231–240 of 439 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mark Ames wrote a whole book (which I admit I didn't quite finish) with the thesis that you could tie the rise of workplace shootings to an increase in worker precarity.
Is Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion: From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine and Beyond the book you were thinking of? (Thanks for the recommendation in any case.) [0] https://www.amazon.com/Going-Postal-Rebellion-Workplaces-Col...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't tell if you're serious. One of those 'systems' is governmental corruption, the other is Youtube; the comparison makes absolutely no sense. Youtube is a private company, not a corrupt government. If you're living in the states and trying to "eek out a living" and Youtube steals your proverbial "apple cart", too bad, so sad, go get a different job - they don't exist as a platform to ensure people get paid, peop…
You could argue that since Youtube has created a public forum for others to work in, they should be held to different standards than a regular private company. I.e. Youtube should be regulated as infrastructure and thus can not longer unilaterally changes rules or make judgements based on those rules.
Youtube is not infrastructure; if you don't like their policies, use a different service. Start a competitor. You pay the server time.
'De-Monetized' suggests that someone who produces a video has an automatic right to income. That's bonkers, it's already quite a service that Youtube allows you to upload your videos to reach an audience that you'd be hard pressed to serve from your own server. They do this for free. In the previous iteration of such platforms all the ad income would go to the owner of the website, not to the rights owners of the vid…
Youtube set out to "own video", and they've been very successful at it. There are a few alleged alternatives out there like vimeo, but come on, how many smart TV's do you know that have a vimeo app pre-installed? Google favors youtube content over other video sites in its search results, and youtube is on-again-off-again zero rated with ISP's all around the globe. Youtube is dominant.
As a result, cutting someone off from youtube is actually a pretty big deal. It's a critical platform for all modern charities, and most modern companies. It's very hard for a marketing department to compete with other companies if they can't use youtube to distribute tutorials, promo content, key announcements and other errata. In most countries, youtube could swing an election by cutting off one party without warning mid-campaign.
And yeah, it's a platform for people to make independent income. Youtube channels are modern busking. I personally would consider income from youtube too tenuous to be willing to commit to a rent contract on the back of that income, but some people are more adventurous.
Youtube wanted a near-total monopoly on internet video, and now they have it. Good for them, but it's not consequence free in my opinion. If they could legitimately tell this person "go use one of our competitors, we don't care", then I'd consider them in the clear. But youtube has successfully suppressed any serious competition, and as a result I consider them to have the same responsibilities as a public utility. They're the USPS of video now. If they're going to have no competitors, they also shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily cut anyone off from their service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...your comment appears to be in defense of free speech, but is actually attacking free speech... Let's back up. Opposition to free speech looks like using power to shut up ideas. Free speech, in contrast, prefers that ideas are best addressed with better ideas. So GP criticizing tweets is fine. And I think it's a fair thought to consider whether these boycotts are just a combination of free expression and free ass…
>Let's back up. Opposition to free speech looks like using power to shut up ideas. Free speech, in contrast, prefers that ideas are best addressed with better ideas. No, that's absolutely false. Opposition to free speech looks like using the government to censor people. FULL STOP. Shaming people who say bad things isn't opposition to free speech, it is itself free speech to respond to their free speech. You insistenc…
> ...your "bullying" line is again an attack on free speech.
I think here you acknowledge that free speech is broader than just the first amendment. If it were only about that, I literally couldn't attack free speech by posting some text in a comment on the internet.
> Bullying bad actors is free speech, too.
So the question is "what speech isn't free?" I'd argue speech that moves beyond advocating a better idea. Examples include fraud and threats of violence. Applying social pressure to corporations that give NRA discounts is clearly neither of these. Arguably, a platform for speech (YouTube, HN) can and should use its freedom of association (removing content) to restrict freedom of speech (maybe to prevent doxxing).
> I have no problem with identifying anti-social speech and using social force to reprimand and demand conformity.
I can tell. There's an argument for that, but it's not free speech. You can argue that it's good nonetheless, I suppose.
[1] See the wiki article about "Freedom of Speech". It's certainly broader than just being about laws and regulations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
[2] https://www.quora.com/Does-freedom-of-speech-only-apply-to-U...
'De-Monetized' suggests that someone who produces a video has an automatic right to income. That's bonkers, it's already quite a service that Youtube allows you to upload your videos to reach an audience that you'd be hard pressed to serve from your own server. They do this for free. In the previous iteration of such platforms all the ad income would go to the owner of the website, not to the rights owners of the vid…
I don't think this kind of reaction is about philosophical "right" to an income from a particular company, more about sudden changes. It's similar to being fired: you previously got an income from this company, then they decided not to give you an income. Some people get angry at that, and sometimes feel desperate, worried about ending up homeless etc. depending on how much they relied on this income and what kinds o…
What point are you trying to make then? People get angry because they feel it's unfair, so...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A big problem with automatic demonetization is that what frequently happens is that (let's assume that you are a popular Youtuber): You spend a lot of time and money to make a video. You upload it to youtube. It trips some random check and is flagged and de-monetized, you appeal. People come and watch your video, with this type of content the vast majority of views is in the few first days since publishing. Your appe…
Business disputes are not normally resolved with weapons. If you treat your Youtube presence as a business you are doing it wrong to begin with, and your conflict resolution venue will be the courts, not shooting at random employees.
> "The night before Nasim Aghdam opened fire in a courtyard at YouTube's headquarters Tuesday afternoon, Mountain View police found the San Diego woman sleeping in her car. She had been reported missing by her family in Southern California, and her father Ismail Aghdam told police she might be going to YouTube because she 'hated' the company. Police called the family at 2 a.m. Tuesday to say she'd been found and that…
Lone wolf crazies are the hardest to protect against as an open society. Say she was arrested and her gun confiscated. Nothing actually happened, so she'd be out on the street two days later and could go and buy another gun for a retry.
Presumably having the first gun confiscated would prevent that in the background check.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Calling the critics of YouTube's whims 'apologists for the shooter' even in the context of this thread is a dirty rhetorical trick. Nobody is saying the shooter was justified.
Youtube doesn't have 'whims', it's a company. If you have beef with a company you either take it to court or you take your lumps. You do not go and shoot at the company employees who are just like you dependent on that company for their income, the difference is that they have an employment contract with certain rights and you chose to go for the fame and the glory. There are people here who write that "It was only a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Internet was supposed to be about the free exchange of information. People treat Facebook, Google, etc. etc. etc. as if they themselves are "The Internet" when they are publishers. "You" are not publishing content on YouTube, YouTube is publishing your content. Just because they do almost nothing to curate what they publish, doesn't mean the little they do is some civil rights violation. We're learning with the R…
YouTube, Facebook, etc. should be public spaces. The problem is they're right now one single public space and people can't disengage with speech they don't like, which is as much their right as I should have the right to publish it. You want centralised systems in order to reap benefits from economies of scale and so you can use the ad revenue from more acceptable publications to support publications on more controve…
Where does it stop? Does the comment section on my personal blog have to be a public place? If I start a newspaper or open a book store do I have to publish or sell whatever anybody wants me to?
If I start a grocery store can I choose what to sell do the local farmers all get the right to sell in my store regardless of my wishes?
Where does it stop exactly?
> no single person can bear the costs of publishing videos online
I could. I am.
I have a server running Plex in the closet. It "publishes" videos over the Internet. Right now there are only two people who have access to see what I publish.
If I wanted to publish videos myself and let the public consume them, I could. It would take slightly different software, but the server is in the closet already. There might be some issues if something I published got to the front page of HN. There isn't much risk of that.