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

541–550 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#541

Post by xboxnolifes »

post_from_work wrote: post #524
xboxnolifes wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having the opportunity to get implant surgery and deciding to pursue it is still playing your hand. The same way that being born into a scenario having access to computers and deciding to use them is. Or using makeup. Or being born with a healthy enough body to work out for muscle. Etc, etc, etc.

If that argument (that leveraging any available artificial enhancement is ok) held any conceptual weight, we would embrace PEDs in athletics. We don't. Ask yourself why?

I'm confused what your argument is here. How does "playing the hand you were dealt" relate to "embracing PEDs in athletics"?

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#542

Post by Messier43 »

seoulmetro wrote: post #540
kragen wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, I think the reason the inconsistency is obvious to me is that I understand nudity and context depressingly well. The relevant context difference is that Naomi is a woman.

No, you definitely do not understand nudity or the context. That is not the context. One, you think nudity is in bodybuilding. It's not. Two, you think the context of whatever Naomi is doing requires her to hang her nude bits out. It doesn't, that's her choice. It's also people's choice to not like it. It has absolutely nothing to do with being sexy. I don't see Naomi as sexy at all as a heterosexual male. She just s…

She's better cover of her bits and pieces than any bodybuilder ever. This is very hypocritical

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#543

Post by SexyCyborg »

seoulmetro wrote: post #540
kragen wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, I think the reason the inconsistency is obvious to me is that I understand nudity and context depressingly well. The relevant context difference is that Naomi is a woman.

No, you definitely do not understand nudity or the context. That is not the context. One, you think nudity is in bodybuilding. It's not. Two, you think the context of whatever Naomi is doing requires her to hang her nude bits out. It doesn't, that's her choice. It's also people's choice to not like it. It has absolutely nothing to do with being sexy. I don't see Naomi as sexy at all as a heterosexual male. She just s…

>hang her nude bits out.

Well no, nothing of the kind was occurring in the demonetized videos referenced in my post. I did not have more skin on display than any typical YouTuber might under the circumstances. It was a tank top and a halter top summer dress on a hot summer day in a tropical city. The issue was my shape inside those clothes- not the clothes themselves. That's what was interesting, YouTube's response to demonetizing the cardboard dress form made it clear my physical shape was the problem- not the degree of coverage or activity.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#544

Post by coldtea »

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…

>The problem (at least to me) is not that Naomi is wearing skimpy clothes. The problem is her channel has nothing to do with fashion (or women empowerment etc).

So? Why should people be compartmentalized, and not be allowed to feel and look sexy whne doing tech stuff?

That's the puritan dichotomy, where the body/sexual is bad, and should be kept inside marriage and procreation, or -as adjusted in more permitting puritans- to specially allocated sexy-time.

And, that said, the premise that her channel has nothing to do this is wrong.

Her intention is not to show how some technical stuff. It also isn't to show that women in general can too do some technical stuff.

It's to show how a sexy, sensual woman, a category often dismissed as bimbos, can also do technical stuff. And that technical stuff can be part of a fun and sexy thing, not just something that's relegated to bookish somber asexuality.

I mean, it's even in the channel's name...

>All the while claiming she is not trying to be sexualized.

She's not "trying", that's who she is.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#545

Post by tsol »

themaninthedark wrote: post #488
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. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/social_issues-july-dec13... Advertising itself is that. Sex sells, or at least everyone believes sex sells.

That doesn't mean that advertisers aren't allowed to try to create a family friendly appearance? They're still a private entity they can do what they want even if it makes no sense to others

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#546

Post by jacknews »

meheleventyone wrote: post #500
jacknews wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People weren’t just upset at how she looks they outright questioned her technical merit because of how she looks. And yes women can have misogynistic views as well which are just as unacceptable.

I think they essentially questioned why is she 'famous'; is it because of outstanding technical ability, or because of the way she presents, and unwisely chose to try and disprove her technical ability.

The question still stands to some extent though I think. Using 'sex' to sell yourself is accepted in music, film, fashion and so on, but perhaps not in technical fields, and, actually, as I think about it more, I'm starting to agree a little bit.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#547

Post by torginus »

kragen wrote: post #521
torginus wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aside from the wankers, people don't watch her videos because she's a "successful business person", but because she's a maker or because she's demonstrating the capabilities of newly available machinery. The Make Magazine guy's erroneous accusation was that she wasn't really a maker, just a successful business person. He was wrong about that. That's the context in which it would be reasonable to read your comment as…

I have some general advice for you - please assume that people argue in good faith.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#548

Post by kragen »

torginus wrote: post #547
kragen wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the wankers, people don't watch her videos because she's a "successful business person", but because she's a maker or because she's demonstrating the capabilities of newly available machinery. The Make Magazine guy's erroneous accusation was that she wasn't really a maker, just a successful business person. He was wrong about that. That's the context in which it would be reasonable to read your comment as…

I have some general advice for you - please assume that people argue in good faith.

I didn't think you weren't arguing in good faith. I still don't think you weren't arguing in good faith. That's why I was explaining some important extra context to you that you seemed to be unaware of.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#549

Post by deltaonefour »

aaomidi wrote: post #513
deltaonefour wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>US doesn't really have a unified culture. I disagree. Yes it's multicultural; but there are unified attitudes and cultural behaviors that purvey the country. Foreigners who come from abroad to live here maintain their own cultural identity while adopting American culture. What do you mean by strong cultural weight? You mean like Japan or China?

Japan definitely has a strong cultural weight, but in animated content in English speaking countries. China has no cultural weight on English speaking countries.

Not in popular culture like television or media. Media seems like an important part of culture but it is by far one of the smallest aspects of culture. Product and business infrastructure of the entire world is tightly integrated with China and that is definitely culture.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#550

Post by no-s »

SexyCyborg wrote: post #264
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 the engineering feats alone will never be the focus as a consequence. There's a line between "never be the focus" and "we will erase you". This sort of thing is constant- but I'll give you a recent example- NPR recently ran this story: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1047691984/decades-after-poli... About an American lady who needed some parts for her iron lung and how no one would help her. Only the thing is, th…

> We're well beyond- "does my appearance detract from my work". Of course it does. We're at "does my appearance justify not just complete erasure of my work but constant attempts to deplatform and defund me" I don't think it does.

It’s not you, it’s not the advertisers, it’s them. It’s not fair play. The fair play aspect is particularly infuriating. So what if it’s their platform - just because they can set the standards as they please doesn’t make it right.

YouTube is a US corporation, and this action is un-American.

Post reply on HN