Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#91

Post by etjossem »

ctdonath wrote: post #64
wyoh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99.9% of people obtaining a weapon legally don't use it to commit atrocities, but for entertainment. Why should the majority suffer the consequences from the tiny minority of unstable individuals?

Not just for entertainment, but a great many for legitimate self-defense. Why should those rationally feeling need to prepare protection be denied by laws which ultimately do not stop the unstable deliberately acting to harm?

I recommend looking at the data on this before leaping to the conclusion that guns are effective at protecting their owners from lethal injury.

In a Philadelphia-based study, "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession" and that grew to 5.45 times more likely if the assault victim had a chance to resist. [1]

Successful defensive gun use happens, but it's the exception to the rule: guns escalate conflict, especially when both parties have them.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#92

Post by ricochet310 »

mieseratte wrote: post #7
pnutjam wrote: post #2

Yet another licensed and legal weapon.

Yet another mentally ill individual who did not get the treatment they so clearly needed.

Mental Illness and Social Media do not seem to mix well.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#93

Post by aje403 »

dang wrote: post #68
aje403 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go find the nearest street corner to preach off of and bump the last guy off

Would you please stop posting uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to HN? It looks like you've been doing it quite a bit, and it breaks the site rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html .

Could I get a ban? It's turning into reddit and reading it is becoming a habit

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#94

Post by Slansitartop »

matt-attack wrote: post #42
Slansitartop wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Beyond the censorship issues & lawsuits, Google regularly gets a pass when their crummy policies negatively impact people. While it is horrible that some were hurt in the process, I wonder if this will make Google start approaching their huge amounts of power with some civility. Probably not. Whenever there's a shooting, there seems to be a strong pressure to disregard the idea of addressing the shooter's motives.…

Why then is there such an obsession with determining the motive. Or classifying the act as terrorism or something else. Honestly I can’t figure out why anyone even cares what the motive was. Doesn’t undo the harm done. The attempt to “understand” is too close to “excusing”. Which then further motivates others to use the same methods.

Isn't it obvious? To understand causes is to have a better change to predict and prevent these events, at both the individual level and that of sociological forces.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#95

Post by DanBC »

ctdonath wrote: post #66
s73v3r_ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every shooter is mentally ill. In fact, most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than the perpetrators. Most shooters are just shitheads, not mentally ill, and to constantly conflate the two is to add additional stigma to mental illness. In addition, if this truly was a mental health problem, Congress could increase funding for mental health treatment by the end of the week, Trump could…

A very common factor in such mass murders is the use of antidepressants. Having seen up close what happens when someone on such medication misses a few doses (extreme & systematic rage), I'm stunned that there has not been intense investigation into the correlation.

People always mention mental illness, but other things are more common: being male; having a conviction for domestic assault; having a drug or alcohol addiction; having a TBI.

Other countries prescribe anti-depressant medication in similar quantities to the US, and those countries don't have the same problems of violence that the US does.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#96

Post by [deleted] »

ctdonath wrote: post #64
wyoh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99.9% of people obtaining a weapon legally don't use it to commit atrocities, but for entertainment. Why should the majority suffer the consequences from the tiny minority of unstable individuals?

Not just for entertainment, but a great many for legitimate self-defense. Why should those rationally feeling need to prepare protection be denied by laws which ultimately do not stop the unstable deliberately acting to harm?

[deleted]

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#97

Post by mozumder »

zaidf wrote: post #60
mozumder wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What YouTube needs are editors. Editors get to tell people that their content is garbage or great. The problem with social media is that they don't have people telling the public that their ideas are crap, so everyone thinks they're important.

Sounds like what fb was doing in determining what news stories to feature. We saw how that turned out (they ended up largely abandoning the editorial team.)

They honestly didn't have to abandon that. They should have told the complainers to just suck it up, and this is how editing works.

Editing means people are going to be unhappy. You are taking a certain viewpoint, and are literally filtering out incompatible expressions. The people that get edited out, they'll get mad, but they'll have to deal with it, like the millions of other people that get edited out by various editors around the world and deal with it appropriately.

Facebook tried to have it all, but advertisers only want something specific.

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#98

Post by simonh »

ctdonath wrote: post #64
wyoh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99.9% of people obtaining a weapon legally don't use it to commit atrocities, but for entertainment. Why should the majority suffer the consequences from the tiny minority of unstable individuals?

Not just for entertainment, but a great many for legitimate self-defense. Why should those rationally feeling need to prepare protection be denied by laws which ultimately do not stop the unstable deliberately acting to harm?

Because guaranteed right to gun ownership enables the unstable to cause that harm in the first place.

Gun owners and their families are so much more likely to be harmed by a gun they own than be protected by it that it’s apaling. How can you possibly justify promoting that, knowing the balance of risks you are advocating people expose themselves and their families to?

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#99

Post by nopriorarrests »

As someone who follows digital advertising industry, I want to add some context to this discussion.

People tend to view youtube "de-monetization" act as something out of the blue. Story goes as "evil youtube cornered the market of online videos and now acting like a spoiled child, f--king with people who were making some small buck from their videos".

This is not the case. In fact, for last 2 years large advertisers were getting more and more unhappy and angry about digital advertising, citing the lack of transparency, fraud and lack of brand safety as their main concerns. It was brewing for a long time now.

P&G, the largest advertiser in the world, and trend-setter in general advertising, cut hundreds of millions from their digital budgets in 2017. [0]

Youtube, unlike google search engine, depends on large brands doing "brand advertising", as opposed to "performance advertising". You can't force 10000's of small businesses advertise on youtube, ROI is just not here. It's P&G, Ford, Unilever and others giants who keep the lights on in youtube offices, and giants were clearly revolting. And when they cut spend, they cut it not from youtube only, but from all digital, meaning that google mothership also hurt from their move.

So, youtube tried to save the situation, clumsily. Ads are now appearing in much smaller subset of videos, which are vettoed, and youtube jacked up the prices [1] of such inventory, to make up the lost revenue from long tail of videos.

Take into account the fact that youtube is rumored to be unprofitable or making very modest profit (due to enormous technical costs they have) and you see it more like move out of desperation than anything else.

[0] http://www.adweek.com/digital/procter-gamble-cut-140-million...

[1] https://marketingland.com/report-youtube-set-raise-ad-prices...

Re: Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’

#100

Post by JoeAltmaier »

dragonwriter wrote: post #89
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about drivers? Pilots? Boaters? Drinkers? We all do something dangerous and fairly antisocial. But only one of those things tends to be demonized.

> We all do something dangerous and fairly antisocial. But only one of those things tends to be demonized. Smoking? Skateboarding outside of private or dedicated places? Heck, even drinkers, from your list, are often demonized. So, no, your “only one” is not accurate.

Not sure it's the same thing as the ranting, foaming condemnation that I see even here on HN for shooting sports.
Post reply on HN