Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube • Hacker News Board

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#471

Post by kstenerud » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 3:34 PM UTC

tsol wrote: post #466

kstenerud wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't mistake what I've said for whataboutism. The Muslim rules about women that the Taliban abide by are a lower level of civility. Full stop. We've had similar disconnects between civilisations on other topics such as slavery, brigandry, serfdom, duels, witch trials, honor killings, torture, debtors prison, capital punishment and such, which improved and in some cases even disappeared as various peoples atta…

>The Muslim rules about women that the Taliban abide by are a lower level of civility. Full stop. And exactly what rules are those? If you're gonna call people less civilized at least have the decency to be specific. Muslims make up 25% of the world population and many Muslim women find modesty to be an empowering personal choice. I know many myself. The idea that they're brainwashed or uncivilized just echoes of the…

Those are the rules that emerge as a byproduct of history as it marches onward. When it comes to human rights, one can note that what is considered acceptable behavior towards a human changes in one direction only.

We don't go back towards saying that slavery is acceptable.

We don't go back towards saying that racism is acceptable.

We don't go back towards saying that executions are acceptable.

And we're also not going back towards saying that women have less say than men, that women must defer to men, that women should have less opportunity than men, that women should lose autonomy over their bodies, that women who are "immodest" should be punished, etc.

These uncivilised things are slowly weeded out while we as societies learn better ways to counter the baser instincts of our reptilian brains and (hopefully) eventually treat each other with the respect and dignity that are now even codified into a declaration of human rights (very civilised!)

So yes, anything that goes counter to that is uncivilised. I don't care who you are; these principles apply. And if you happen to be slower on the uptake, you'll be pitied by those who get there earlier.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#472

Post by loup-vaillant » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 3:44 PM UTC

tsol wrote: post #468

loup-vaillant wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Seems like everyone is just guessing at this point. She's in this thread right now, why not ask her? Everyone is fighting over one another for women's rights while ignoring the actual woman

> She's in this thread right now, why not ask her?

Because this is Hacker News. We can't summon her with @SexyCyborg or /u/SexyCyborg like we can on Reddit. Heck, you won't even be notified of my reply, and will have to actively check out your threads.

I understand how this policy may reduce heated arguments, but it makes it harder to connect with people, and I've never managed to have an actual conversation spanning several days here.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#473

Post by zozbot234 » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 3:47 PM UTC

numpad0 wrote: post #470

tsol wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> The key here is advertisers don't want to be associated with that. Has this ever been substantiated or verified publicly? Which industry are those and why?

It's by far the most parsimonious explanation when anything halfway popular gets "demonetized". YT is a profit-seeking business, they're always going to work closely with advertisers. Content makers and users are secondary, almost nobody is paying for YouTube Red.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#474

Post by zozbot234 » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 3:50 PM UTC

igetspam wrote: post #448

dfxm12 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Feminist scholars do well at diagnosing the problem. but they're terrible when it comes to arguing for good solutions. They mostly talk about ideology, and let's not kid ourselves: ideology (divisive ideology, at that) is not going to improve women's self esteem or lower their insecurity.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#475

Post by igetspam » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 3:56 PM UTC

tsol wrote: post #464

igetspam wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why not ask then instead of paternalistically assuming you know why they think that way and how to fix them? If women feel a certain way it's still their right to. I disagree with this idea that if a woman agrees she's correct and if not she was just brainwashed by society. This feels like just another way for men to take away agency from women. I imagine they have a multitude of reasons they feel that way. Some may…

These aren't _my_ assumptions. There is a world of research on these topics. All people can and do have their own opinions but when we're talking about oppressed people (women are oppressed), we have to follow the path by asking "why?"

* Why do little girls suddenly start to ask if "boys are better" when they get to school?

* Why do we feel the need to tell people out opinions about how they look?

* Why is a tattoo of a butterfly on a wrist okay for a woman but not full sleeves? (Contrast that with men.)

* Why do we insist on loudly proclaiming our daughters are "not like other girls" or are "like a boy"? Is there something shameful about it?

We took away agency long ago and we've been dangling it in front of oppressed people for years, periodically letting take small bites. That's another form if how me keep a grip on things. We give people a taste, as long as they're willing to take the conditions that comes with it.

There's a thing called "choosey choice feminism" that is a hot button item. One side days "following the magazine standards is a choice and I'm free to make it because feminism" and the other side says "but why do the magazines exist and would you choose that if you weren't bombarded by it all day?" I think both sides are right but I also hear and see the problems. It's not about whether or not feelings or opinions are right though, it's about what you'd feel or think if you weren't subjected to it constantly. To ignore the external influences and dismiss patriarchy is to accept the status quo as a Good Thing and be okay with slut shaming and demonizing the very freedom of choice you're trying to defend.

I don't see how this works well for long (and it arguably hasn't) because of th cognitive dissonance required to accept all things to be true.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#476

Post by igetspam » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 4:00 PM UTC

naasking wrote: post #463

igetspam wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? If you want to be uncharitable, sure. Or maybe you could recognize the fact that human bonding is largely based on shared values, and if someone looks or acts radically different, then you see no common ground o…

So why do we loudly shame those that don't want to adhere? Who does it benefit? Does my heavily tattooed spouse need to know she's not your version of bangable? Does my bigger friend need to know that people don't find her size attractive, when she's happy about it?

If we're going to discuss being charitable, we should start by allowing people to be happy with themselves and not share our thoughts on what we don't like about them because that's the problem. That's at the root of this whole topic. We are incapable of allowing people to deviate without telling them how we feel about it.

Why? And why don't we do the same thing as to men? (There is no 100% rule. Some men are shamed and some people shame men. It's not at the same rate.)

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#477

Post by Anthony-G » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

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

I don’t know why Naomi’s comment is being downvoted. Another young (at that time) woman, Amanda Knox learned the hard way about being judged on the basis of her online account name: When the tabloid media learned that her Myspace nickname was “Foxy Knoxy”, they spun salacious stories, making her out to be some sort of “femme fatale” who would be capable of murdering her flat-mate, Meredith Kercher.

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

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#478

Post by smaryjerry » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 4:18 PM UTC

lelanthran wrote: post #233

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…

Yeah, sub out boobs with genitals in your argument, and replace men/man with women/woman and see if your argument is still sensible[1] when women complain that they have no wish to see male genitalia. You're complaining that men are the problem because women are the target, but I'm pretty certain a significant number of women also complain when a venue has unexpected partial female nudity. [1] Every culture draws the…

Imagine if men or women showed up to work completely naked. For one it might not be the most sanitary, but let’s assume we don’t leave any mess or smell from those lower regions. People would not care because it would become normal. As the previous poster identifies, different cultures have different levels of normal and it is a great comparison of face to boob. In my opinion the fact you hide something makes it more sexual, not less, because then it is no longer normal and it is now rare. From a economic perspective there is not scarcity causing its value to increase.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#479

Post by naasking » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 4:18 PM UTC

igetspam wrote: post #476

naasking wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? If you want to be uncharitable, sure. Or maybe you could recognize the fact that human bonding is largely based on shared values, and if someone looks or acts radically different, then you see no common ground o…

So why do we loudly shame those that don't want to adhere? Who does it benefit? Does my heavily tattooed spouse need to know she's not your version of bangable? Does my bigger friend need to know that people don't find her size attractive, when she's happy about it? If we're going to discuss being charitable, we should start by allowing people to be happy with themselves and not share our thoughts on what we don't li…

> So why do we loudly shame those that don't want to adhere? Who does it benefit?

It benefits them because they're expressing their values and preferences, which allows them to find others like them and build bonds over these shared values. A shitty way to do it maybe, but it always comes back to bonding.

Edit: although some people shame out of genuine concern that the shamed party will not themselves be able to find human bonds. This is a type of shaming you often see from parents.

> We are incapable of allowing people to deviate without telling them how we feel about it.

I'm not sure who "we" is. Society collectively is much more tolerant of deviations from normal dress, appearance and behaviour than they were even 10 years ago. Society takes time to adapt.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#480

Post by ajross » Thu, Jan 27, 2022, 4:24 PM UTC

bamboozled wrote: post #116

ajross wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Would it be hard for Google, for all their greatness, to have adds for...adults?

Advertising-funded adult sites are extremely common, though. If you have adult content and want a site to host your content and share ad revenue with you, you have lots (lots!) of choice. The problem is that there's a lot less money available to people funded by sex toy ads on PornHub or whereever than there is to people who sit behind Liberty Mutual ads on Youtube.

So SexyCyborg would, unsurprisingly, prefer to be on youtube. But she's also dancing on the edge of what people call "adult" (again, I'm presenting no personal opinion here: take it up with Liberty Mutual if you don't like the definition). So naturally she's going to have trouble with those boundaries. PornHub never would have kicked her off, but she doesn't want to be on PornHub.

It's all about money here, not freedom. That was my point.