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

451–460 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#451

Post by raxxorrax »

SexyCyborg wrote: post #406
raxxorrax wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nec…

>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. Oh, not at all. It's a gender expression issue, some dysphoria problems, I will try to go into once I muster up the courage. I'm cis but have an...odd backstory. It's definitely counter productive to success in tech af…

> It's definitely counter productive to success in tech after a certain point.

I believe this too, although the currency on social media might be different. In a work environment many actually do it as a courtesy to people that do not sexualize themselves. There is an attention economy in the workplace too. Looks do give you a bonus in many cases until you leverage it. Then it is suddenly the worst sin. A bit hypocritical perhaps, but it might level the playing field a bit and it lets people keep focus.

There are probably few people that honestly condemn you if you forget your pants when coming into work, but it is still generally expected that you at least try to put them on. Not sure if there are any barriers yet to be broken down.

> A passable IG "thot" doing tech isn't necessarily the bad influence people think it is

I generally agree, although I would lie that I would not be disappointed if people rely on whatever "thots" do. Perhaps I am too conservative, but Instagram is a great argument for catholic girls boarding schools, even if everyone know they are the worst. I think there is a difference if you get recognition for your looks or for your skills and mixing can lead to trouble.

> aspire to the pant-suit

It changed a bit in recent years, but often it is pretty relaxed. I regard it as a boon that you often can immediately separate the engineer from the salesman. But the former has the choice at least.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#452

Post by loup-vaillant »

M4v3R wrote: post #311
dragonwriter wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If that's the case then I would love to know how reliable this method is, and whether she actually did this research before making the claim that other videos are not demonetized. If there really are not while hers is, then obviously YouTube has a problem.

Good luck writing a paper then squeezing it into a Twitter post.

She almost certainly did that kind of research. She's basically forced to at this point.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#453

Post by dncornholio »

spacechild1 wrote: post #431
dncornholio wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a place, there's a time. I won't go half naked to work. I do go half naked to the beach.

I was specifically referring to the following: > it's OK to be half naked in front of kids?" To me this reads like you are saying that being half naked in front of kids is somehow problematic per se and should be avoided. Maybe this was a misunderstanding. Either way, I don't really understand why you brought up the "kids" topic in the first place.

My understanding is that most of Youtube's visitors are very young

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#454

Post by jacknews »

meheleventyone wrote: post #362
caskstrength wrote: post #354

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. 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 f…

But Ronaldo became famous for his football, not his sexy body.

Everyone knows sex sells, but some people (not only men) get upset when they see people promoting themselves with their own sexuality, especially when it's in an unrelated field.

I think Naomi is great, but I can see why some people get upset by the way she presents. I wonder how less attractive maker women feel about her, for example?

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#455

Post by yanmaani »

fxtentacle wrote: post #223
SexyCyborg wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>She is a conundrum: is she titillating or expressing herself, or maximising her reach? Initially, before I was Outed I could not explain any of it. Which was...frustrating at the time to say the least. Now, as shitty as getting Outted was I can at least reference part of the explanation: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/139660466709473690... But as to the rest, I'm still on the fence. I'd like to explain, b…

I'm pretty sure that explaining things will not help here. I mean the demonetization and ToS stuff on YouTube isn't really about Google trying to enforce their morals onto the rest of the world, it's mostly about them making money. Even today, there's a surprisingly high number of very conservative people living in the US & EU. That's why abortions are illegal (or a gray area) and why questions like "Is it immoral fo…

> modern science suggests that god probably doesn't exist

Huh? From my understanding, "science" has had the same perspective on this since like forever: it's unfalsifiable either way, but both explanations are at least self-consistent. There's no smoking gun against either side, and so it all depends on your priors.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#456

Post by tsol »

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?

It shouldn't matter to whom? The key here is advertisers don't want to be associated with that. You cab very well respect and accept her, but if a private corporation funding or hosting her videos has an issue with it we can't force them on moral grounds. That's policing other folks as well

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#457

Post by spacechild1 »

dncornholio wrote: post #453
spacechild1 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was specifically referring to the following: > it's OK to be half naked in front of kids?" To me this reads like you are saying that being half naked in front of kids is somehow problematic per se and should be avoided. Maybe this was a misunderstanding. Either way, I don't really understand why you brought up the "kids" topic in the first place.

My understanding is that most of Youtube's visitors are very young

Yes, there are many young people on Youtube. But what is the problem here exactly?

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#458

Post by tsol »

meheleventyone wrote: post #283
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.

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 youtube regulating their own content? You're free to protest them but many many creators have had problems with them to no response. I find people in this thread are turning a YouTube issue into a social issue. However you feel about it, it's within the purview of advertisers to not fund content they dislike. Artists have been complaining about that for eternity

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#459

Post by JimDabell »

kragen wrote: post #442
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?

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.

Not to mention Sikhs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#460

Post by igetspam »

naasking wrote: post #383
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…

> It is not sexualized because it is just a body part. It takes a man to do the sexualization, so the sexualization isn't the boob, but a man's who is doing the sexualization. I agree with most of your comment, but I just want to point out that women are also harsh judges of other women who don't fit cultural norms in how they dress or behave. It's not just men sexualizing women and trying to cut them out if they don…

Ever stop to consider why? What compels people to shun those that don't look like them or adhere to their standards? Perhaps a tradition of oppression an subconscious jealousy about the display of freedom by doing something atypical?

Women can be misogynists too. We don't have a monopoly on that. We as a collective value conformity because it keeps people in line and doesn't threaten our existing architecture. Things that deviate from norms draw attention and inspire discussions like this. Too many people thinking about coloring outside the lines and then more will do it.

If we didn't indoctrinate our kids at the start, we'd have a higher chance for more uniform distribution of power. More people would be able to achieve success, which would raise the floor and make the ceiling not feel so high. Those on top would feel like they're losing because the gap would shrink and the perceived height from the top would be lower. Can't have that so we say things like "boys will boys" to dismiss shit behavior, glorify #boymom, defend our girls by saying they're "not like other girls" and sell little girls on shiny object and lacy dresses, even if they really just want to play with dinosaurs (because dinosaurs are cool and not only for boys).

Patriarchy, ftw! Red Pill, yay!

Post reply on HN