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

161–170 of 579 posts

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#161

Post by stale2002 »

SexyCyborg wrote: post #88
stale2002 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, thats fine if she wants to do that type of content (if you don't like the words "sexual content" then make up a new word, because that's not the point). But sometimes advertisers do not want to advertise on that type of content, and since it is their money, thats alright. Like sure, go ahead. Make that type of content. But don't be surprised when advertisers don't want to buy ads on it.

>Ok, thats fine if she wants to do sexual content. You are sexually attracted to dressmakers dummies made out of 4mm cardboard?

You'll have to ask the advertisers what they think on that.

Call it whatever you want, or use whatever euphemism. But at the end of the day, whatever word you use, the advertisers likely don't want to be associated with it.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#162

Post by batekush »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #121
laumars wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically the same county that doesn’t see an issue with guns and graphic violence. I’ll never understand how a nipple is more offensive than shooting someone.

Female breasts were, are, and will be secondary sexual characteristics. With whatever implication. Male and female bodies will never be the same, and they shouldn't be. That should have zero implications on equality though. It means that it is trickier to achieve

And so are hairy arms on men.

Do you have a point?

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#163

Post by circlefavshape »

chrischen wrote: post #117
oceanghost wrote: post #5

Sigh... while talented, she is constantly pushing the boundaries of taste and the YouTube TOS to gain subscribers. She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation. Yes the algorithm is capricious, yes its arbitrary, and yes YouTube is evil. But she's clearly making a bust of herself naked. I'm sure if I put my balls on YouTube they'd be more than dem…

Youtube has a checkbox for not for kids and she points out that she checks this for all her videos.

That youtube checkbox is to highlight content specifically made for children, not content unsuitable for children

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#165

Post by stale2002 »

chme wrote: post #122
SexyCyborg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ok, thats fine if she wants to do sexual content. You are sexually attracted to dressmakers dummies made out of 4mm cardboard?

A lot of people think that looking at flickering colorful lights on a planar surface can be sexually arousing. There are so many fetishes... ;) However I do think that western culture is a bit on the prude side and has a strange double standard regarding nude or partially nude bodies depending on gender or its features. Sexualizing one type, while normalizing another.

The point here, is what the advertisers want to spend their money on.

Use whatever euphemism or descriptive word you want. The point here, is that advertisers do not want to be associated with whatever it is you want you call it.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#166

Post by delecti »

4gotunameagain wrote: post #141
meheleventyone wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think nude statues are tasteless wait until you learn about fine art!

Quoted post unavailable.

> I don't think it is controversial to state that it could be perceived as tasteless

"Controversial" is doing a lot of work here. Much of what is considered acceptable is only in retrospect. Much fine art was considered "controversial" in its tim.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#167

Post by 3np »

Freak_NL wrote: post #127
robinduckett wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mainland Chinese citizen Which is a hugely touchy subject around here on its own, for some reason

From what I understand it is as often a problem with translation as it a clear political standpoint. What makes the phrase 'mainland China' problematic in English, is that it can mean a number of things. Someone from China using it may do so because: * They were taught to do so and simply understand it to mean 'someone from the People's Republic of China'. No political subtext intended. * They use it to mean that the…

> From what I understand it is as often a problem with translation as it a clear political standpoint.

In principle, yes, and I do think this is an underappreciated issue which, if understood better, could have avoided several needless heated arguments in general.

However... Where does your understanding come from? It runs contrary to my experience from living in the region.

IME, "Mainland China" is one of the least loaded and ambiguous terms, and tend to refer to "the literal mainland of the PRC" (that is, sans Macau and Hong Kong, and definitely Taiwan).

> When you say "I am from mainland China", there is a good chance that you do see Taiwan as a 'rogue province' and may support its 'inevitable' reunification by any means, including force. That latter sense is the one that is highly political and irks many people.

While technically, yes, but it could equally (and probably more often in practice?) be used by people who recognize the independence of Taiwan and do not want to force a "reunification".

"China" (and even more so "Chinese") is more open for being problematic as it can imply the citizens, ethnicity, cultural heritage, the CCP, the PRC nation-state as such, etc... Being more specific removes room for misinterpretation, willful or not.

This is my perspective from living in the region for a couple of years. Though I wouldn't say I've knowingly interacted with more than a small handful of "pro-unifiers".

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#168

Post by jcelerier »

gorgoiler wrote: post #149
chrischen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube has a checkbox for not for kids and she points out that she checks this for all her videos.

Thank you for this comment — this is such an important part of the story. The only reason I could think of for the demonetisation was because family brands didn’t want to be alongside this content. What kind of family advertiser opts to display their content on “not for kids” videos? Unless — forgive some hyperbole — Oreos want in on the Megan Thee Stallion hype with amongst 9 year olds.

As far as I know YouTube has video "for kids", meaning video especially and solely made for kids, kids shows, etc. The "not for kids" is literally everything else. There's no real "family friendly" category, all the "not for kids" videos are still supposed to not be NSFW.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#169

Post by colechristensen »

oceanghost wrote: post #5

Sigh... while talented, she is constantly pushing the boundaries of taste and the YouTube TOS to gain subscribers. She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation. Yes the algorithm is capricious, yes its arbitrary, and yes YouTube is evil. But she's clearly making a bust of herself naked. I'm sure if I put my balls on YouTube they'd be more than dem…

But who cares?

We don’t have puritans or religious nutjobs doing it any more… now it’s Google, Facebook, and Amazon.

A naked woman is only as big is a deal as you make her, just label content accurately and as long as nobody is getting hurt, let it be.

Re: Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube

#170

Post by iammjm »

It's funny how all this talk about democracy and freedom goes to shit as soon as some redneck's dink tingles and he and his buddies start mailing Alphabet about a girl's cleavage... ah the mythical land of the free.
Post reply on HN