Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#101

Post by supreme_sublime » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 9:29 PM UTC

mhudson125 wrote: post #79

supreme_sublime wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, YouTube doesn't make money. Secondly, there are two sides to this equation. The advertisers aren't paying for ads as charity to Google. They want the billions of views that YouTube gets every day. While I don't know the exact statistics, YouTube definitely seems to be growing in influence where people who are popular on the platform are legitimate celebrities. Advertisers would be foolish to not try to…

I'd love to see where you got the idea that YouTube doesn't make any money. As far as I know they don't break out YouTube revenue in any of their filings. In fact, in each of the filings for 2016 & 2017 the revenue they report is an amalgamation of products that consist of search, ads, commerce, maps, youtube, google cloud, android, chrome, and google play[1][2]. [1] => https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/20170331_alphabet_…

These are fairly old, but I've gathered they don't make a profit based on articles like the following.

http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-wojc...

https://outline.com/7PG22L

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#102

Post by supreme_sublime » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 9:32 PM UTC

VikingCoder wrote: post #77

supreme_sublime wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, YouTube doesn't make money. Secondly, there are two sides to this equation. The advertisers aren't paying for ads as charity to Google. They want the billions of views that YouTube gets every day. While I don't know the exact statistics, YouTube definitely seems to be growing in influence where people who are popular on the platform are legitimate celebrities. Advertisers would be foolish to not try to…

First of all, even if that's true, YouTube would leak money A LOT FASTER without advertisers. Okay, there was no second-of-all...

Yes, but even if big names like Verizon and Coke don't buy ads, it isn't like others won't buy ads. That ad space is still valuable, and most people realize that ads and the content they are in front of are separate.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#103

Post by dogma1138 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 9:35 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #40

dogma1138 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertisers will stick to the safest option to avoid controversy at all costs. And for the most part non family friendly advertising is already disallowed.

And for the most part non family friendly advertising is already disallowed. And now we're seeing an unintended consequence of that.

Of what not allowing pornhub to advertise on Youtube?

I get the free speech argument and I am 110% behind that argume at least when it comes to not banning people for saying whatever they want on what is indisputably by now a public platform.

However the monetization is another issue, if we side with free speech then the ads that run are the free speech of the advertisers they have the final say in where and how those ads run.

The problem is that for the most part there aren't that many advertiser anymore especially on the big platforms. The only times I ever get ads is when I use YouTube on my iPhone and i try to avoid using the app because of them (I didn't log into YT with my account just because I can't adblock the YT ads).

And what ads you get? the same 10-20 big brands all over, big soda, big car, big sports channel, big bank, big store chain that's it.

Regardless where you lean left or right large companies that run on essentially the most inoffensive vanilla consensus possible will rather avoid you and YT demonitizes plenty of far left (and simply weird) channels also.

But as some one who is pro-free speech as it gets as in I stoutly believe that there should be no legal limitation on speech at all including what people call "hate speech" (there will be hate regardless and no laws will ever save us from that) I can't find a single argument that to limit agency of YouTube and advertisers in any way that would improve the freedom of speech rather than diminish it.

Now banning people because they like to shoot guns, pro trump, believe in aliens, anti-vaxxers, socialists, communists, maoists or w/e is something that I strongly believe that platforms like YouTube should not practice.

YouTube was essentially built by weird and disturbing crap that people uploaded over the years (heck for the longest time YouTube and at the time Stage6 if anyone remembers DIVX's competitor was essentially Netflix for the masses, and you can still find plenty of pirated content on YT today to watch) until it became the monster it is, after squashing all competition they simply can't just say sorry folks you have to play by our rules now despite the fact that we got where we are by essentially violating all of them.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#104

Post by mars4rp » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:07 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #74

make3 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the fact that she can get a gun from any other state makes it a question. gun control laws work when you can't just super easily go to another state to get a gun, the proof being in the much lower number if gun crimes in every other industrialized country where the gun laws are tight in the whole country. That's pretty much every single other industrialized country.

Interesting that those low-restriction states have such low violent crime. In fact, those US counties with zero murders (about half) have the most lax gun control laws. Were the premise of your comment true, those other states should be the ones with outlandish murder rates. We have guns, we don't abuse guns; what's up with the high-gun-control areas being so prone to such violence that when guns are available they'r…

If someone owns a gun in a lax gun control states, do they take it to work?

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#105

Post by sheepmullet » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:12 PM UTC

etjossem wrote: post #91

ctdonath wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just for entertainment, but a great many for legitimate self-defense. Why should those rationally feeling need to prepare protection be denied by laws which ultimately do not stop the unstable deliberately acting to harm?

I recommend looking at the data on this before leaping to the conclusion that guns are effective at protecting their owners from lethal injury. In a Philadelphia-based study, "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession" and that grew to 5.45 times more likely if the assault victim had a chance to resist. [1] Successful defensive gun use happens…

> Successful defensive gun use happens, but it's the exception to the rule

Reliable studies show defensive gun use in 100k-1 million incidents per year in the US.

https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shoo...

That's not "exception to the rule".

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#106

Post by bluetwo » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #81

bluetwo wrote: post #24

She cra-cra.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here.

Prima facie.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#107

Post by sheepmullet » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

etjossem wrote: post #78

wyoh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99.9% of people obtaining a weapon legally don't use it to commit atrocities, but for entertainment. Why should the majority suffer the consequences from the tiny minority of unstable individuals?

Because most forms of entertainment do not dramatically increase the likelihood of death by suicide, homicide, and accidents all at once. If you can name something else that does so, for both the participant and those around them, I can promise you it's well-regulated.

Alcohol.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#108

Post by ctdonath » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:34 PM UTC

mars4rp wrote: post #104

ctdonath wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that those low-restriction states have such low violent crime. In fact, those US counties with zero murders (about half) have the most lax gun control laws. Were the premise of your comment true, those other states should be the ones with outlandish murder rates. We have guns, we don't abuse guns; what's up with the high-gun-control areas being so prone to such violence that when guns are available they'r…

If someone owns a gun in a lax gun control states, do they take it to work?

Up to the employer, and whether they know about it ("concealed means concealed").

I've worked places where several employees (owners included) were known always armed. No big deal. Safety was assured precisely because they were.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#109

Post by ctdonath » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:41 PM UTC

etjossem wrote: post #91

ctdonath wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just for entertainment, but a great many for legitimate self-defense. Why should those rationally feeling need to prepare protection be denied by laws which ultimately do not stop the unstable deliberately acting to harm?

I recommend looking at the data on this before leaping to the conclusion that guns are effective at protecting their owners from lethal injury. In a Philadelphia-based study, "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession" and that grew to 5.45 times more likely if the assault victim had a chance to resist. [1] Successful defensive gun use happens…

I've reviewed many relevant stats. Even the CDC concluded guns save far more lives than they take.

Remember: "defensive use" includes simply raising doubt that an attacker will survive, deterring even the consideration of assault. Home invasions just don't happen in my area, because assailants are likely shot and their demise celebrated on the news (further deterrence).

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#110

Post by ctdonath » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:42 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #98

ctdonath wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just for entertainment, but a great many for legitimate self-defense. Why should those rationally feeling need to prepare protection be denied by laws which ultimately do not stop the unstable deliberately acting to harm?

Because guaranteed right to gun ownership enables the unstable to cause that harm in the first place. Gun owners and their families are so much more likely to be harmed by a gun they own than be protected by it that it’s apaling. How can you possibly justify promoting that, knowing the balance of risks you are advocating people expose themselves and their families to?

That claim is massively wrong.

See my above comment.