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

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

#481

Post by themacguffinman » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 8:55 AM UTC

boomlinde wrote: post #212

themacguffinman wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morally correct?

"Morally correct" as in according to one's moral principles? Is that, in its turn, something that we all agree on and share? Terrorists definitely hold moral principles that are different from mine. To a terrorist, blowing people up to bring attention to their point may be the morally correct thing to do. Hence we have terrifying people like Kaczynski with extremely strong moral convictions that deviate far from what…

Sure, terrorists disagree, but you're avoiding the fact that most people here - on this site, in this industry, in this country - agree that blowing people up for attention is morally incorrect.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing. That it's possible for someone to believe terrorism is good? I suspect most people already know that, but thankfully most of us disagree.

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

#482

Post by boomlinde » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 12:52 PM UTC

themacguffinman wrote: post #481

boomlinde wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Morally correct" as in according to one's moral principles? Is that, in its turn, something that we all agree on and share? Terrorists definitely hold moral principles that are different from mine. To a terrorist, blowing people up to bring attention to their point may be the morally correct thing to do. Hence we have terrifying people like Kaczynski with extremely strong moral convictions that deviate far from what…

Sure, terrorists disagree, but you're avoiding the fact that most people here - on this site, in this industry, in this country - agree that blowing people up for attention is morally incorrect. I'm not really sure what you're arguing. That it's possible for someone to believe terrorism is good? I suspect most people already know that, but thankfully most of us disagree.

It's mostly a semantic argument. I'm arguing against using "correct" in a context where correctness evidently depends on morality, which is individual enough that this kind of person exists and thrives. That nullifies the whole basis of the argument that "There are correct ways to start a discourse around censorship." I'm not sure that it was meant as an argument. Maybe it's just a cheap way to score points among "most people here", because it's rather pointless as an argument regardless of its validity.

Also, I assume that by this country you mean the U.S., where killing people at least partly to draw attention (for the purpose of general deterrence) is practiced by the justice system. I bet you'll find a lot more people in this crowd that agree with this on the basis of their morals. I know people who believe one thing but will at least briefly change their mind learning of some particularly heinous crime or some particularly tragic wrongful conviction. Correct/incorrect isn't really a scale, so which would pick for something a little more polarized like this?

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

#483

Post by Karunamon » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 1:00 PM UTC

portofcall wrote: post #478

Karunamon wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only moves the definition down one level. If clinical significance ( in general , not just in psychology) isn't based on deviation from a norm, what is it based on?

The degree to which something interferes in someone’s life, their ability to function, etc. If you’re suicidally depressed, or psychotic, it’s a clear distinction for obvious reasons. It’s not about comparing to some standard, you can believe strange things, be unhappy, and so on, but if it starts to make you unable to live your life, it might be a problem.

There's an argument to be made that engaging in murder-suicide is of absolute interference to one's life and ability to function.

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

#484

Post by pmarreck » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 2:39 PM UTC

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #475

pmarreck wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

The rules of the algo which flag, hide, and demonetize videos are hidden.

Would it be valuable if these rules were open-source?

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

#485

Post by subpixel » Thu, Apr 05, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #369

subpixel wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> from her videos doesn't appear to be mentally crazy I strongly disagree.

It’s almost as if mental illness is a complex medical diagnosis that few HN commenters are qualified to make...

We're obviously thinking about this in light of the fact that she just went on an attempted killing spree. I can see how that might prejudice our thinking.

But I personally have had quite a bit of experience interacting with mentally-ill individuals both as a volunteer and through visiting family members who are in institutional care.

I am in no position to diagnose anyone, but I'd be very surprised if it does not come out that this woman had long-standing mental issues for which she refused any intervention or treatment.

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

#486

Post by CydeWeys » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 3:43 AM UTC

xster wrote: post #458

CydeWeys wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? There are certain coveted demographics that advertisers are willing to pay a lot more money for than others. I don't think it's true that all views are counted the same for monetization purposes. And then there's views that are desired so little (e.g. those on whacko conspiracy theorist channels) that advertisers aren't willing to pay to put ads on them at all, and you end up with "demonetization".

By that same logic, aren't paranoid audiences ready to throw their money at post-nuclear-war supply kits and male vitality pills gold patches for advertisers?

They aren't, though. Ads on mainstream popular stuff sells for much more than conspiracy theory stuff.

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

#487

Post by classicsnoot » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:36 AM UTC

lolc wrote: post #391

classicsnoot wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this may seem like a silly response, but i mean it in all earnestness: Democracy may not be a basically "good thing." I know this flies in the face of a ton of social programming, but at some point we have to take the evidence as it comes to us, and if it is consistently pointing to something we did not expect or like, we can only re-jigger the pretext so many times before we have to confront the fact that may…

Given how widely the definitions for "Democracy" diverge, it must be taken as given that some of those definitions will not be "good" for some people. As a frequent point of contention: Is vote-by-majority democratic?

I would argue Yes. It is definitely one type of democracy.

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

#488

Post by classicsnoot » Fri, Apr 06, 2018, 4:37 AM UTC

ssaew333 wrote: post #392

classicsnoot wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this may seem like a silly response, but i mean it in all earnestness: Democracy may not be a basically "good thing." I know this flies in the face of a ton of social programming, but at some point we have to take the evidence as it comes to us, and if it is consistently pointing to something we did not expect or like, we can only re-jigger the pretext so many times before we have to confront the fact that may…

Or, democracy and mob rule are not the same thing. And the internet (in it's current form) is better at promoting mob rule.

That is an interesting delineation. Disregarding Platonic definition, how would you argue they are different, or at least distinguished from each other?

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

#489

Post by subcosmos » Sat, Apr 07, 2018, 3:09 PM UTC

womperGompers wrote: post #399

subcosmos wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But some people do fear for their life, because this kind of shit has happened to them before.

And, so, you're proposing a civilized society where such a thing should be accounted for, and every specific, nuanced experience should be catered to, no matter how personal?

I'm proposing a civilized society whereby people cease invalidating others feelings and prior experiences.

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

#490

Post by CydeWeys » Sun, Apr 08, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #445

CydeWeys wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? There are certain coveted demographics that advertisers are willing to pay a lot more money for than others. I don't think it's true that all views are counted the same for monetization purposes. And then there's views that are desired so little (e.g. those on whacko conspiracy theorist channels) that advertisers aren't willing to pay to put ads on them at all, and you end up with "demonetization".

> Are you sure? There are certain coveted demographics that advertisers are willing to pay a lot more money for than others. I don't think it's true that all views are counted the same for monetization purposes. I'm not saying any kind of 350,000 views will pay the same -- but unless there's something off (e.g. monetization off, copyright infringement, etc) 350,000 views pay substantially more than $0.1 whether the d…

There's plenty of content that advertisers are not willing to spend any amount of money to be associated with. To use a trivial example, imagine if the KKK had a YouTube channel. And as a more nuanced example, this woman's channel. There is some minimum cost per view, and if the ads aren't even worth that much then there won't be any revenue, rather than a small amount.

There's been a rash of negative blowback over the past couple years for being associated with certain types of content, to the point where being monetizable at all is increasingly not the default state. Advertisers would rather not risk it.