61–70 of 491 posts
She's a disgruntled Youtuber. This is her website: http://nasimabc.com/ From her page showing a screenshot of her Youtube ad revenue dashboard: > Analytics Last 28 days > Views 366,591 > Revenue $0.10 Highlighted in Red: Revenue $0.10? There's also another bit where she shows her historical vs. current traffic and makes a reasonable case that she's getting down ranked. Interesting times.
Looks like this is the culprit's website http://www.nasimesabz.com/index.html There are links to her (4?) youtube accounts, which have all been terminated. There's a link to her instagram, which has also been terminated, however there is a cached-copy here http://www.pictame.com/tag/yesilnasim
I'm sure this submission will get flagged off the front page too because "Iranian woman bears arms against YouTube for censorship" doesn't really fit the narrative around here, but here's her page before it's wiped out too. Her YT and Insta have already been nuked. http://www.nasimesabz.com/
I must admit my first thought on hearing there was an attack on YouTube was that their recent monetisation changes have put a lot of people out of work, and some of those people must be feeling pretty desperate.
For every person that youtube or whatever other ranking site give them lots of viewers, there are millions of people posting stuff that hardly anyone ever sees. It's not a conspiracy that no one really watches my son's youtube game discussion site. There are thousands of videos every day created with similar content.
So all these people mad that they don't have lots of viewers, a bunch of that can be explained because there are lots of people doing the same thing.
Now for the people who used to get lots of views and then things drop off after a google ranking change, sure, the change must have had some impact. So your site with videos in say Farsi about how to exercise with a particular style of workouts, probably there are 100 other people doing videos for working out in Farsi or whatever. There's basically no way google or anyone else can balance it out. They make changes that they think will serve their users. Google works for a lot of people because it's a good clearing house. But it's good for people cause they can find things they want. Google cannot show all the thousands of videos every day on say fortnight. But my son's video game discussion site hardly gets any views. but thats because he's not famous and he's not doing anything that other people are.
I also think people try to make their site go higher by paying for links to their site. In a previous job, (I heard) they paid someone who was a wikipedia editor to create entries for their company and the founder, of course this is a known problem.
I think I'm sounding like a google or big company apologist. I have seen a similar issue in phone apps. My friend had a bunch of android and ios programs for tracking various things that he sold for a dollar, and the ideas got copied by people doing similar things multiple times and now he's just one person is a sea of solutions. He used to get a few $100 a month from people buying his $1 software, now he gets $5. It's not a conspiracy.
Google and YouTube content policy is geared to make them money, not be “free” or “equal”
Please consider not giving this person the online attention she sought as a result of her actions, and join me in flagging stories that dwell on her motives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Views 366,591 > Revenue $0.10 So basically all of her videos were demonetized?
Looks like it. Considering that she would have needed to increase her views by 3 orders of magnitude to scratch out $100/month from them. She should have did affiliate marketing & patreon.
And, like, ... not shot people.
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…
A mentally unwell person is likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc Interesting that we’re going for “mentally unwell” rather than “gun owner” this time.
1 http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-peta-protests-milit...
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…
As far as the attention question, I'm in the same boat. The more I've read about school shooters and the like the more apparent it is how much of an inspiration their predecessors (starting with Harris and Klebold) are. There is this obsession with "Why'd they do it" which leads to a level of attention that appears to be desirable.
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?
I'm really not a fan of the policy, and it would be a real shame if it wasn't changed. But it would also be a shame if it was changed because of a shooting. It shouldn't have come to this in the first place.