is a HUGE difference between a channel being kicked out of the Partner Program and a video being 'demonetized.' (Namely, that in the latter case, all of your other videos, past and fu…

If you go through that Twitter thread, it seems like her videos pretty consistently get demonetized, even if the channel as a whole is not.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#446

Post by EveYoung »

kragen wrote: post #340
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.

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.

I think we all do but we should recognise it as an issue and come up with strategies and processes to ensure objectivity and reduce discrimination.

I was once told in an interview for a statistician role that the questions were designed for male candidates and I shouldn't worry if I struggle with them. And this was a big FTSE 100 company.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#447

Post by dfxm12 »

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?

generally we spend a lot of time policing other folk's bodies and attire, and for what?

I'd guess it stems from some feelings of insecurity.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#448

Post by igetspam »

dfxm12 wrote: post #447
WesternWind wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

generally we spend a lot of time policing other folk's bodies and attire, and for what? I'd guess it stems from some feelings of insecurity.

Speak to feminist scholars. It's far more entrenched than that. We have numerous systems deeply entrenched in our model for society that encourage this, specifically against women. We create incentives for insecurity and then prey on it. Keeping women under a microscope, consciously or not, maintains the status quo in business, government, public spaces, etc and as you follow the path back, it almost always has roots I'm religious fundamentalism.

So, yes, insecurity but primarily insecurity about losing power and control, by men. That's why we focus so much on what "she" wears but nobody gives two shits if I show up to work in flipflops, board shorts and a tank top. Why would they? I'm a dude.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#449

Post by kragen »

EveYoung wrote: post #446
kragen wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think we all do but we should recognise it as an issue and come up with strategies and processes to ensure objectivity and reduce discrimination. I was once told in an interview for a statistician role that the questions were designed for male candidates and I shouldn't worry if I struggle with them. And this was a big FTSE 100 company.

Fuck. Some days you just lose faith in humanity.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#450

Post by pygy_ »

sorenjan wrote: post #437
pygy_ wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the whole thread, plenty of her videos are partially demonetized for having her own body (sexily, yet decently clad) the n the frame.

Yes, like I mentioned she has pushed the limits before and Youtube is well aware of her. Not saying I agree with it, but having individual videos demonetized isn't the same as having the whole channel demonetized. Here's a video of a Youtube video getting demonetized automatically after 0 views [0], probably because of previous videos on the channel. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJd7gRAVFbo

No one pretends her channel is demonetized.

Her videos are, routinely, though, hence the generalized title which is appropriate.

Post reply on HN