Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online • Hacker News Board

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#231

Post by majani » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:37 AM UTC

aaaaaaaaaaa12 wrote: post #59

One of her complaints was that YouTube age-restricted her yoga videos (which were modest by Western standard, she was just wearing shorts, a shirt and no socks), while not age-restricting much more explicit Nicki Minaj and Miley Cyrus videos. Is there any explanation to why YouTube does this?

The big boys like VEVO get on YouTube's "Preferred Partner" program where the policies are way less strict. Last year Pewdiepie got kicked off the Preferred Partner program and makes jokes at the beginning of his videos about how he's constantly getting demonetized nowadays. Watch the first 1:20 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJcC6ZqVPY

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#232

Post by krapp » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:37 AM UTC

apexalpha wrote: post #228

Gigablah wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This passes for discourse on HN nowadays? Maybe it’s time to ditch this place as well.

No one should or does approve this kind of violence. Or any violence really. But it does show the impact that YouTubes rules can have on someone's livelihood. For us such a change in the algorithm is something we read about and forget. For someone else they might lose their income. For this one person resorting to violence, there are probably thousands that were financially destroyed by Youtubes rigorous change in al…

>For this one person resorting to violence, there are probably thousands that were financially destroyed by Youtubes rigorous change in algorithm and demonetization.

Yes, this isn't even the first time changes to Youtube's algorithm or policies have affected the livelihoods of people on the site, or destroyed the viability of entire genres of content (see rubberross' video on animation for instance[0].) But Youtube is in business for Google, as are the users, whether they're aware of it or not. They exist to generate content that drives ad revenue for Google, and they're not owed a livelihood in exchange for that.

And the answer is to either change the content you provide to whatever the algorithm sorts for, which many have, or else find another job.

[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi6FcI2wFrw

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#233

Post by apexalpha » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:39 AM UTC

Gigablah wrote: post #229

apexalpha wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one should or does approve this kind of violence. Or any violence really. But it does show the impact that YouTubes rules can have on someone's livelihood. For us such a change in the algorithm is something we read about and forget. For someone else they might lose their income. For this one person resorting to violence, there are probably thousands that were financially destroyed by Youtubes rigorous change in al…

I wonder what prompted these changes in the first place.

A few months or a year ago Youtube was accused of 'sponsoring' alt-right vloggers who played a role in domestic US politics. These people uploaded videos to Youtube and got paid based on the views. Just like everyone really. But mainstream media kept blaming Youtube for enabling these videos. Even though they practically enable everyone as a neutral platform.

So advertisers started to pull out of Youtube in general over this and Youtube went all out and reformed the entire global website to a 'better safe than sorry' policy. Removing anything even resembling 'undesirable content'.

This caused a lot of what Americans would call 'collateral damage'.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#234

Post by silveroriole » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:42 AM UTC

prawn wrote: post #203

silveroriole wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of this is obvious: youtube restriction policies are largely based on what is advertiser-friendly, and popular music videos are advertiser-friendly by definition. I don’t know what caused her videos to be demonetised, but she’s not wrong - it does seem pretty much arbitrary with no proper channel for disputing it.

Is it possible that the decision to demonetise or age-restrict was algorithmic, then she was too small-fry to get any interest/reconsideration from support? We've heard loads of stories of people getting AdSense accounts shut unfairly and without recourse, for example. If that was your entire income, you already felt hard done by, and were so inclined, I could see how you might go off the rails.

For sure. Its like if your boss used an algorithm to decide your pay, and he wouldn’t disclose this algorithm to you. Some months “the algorithm” declares all your work bad and the boss pays you nothing. Meanwhile, you can see other employees’ much worse work getting paid regularly, essentially because they’re more popular and the boss likes them more. Anyone would feel unfairly treated under those circumstances, and would harbour a great deal of resentment.

Most people would leave such a “job” or try to game the algorithm, but killing the boss does also look like an obvious (if wrong and probably unproductive) option!

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#235

Post by majani » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:45 AM UTC

grizzles wrote: post #23

She's a disgruntled Youtuber. This is her website: http://nasimabc.com/ From her page showing a screenshot of her Youtube ad revenue dashboard: > Analytics Last 28 days > Views 366,591 > Revenue $0.10 Highlighted in Red: Revenue $0.10? There's also another bit where she shows her historical vs. current traffic and makes a reasonable case that she's getting down ranked. Interesting times.

One of the reasonable conclusions to all this is that revenue sharing on user generated content is a live wire that platforms would rather not touch from now on, despite it being morally correct.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#236

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:51 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #169

adventured wrote: post #3

This looks like it's going to be an increasingly big problem for the platform giants, as it pertains to their increasingly aggressive speech restrictions. As they ramp those restrictions up, I'd expect the need for security to increase accordingly. A mentally unwell person is likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by being silenced. They'll feel isolated and it'll very likely feel like a persona…

> A mentally unwell person is likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by being silenced. A mentally unwell person is equally likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by a platform that harbors content which, in fact or merely their perception, endorses, advocates, or directly does any of targeting, oppressing, threatening, or harming them or any group they identify with. Heck,…

I'm struggling to understand the difference between a mentally unwell person and a mentally unwell corporation or government.

I don't think YouTube is mentally unwell, but there have certainly been examples in the past of corporations acting in ways that resulted in the deaths of individuals - either through negligence (justified economically) or through rare but not nonexistent direct corporate violence.

Contemporary examples of murderous governments are trivially easy to find.

Why do we consider murderous individuals mentally ill, but not murderous groups of individuals once they're beyond a certain level of political and/or economic influence?

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#237

Post by petercooper » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:53 AM UTC

mayniac wrote: post #219

flukus wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She should have did affiliate marketing This is the modern version of "as seen on TV" ads, I've started unsubscribing to anyone that does it regularly. Advertising intermixed with content is the worst form of advertising.

Some channels do it acceptably. CGP Grey comes to mind, usually an ad for a service at the end of the video the advertiser has effectively funded. It's far worse when people do it without saying, ie product placement. Can't think of any good examples since people usually get away with it, although the obvious blatant example would be any of the Jenner's on Instagram which got into issues for not reporting paid endors…

Can't think of any good examples since people usually get away with it,

Well, that's the thing. I can think of a good few respected tech sites that run "sponsored" articles that are disclosed in the smallest text possible and basically look like normal content. Not that I'm going to start industry beef by pointing them out :-D

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#238

Post by macspoofing » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:56 AM UTC

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #151

flukus wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She should have did affiliate marketing This is the modern version of "as seen on TV" ads, I've started unsubscribing to anyone that does it regularly. Advertising intermixed with content is the worst form of advertising.

The only channel I follow that does it regularly is Spectre Sound Studios, and I accept it because the services Glenn pimps are actually really damn good. And he makes it very clear that it's a paid interlude, not part of the actual content.

>And he makes it very clear that it's a paid interlude, not part of the actual content.

I have to say that with the content creators I follow, that is the norm rather than the exception. There is always a clear delineation between advertisement and the content, even if the advertisement is embedded in the content (i.e native advertising).

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#239

Post by m_fayer » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:56 AM UTC

grizzles wrote: post #23

She's a disgruntled Youtuber. This is her website: http://nasimabc.com/ From her page showing a screenshot of her Youtube ad revenue dashboard: > Analytics Last 28 days > Views 366,591 > Revenue $0.10 Highlighted in Red: Revenue $0.10? There's also another bit where she shows her historical vs. current traffic and makes a reasonable case that she's getting down ranked. Interesting times.

Usually personal sites and social media accounts for such people are quickly taken offline, so reliably that I've wondered how it is that there's always someone with the authority and access around to quickly pull the plug. Not in this case, so strange to see this site still online and open to all.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

#240

Post by SCHiM » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:58 AM UTC

themacguffinman wrote: post #198

boomlinde wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the definition of "correct" in this context that we can all agree to?

Morally correct?

Big companies are morality load balancers. Technically a CEO is morally responsible for what their company does, but this does not truly feel right either. The example scenario goes like this:

The shareholders decide that more money must be made The CEO decides that more money will be made by obtaining more wood. The hows and whys are kept vague at this stage. Nothing concrete will be put on paper. Upper management decides that resource acquisition will be guided by a study on the various pros and cons of chopping what wood where. The study confirms that we the best place to get wood is the amazon rain forest. Middle management receives the plans and guidelines from on high. Slowly the moral responsibility is distributed through the ranks. Until, years later, when some pollution case comes to light the question is asked: who to blame? The workers? The results of an objective study? The incentives set by shareholders and a cutthroat market for wood?

Very convenient.