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'

#61

Post by criley2 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 1:53 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #48

criley2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, your comment appears to be in defense of free speech, but is actually attacking free speech in a quite fascistic manner by labeling an actual expression of true American liberty as "horrible mob censorship". First off: In America, 1A free speech means the government cannot oppress you, NOT that private citizens cannot disagree with you and make their displeasure with your speech known. Second off: Voting…

> ...your comment appears to be in defense of free speech, but is actually attacking free speech... Let's back up. Opposition to free speech looks like using power to shut up ideas. Free speech, in contrast, prefers that ideas are best addressed with better ideas. So GP criticizing tweets is fine. And I think it's a fair thought to consider whether these boycotts are just a combination of free expression and free ass…

>Let's back up. Opposition to free speech looks like using power to shut up ideas. Free speech, in contrast, prefers that ideas are best addressed with better ideas.

No, that's absolutely false. Opposition to free speech looks like using the government to censor people. FULL STOP. Shaming people who say bad things isn't opposition to free speech, it is itself free speech to respond to their free speech. You insistence that we should "be silent" in the face of those who say bad things is an assault on free speech IMO, and your "bullying" line is again an attack on free speech. "Don't respond to my speech, bully! You attack my rights when you use yours!"

Please read the American constitution. In America, Free Speech is a special concept and you have ignored that.

>So GP criticizing tweets is fine. And I think it's a fair thought to consider whether these boycotts are just a combination of free expression and free association or whether they are more like expressions of social power and therefore bullying.

Protip: Bullying bad actors is free speech, too. I have no problem with identifying anti-social speech and using social force to reprimand and demand conformity.

This is how you deal with racism and other anti-social behaviors. Shaming. Or if you prefer, bullying.

But you won't catch us with the Paradox of Tolerance. Intolerance of intolerance is vital the health of tolerance.

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

#62

Post by thomasfortes » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 1:54 PM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #16

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…

> For whatever reason Anyone that’s been paying attention knows the reason. If you can’t attack free speech, make that speech too expensive. All of the recent controversial issues have one side scrambling to publicly list advertisers - see the March Against Guns tweets about who has deals with NRA or advertises on Fox News. It’s a horrible tactic that’s very much mob censorship.

Should people be forced to provide for a platform that they find hateful and offensive?

You can make a point about government not being allowed to deny groups the freedom of speech, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with private people voting with their wallets to show where they stand in relation to speech that they feel that is threatening to them.

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

#63

Post by colechristensen » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 1:54 PM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #16

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…

> For whatever reason Anyone that’s been paying attention knows the reason. If you can’t attack free speech, make that speech too expensive. All of the recent controversial issues have one side scrambling to publicly list advertisers - see the March Against Guns tweets about who has deals with NRA or advertises on Fox News. It’s a horrible tactic that’s very much mob censorship.

The Internet was supposed to be about the free exchange of information.

People treat Facebook, Google, etc. etc. etc. as if they themselves are "The Internet" when they are publishers. "You" are not publishing content on YouTube, YouTube is publishing your content. Just because they do almost nothing to curate what they publish, doesn't mean the little they do is some civil rights violation. We're learning with the Russia+Facebook thing that there is a fundamental problem with third party corporations publishing and promoting anybody's content automatically.

Nobody claims the New York Times violates free speech when they won't put some radical wonk's opinion on the front page.

If you want to publish your content with your own hardware on the Internet, you can. The tools aren't very good to do it, but you can. When the problem becomes network providers censoring your views, then come back to me.

When your definition of "censorship" becomes advertisers refusing to pay you for your whacky extremist views, your view of freedom has become distorted from the liberty to expression to the freedom from criticism.

YouTube, Facebook, etc. do not owe you publication rights. They are not public spaces.

The threat to freedom isn't non-public spaces exercising their rights, it's the nearly complete lack of actual public space online for anyone that isn't wealthy or a hacker.

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

#64

Post by criley2 » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 1:54 PM UTC

bottled_poe wrote: post #57

criley2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, your comment appears to be in defense of free speech, but is actually attacking free speech in a quite fascistic manner by labeling an actual expression of true American liberty as "horrible mob censorship". First off: In America, 1A free speech means the government cannot oppress you, NOT that private citizens cannot disagree with you and make their displeasure with your speech known. Second off: Voting…

I down voted because your argument assumes the market is not monopolised. I think you could have made a valid case but you don’t seem to acknowledge the complete economic situation in this case.

Are you seriously, in the age of the Internet, the age of self-publication, the age of the most blogs, vlogs, podcasts, shows of any era in history... that there exists a monopoly on speech platforms?

That's the most utterly ridiculous thing I've heard today.

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

#65

Post by sqdbps » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 1:55 PM UTC

AlexC04 wrote: post #32

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…

> Be sure to remind youtube of their power and responsibility after tragedy strikes. To be clear - they aren't actually responsible for an active shooter showing up on campus. It sounds like you're saying they could have some responsibility in someone coming to their office with a gun.

Of course not. I'm referring to hints of victim blaming in the media: https://www.recode.net/2018/4/4/17196704/youtube-susan-wojci...

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

#66

Post by bilbo0s » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 1:55 PM UTC

rhcom2 wrote: post #22

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For whatever reason Anyone that’s been paying attention knows the reason. If you can’t attack free speech, make that speech too expensive. All of the recent controversial issues have one side scrambling to publicly list advertisers - see the March Against Guns tweets about who has deals with NRA or advertises on Fox News. It’s a horrible tactic that’s very much mob censorship.

They don't have the right to talk about who is supporting groups they disagree with?

It's a little humorous, as it really does indicate that the people who are complaining that their free speech is being attacked, are themselves, attacking free speech.

I'm not sure any of the people arguing points and counterpoints in our society's current free speech debate really value free speech?

I think it'd be a bit more accurate to say that these people value THEIR speech and freedom, not really the speech and freedom of others.

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

#67

Post by patcheudor » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 1:56 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #46

bertil wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get how that gets some channel into trouble: politics, guns. Than channel was apparently a Iranian-American vegan animal rights activist. I’m not a vegan, but I don’t see the point in opposing them. Other than the banter about how in-your-face they can be, do people violently oppose vegans, or animal rights activists? She was upset over a workout video being age-gated: who would oppose that video?

There is something very ironic about a person that is supposedly so careful about animal rights that they will change their diet to relieve the pressure who at the same time has no problems in bringing a gun into the offices of a free service and shooting random strangers.

Not really. It's common to support animal rights while despising humans. This is especially true amongst those who subscribe to the more fringe animal activism groups that as an example free animals used for medical or cosmetic testing from their 'evil human captors'.

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

#68

Post by humanrebar » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 1:56 PM UTC

Klathmon wrote: post #15

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…

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…

> This is absolutely a "no-win" situation in my mind.

We'll, people can just understand the algorithms are flawed and not blame the advertisers for having an ad for toilet paper next to an video of someone TPing a house.

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

#69

Post by amelius » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 1:56 PM UTC

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…

The words "demonetize" and "demonize" look remarkably similar.

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

#70

Post by deftnerd » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 1:56 PM UTC

AlexC04 wrote: post #32

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…

> Be sure to remind youtube of their power and responsibility after tragedy strikes. To be clear - they aren't actually responsible for an active shooter showing up on campus. It sounds like you're saying they could have some responsibility in someone coming to their office with a gun.

While they're not directly responsible, the problem was entirely of their making. They created a whole new profession (even my 8-year-old son wants to grow up to be a "professional youtubber") and then arbitrarily destroy careers.

The created an environment where people could work hard to create their own destiny while giving themselves the ability to destroy those destinies without cause or recourse.

It was only a matter of time until one of those furious victims took up a gun to get revenge.