Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized' • Hacker News Board

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#411

Post by Turing_Machine » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #240

Asooka wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>YouTube, Facebook, etc. should be public spaces 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…

> Does the comment section on my personal blog have to be a public place?

If the comment section on your blog started to comprise 80-90% of all the comments on the Internet? Yeah, maybe it should,

There's so much distance between your hypothetical and what YouTube, Facebook, et al are doing that it's not even a "slippery slope" argument. Maybe a "slippery Marianas Trench" argument.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#412

Post by Turing_Machine » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 8:46 PM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #378

fzeroracer wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the most basic rights people have in America is the right to protest. You're attempting to rebrand protesting as mob censorship.

No. This is no protest. Protesting is great. Civil discourse is better. Using your twitter gang to side channel attack the people you hate because you can’t make your point in a direct way - is nothing but intimidation. You have no problem with this? Cool. Tell me how it’s “the American way” when it turns around on you. A proxy war between assholes and advertisers is good for no one.

> You have no problem with this? Cool. Tell me how it’s “the American way” when it turns around on you.

Indeed. Robespierre, Trotsky, Ernst Röhm, and many others could tell you how this winds up.

The fire-breathing revolutionary extremists are always taken by surprise when the new regime no longer requires their services.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#413

Post by eitland » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 9:00 PM UTC

analognoise wrote: post #232

rowyourboat wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't be serious. Youtube is not infrastructure; if you don't like their policies, use a different service. Start a competitor. You pay the server time.

> Youtube is not infrastructure;

At this point it should be to hard to argue that YouTube is infrastructure.

Same as railway tracks, same as water pipes.

You might lay your own but most societies have made rules to make sure we don't need that and can instead use the exiting tracks and pipes.

That might soon happen to YouTube and others if they aren't careful.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#414

Post by danso » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 9:21 PM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #408

danso wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead of making a “thought experiment”, why don’t you actually cite a case similar to what’s happening to Laura Ingraham? In the case of the NRA’s sponsors being boycotted, you must be fucking kidding or forgot what happened to Delta, or that the NRA is still doing fine. It seems you are just as low-information as the mobs you deride.

Wait... you’re saying this isn’t a problem because only one side is manipulating public outrage and not both sides? And that “bad tactics” are OK if they don’t deliver a killing blow? Dude, be honest. You are only OK with targeting advertisers because it lines up with your beliefs instead of allowing all speech and just making better arguments against those who you disagree. Oh, surely this could never turn around on…

No, I'm saying what the boycotts you cited weren't a problem. The NRA's right to free speech was not meaningfully harmed because it had many, many other members willing to stand up and continue paying dues (and ironically, it was Delta who was punished by legislators for backing out of its partnership with the NRA).

Laura Ingraham is being boycotted because she decided to tweet a childish insult against one of the Parkland shooting victims. You realize that dozens of prominent media personalities have pushed back against the Parkland survivors, right? Why haven't they been boycotted too if boycotting was as simple and easy as you suggest?

I'm arguing against your position because it seems to lack knowledge of how complicated real world discourse is. The First Amendment bars the government from banning speech; this gives citizens the responsibility to police themselves and corporations. But you're arguing for that to be taken away so that there is basically citizens have no legal recourse against speech they dislike? So how are any boycotts justifiable?

If you were more aware of how things actually worked, you would easily be able to cite boycotts that have gone against left-leaning people. I'll help you: Remember Kathy Griffin? [0]

[0] http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation...

Numerous left-leaning celebrities, as well as personalities on CNN, have ripped into Trump. If what you fear was actually the reality, you would have no problem citing successful boycotts against left-leaning celebrities.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#415

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

mitchdoogle wrote: post #210

Klathmon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely a "no-win" situation in my mind. Everyone is acting in their best interests, and in many cases are acting benevolently, but the outcome is still awful. Obviously YouTube is going to cave to advertiser pressure and start to restrict what videos can have ads, their whole existence depends on it, and if I worked at YouTube i'd see demonetizing some videos as a welcome alternative to closing the whole…

I don't understand why it's a problem at all. Can't YouTube enact settings for advertisers to choose which videos they want to advertise on. Some of the obvious things to filter could be video category, view count, number of likes/dislikes, comments. Instead of demonetizing channels, they could tag them controversial and allow advertisers to say they don't want to advertise on controversial channels. Seems a lot bett…

In many cases, the advertiser doesn't have direct control over their ad placement.

You're thinking the marketing manager at Coke clicking buttons in an admin panel on youtube.

The reality is 3 layers of management inside Coke, 2 external advertising agencies, a brand management company, ad aggregators and 3rd party ad exchanges and resellers, video networks, then youtube.

When the boss at coke sees an ad next to dubious content, it's much easier for them to say "don't advertise on youtube" than "switch this special setting on youtube to avoid controversial channels".

Youtube is taking the "safe" approach by not allowing such advertising at all.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#416

Post by londons_explore » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 9:38 PM UTC

nullifidian wrote: post #121

sqdbps wrote: post #2

The media’s part in this: For whatever reason they started scouring youtube for “controversial” videos checking if they had ads (no matter how little views they had) then they would contact the advertisers for comment. Advertisers would initiate damage control and pull their ads from youtube. Youtube would explain that the numbers and views in question are insignificant and that this type of complex system can never…

I'm not an American. The fact that a targeted online advertisement shown before the video is associated with the video and not with the platform, and requires damage control is perplexing and unexplainable to me... "There is no direct relationship between the video and the ad - It's matched by the machinery to the viewer, not to the video." should be the official answer and the end of the story. Is an ad exposure bef…

> Also I don't understand why Youtube went with advertisers' demands -- they have near-monopoly

When this happened, total ad spend on youtube dropped dramatically. It was a real emergency inside youtube. Had it continued for any long period of time, I would guess youtube would have been forced to close.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#417

Post by londons_explore » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

jmull wrote: post #390

nullifidian wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The advertisement pays for the video. Advertisers pay for ad exposures on this platfrom, not for the video. The fact that some money goes not only for infrastructure but also to the creators, should be considered just a side effect of the need to increase viewcounts, and as a result ad exposures. Any attempt to associate particuilar algorithmically matched ads to videos and vice versa should be considered as a power…

I get that you have a different viewpoint. I'm only explaining the viewpoint of others, not trying to argue to change yours. IMO, you're welcome to your viewpoint, if it doesn't involve harming others. Just understand that it isn't necessarily shared by the various actors in this situation and that if you understand their viewpoints you can better understand what's going on here.

We could take your viewpoint further and start complaining about the ad that shows after a video, and before the next video.

That would be even wider scope for stirring up controversy.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#418

Post by bilbo0s » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:03 PM UTC

banned1 wrote: post #381

bilbo0s wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment does illustrate my point. YOU value the free speech of whoever is speaking, but not that of the counter protesters. Who themselves value THEIR free speech, but not that of whoever is speaking. It's an intractable problem really.

But the counter protesters are free to organize their own speaker engagement. They ARE allowed to speak about their position. My point was that there is lack of civility in discourse. What's the point of interrupting another speaker? Let every speaker speak their mind, in an orderly manner, without interruption. The problem is that some groups have defined "intolerance of intolerance" to be somewhat good, so then dis…

Freedom of Speech, does not imply ORDERLY speech.

If a bunch of Americans want to yell at each other, they're free to do so. That's what the First Amendment is all about. And that's what I think you guys all don't understand. The government doesn't have to give you pristine conditions under which you can speak, they just have to let you speak.

Unfortunately... they have to let everyone else speak too.

At the same time if those people choose.

That's what freedom is all about. That's why America is great.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#419

Post by mschuster91 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:30 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #326

mschuster91 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the right to sue for redress of grievances is covered in the first amendment, for goodness sake. She didn't exercise it. Good luck trying to sue one of the most powerful companies in history. I wouldn't dream of this.

What are you talking about? If it's less than the local statutory limit (quick google tells me $7500 in California, likely around what this woman thinks she was owed) then you don't even need a lawyer. File a small claims suit, show up at court, and make your case before the judge. Now, she probably wouldn't win, because there's no contract here and Google has no affirmative duty to host anyone's video in particular…

> But you can absolutely do it.

You can do it, but who has the resources (especially the motivation and willpower) to drag such a case through the various appeal instances, with the issue that if you do lose, you have to pay the opposite party's lawyer bills? No way in hell I'd risk loading up THAT debt risk.

Re: Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized'

#420

Post by mschuster91 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 10:39 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #379

mschuster91 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Youtube and its employees are the victim here. No. The employees are the victim. Youtube? Not at all, save for a day of missed work. Them cutting off a person off their income without any way of appeal caused the whole chain of events in the first place.

Jess christ, I can't believe people here argue that with the straight face. Do you treat other mass shooters and terrorists the same? He shot the school therefore school caused it by not giving him everything he wanted? Seriously. By this logic, if employer in right to work state fires someone and that someone shoots the workplace, employer caused the shooting.

> Do you treat other mass shooters and terrorists the same?

Of course not. But there is, more often than not, a common background between all these cases. Recognize and fix the system and prevent more suffering. Shootings are the ultimate outlet, so if you fix the system you automatically prevent loads of more suffering.

> By this logic, if employer in right to work state fires someone and that someone shoots the workplace, employer caused the shooting.

Yes (except for the rare case where an immediate firing is warranted, such as stealing from the employer, sexual harrassment or similar).

There is no obligation to exercise the "fired on the spot". You can as a boss always behave like a decent human being and show your employees at least a fucking basic level of respect. Or you can decide "uh we dont need XYZ any more, even if he's still productive, has worked years of overtime, shown dedication and has to support a family but if I fire him I can make 10k personal bonus that year"... but then I would not be surprised if you'd end up at the wrong end of a baseball bat or worse.

By the way I would advise you to read up on how most of the workers' rights we know today in civilized areas of the planet (right to unionize, strike, illegality of "at will employment", social security systems) have been achieved: through shitloads of blood. If your state still has legal "at will employment", the state is responsible for any avoidable suffering caused by this.