Suspect in YouTube Shooting Posted Rants About the Company Online

Post by Karunamon » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 9:08 PM UTC

maldusiecle wrote: post #449

Karunamon wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mental illness is described in terms of deviance from "normal" behavior and conformance to generally accepted morals. I think this is trivially proven from a lay read of the DSM. A shooting spree in reaction to an website's policy change is both immoral and irrational. No conceivable context would make that chain of actions acceptable. How could one look at this action and assume mental illness does not exist? It's n…

>Mental illness is described in terms of deviance from "normal" behavior and conformance to generally accepted morals. I think this is trivially proven from a lay read of the DSM. Deviation from normal behavior and generally accepted morals is absolutely not a definition of mental illness. A bank robber isn't mentally ill by virtue of robbing a bank. I don't believe you've ever read the DSM in any of its editions. >N…

Post by petercooper » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 9:15 PM UTC

ghostbrainalpha wrote: post #379

petercooper wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This literally never happens, and you are completely wrong. I would explain how totally wrong your are more... but I don't have enough time in my day to make the full commitment this comment should require. I would have more time in my day if I was better organized, or kept my tasks in a program like Asana. But alas, I haven't even signed up for the free trial, because i have so little time. If I actually had Asana ,…

Post by wu-ikkyu » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 9:23 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #456

sigotirandolas wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If she were to be working for an employer in an EU country, it would be illegal to just fire him person from a job without compensation. The situation is different (AFAIK she lives in the US which has far fewer job protection policies, and earning a living through YouTube doesn’t count as an employer-employee relation), but there are analogies. Few countries and jobs have so little job security as being a YouTuber.

> Few countries and jobs have so little job security as being a YouTuber. And unless this information is somehow hidden from anyone who consensually enters into a relationship with YouTube, this is not really a good point

Post by bilbo0s » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 11:09 PM UTC

bitL wrote: post #314

bilbo0s wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass shooting? "...a valid feedback..." ?

If you look at the whole as a non-personal system, then yes. When you e.g. see your city has suddenly more murders than before, you probably take it as a valid feedback and try to do something about underlying causes.

Post by written » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 11:25 PM UTC

pmarreck wrote: post #455

written wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech companies realize they owe a lot to their users. They owe them their entire existence, I'd say. It's quite obvious from their behavior and the fact they try to attract and hoard user attention. Users are valuable in general. It's not like it's one way transfer of value from companies to users. So why your rhetorical question?

Because if YouTube decided to hoard all ad revenue as of tomorrow (putting aside for a minute how bad of a long-term business decision that would be), that would still not be a valid reason to shoot up the HQ.