321–330 of 491 posts
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably because you dont know what she put up there, and you dont want to give an attempted murderer a giant platform, as a win.
I do know what she put there, though, since on the internet is is fairly trivial to see what was on a publicly available and commonly crawled website before it was removed. And there was nothing that related to the killing, and nothing even tangentially related to the ban message. No 'final manifesto' or anything like that. If you are curious, here is a mirror of her videos: http://www.dailymotion.com/yesilnasim/vide…
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…
As far as I know, her videos were demonetized, not rejected. There's a huge difference between being silenced and being refused ad placement on your videos. Getting paid to express your opinion is not a human right.
If there's a huge difference between the impact that being silenced has on someone compared to having their primary source of income abruptly taken away, I would expect the latter to be worse for most people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
300k or even a million viewers a month that no one wants to pay to reach should still be worth $0. Assuming that just collecting eyeballs gives you some expectation of an income is erroneous.
Actually just collecting eyeballs, if the channel is in the ad program and monetize, should give you a few 10s or 100s of dollars. That's how it works in YT IIRC -- it's not like a specific advertiser has to sponsor/approve your channel before.
How does the discrimination and filtering on youtube justify the murder? I just don't get it.
Firstly, my sympathies with the people at Youtube HQ. I have many, many friends in the bay area and so this kind of thing hits close to home. Secondly, I struggle when thinking about if we should give airtime to a shooter's grievances, or reasons. Or even mention who they are. I tend to be on the side of: don't give them any air time. And certainly, don't acquiesce to this type of behavior because it is almost by def…
> if we should give airtime to a shooter's grievances, or reasons I think in this case she represents a significant number of YouTubers, and is like an extreme version of discontent that is happening. Imagine a hive of bees growing until they start getting annoying and one of them stings you; by removing one you don't solve anything, you need to do something with the whole hive. So you can remove any traces of her fr…
I like your post, you're looking for the bigger picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that this happens seems even worse than PayPal freezing the accounts of random users.
Those two events have nothing to do with each other. In Paypal people send each other money, and the man in the middle is blocking it. In YouTube, Google decides whether or not to put ads on your video and give you part of the money. You aren't entitled to that cash just because you uploaded a video and people saw it. It's still terrible and irresponsible for YouTube to be arbitrary about it and have no clearly defin…
Slightly off topic but PayPal doesn't just block it, it seizes the funds entirely for a long period of time. In any case, you're right, YouTube not advertising on videos is not at all like PayPal stealing payments.
Firstly, my sympathies with the people at Youtube HQ. I have many, many friends in the bay area and so this kind of thing hits close to home. Secondly, I struggle when thinking about if we should give airtime to a shooter's grievances, or reasons. Or even mention who they are. I tend to be on the side of: don't give them any air time. And certainly, don't acquiesce to this type of behavior because it is almost by def…
>On the other hand, I have been hearing a lot about YouTube demonitization, censorship, etc. Should this shooting be a part of the discussion about censorship? Should YouTube and the tech community let it affect the discourse around censorship? I think the answer to this is clearly no. I feel like people here feel very strongly about censorship, so maybe they'll disagree. But I think we need to get a bit of perspecti…