YouTube Will Increase Security At All Offices Worldwide Following Shooting (theverge.com) 495
Following the shooting at YouTube's headquarters in San Bruno, California, yesterday, the company has announced plans to increase security at all of its offices worldwide. YouTube says this is intended to "make them more secure not only in the near term, but long-term." The Verge reports: The move reflects a growing concern in Silicon Valley that the effects of increasingly toxic and partisan online behavior may translate into violent offline actions. YouTube's statement was released through Google's Twitter account for communications; it's not clear whether Google itself will be implementing stronger security measures beyond YouTube. The shooter, 39-year-old Nasim Aghdam of San Diego, died yesterday of a self-inflicted gunshot wound after shooting and injuring three employees. From police reports, testimony from Aghdam's family members, and extensive traces of the woman's online behavior on YouTube and other platforms, we now know that Aghdam was disgruntled over the demonetizing of her videos and harm to her financial well-being.
Maybe just stop ripping off small content creators (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe just stop ripping off small content creators. It would probably work out cheaper than massively ramping up security.
Toxic people are damaging to the brand. (Score:2)
Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand. (Score:5, Informative)
Content creators don't have anything to do with damaging youtube's brand. Youtube has done that all on their own, not only that but then they decided to fold on a smear campaign. Right now the following things are deemed "toxic" gun rights, free speech, anti-free speech, anti-gun rights, masculinity, femininity, pro-trans, anti-trans, pro-illegal alien, anti-illegal alien, discussing current politics, discussing historical politics, news, and well pretty much everything except content directed at 8 and under.
Youtube doesn't have a clue what their business is, the CEO has no idea what youtube is as by seen with her videos. Youtube didn't listen to content creators when they warned about actual extremism(isis videos), or content that sexualized children/appeared to be grooming children. Then they launched a "youtube hero's" which has been just as partisan as twitters "safety and trust council" those individuals simply go out of their way to restrict/strike content that they view as offensive or going against the progressive narrative. When creators then said well, if you don't want advertisers we'll find our own and they freaked the fuck out again, and went out of their way to restrict that. Then youtube after not listening to content creators and users, freaks the fuck out again when the old guard media starts attacking them - for the same shit that people had been warning them about for nearly 2 years and then starts using a wrecking ball approach.
To be honest, I'm surprised that it took this long for someone to snap. People who were in the 250k-500k sub range with 30-40% engagement were making $500-2500/mo a few years ago, and now make under $10/mo.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why pornhub hasn't turned around and made their own yet. They not only have the capacity, but the knowledge to do so. But as it goes right now, it looks like bitchute is going to be the challenger at least in the short term.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...except content directed at 8 and under.
That's not actually for kids; the "Coloring Books for Millenials Channel" will be here any day now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Visible, yes... monetized, no.
Re: (Score:2)
All those things you say are toxic are visible on YouTube.
Except where they aren't right? Why not go look over the past year of people who've had their visibility revoked. Whether it's Chris Raygun, Pat Condell, MundaneMatt, Sargon of Akkad, Laci Green, Shoe0nhead, Undoomed, Top Hat's and Champagne, h3h3, Phil Defranco and on and on and on and on.
Re: (Score:2)
You offered things that you claimed were excised from YouTube.
Not what I said, you also apparently don't understand how "toxic" is defined these days.
When rebutted that they are visible on YouTube, you move the goalposts and rail about a few worthless individuals instead.
"move the goal posts" says the person who's reading comprehension is a bit on the low side. "Worthless" people with 250k-6m+ subs
This is why we know you are a fraud. You can't back your own claims. You can't even stick to them, but keep changing the terms.
Takes less then 40 seconds to find their own, or other videos on it, or via other social media platforms.
Why don't you just start being honest?
You could start by getting your GED first, then we can follow up. Or you could always not post anonymously since your last couple of sentences kinda give away who you actually are. There,
Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand. (Score:5, Interesting)
There are content creators whose existence is toxic and damaging to Youtube brand.
Is radical left ideology is part of that brand? If not, they should also demonetize toxic radical left content creators, and there are plenty of these. However, Youtube are not doing this. So it isn't about brand, but about ideology conformity.
Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand. (Score:5, Informative)
Lots of left leaning channels have been hit. Examples include:
Shaun
Kim Justice
Steve Shives
Kevin Logan
ContaPoints
Three Arrows
Brianna Wu
Claudia Brown
Kristi Winters
mtv braless
chescaleigh
anactualjoke
PBS Game/Show
H. Bomberguy
Most of them get hit on Twitter too.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys are both holding it wrong. (Score:2)
Remember when the worst thing about Youtube was just the rampant music piracy?
Re: (Score:2)
Nice attempt to shift the subject, but I'm sorry you're way out of order. The videos were demonetized for inciting violence. A personal response of real-world violence does not constitute proof that demonetizing them was wrong or unjust.
Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a very popular channel (Deermeatfordinner) that is run by a very nice family guy, talks about doing good, participates in charity events, fishes, hunts, and cooks.
Youtube has demonetized most of his hunting videos. They have even deleted some. Essentially, anything that shows how to clean and butcher an animal. But not fish. You can show all the fish guts want and Youtube doesn't care.
Youtube is apparently an uncoordinated collection of SJWs who pretty much hate anything and anyone who isn't like them responding to other SJWs flagging videos because they anything and anyone who isn't like them.
Anyone with a few million bucks to spare could probably steal their market away practically overnight I bet.
Vimeo needs to step up. There's market share up for grabs.
It is not about SJW but solely about advertising (Score:2)
Re:It is not about SJW but solely about advertisin (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand animals which people see as "cute" could damage the brand if seen associated. So no it isn't about SJW or whatever , it is most probably in this case solely about not putting advertiser in a bind.
Right, it is not like there would be say sporting goods suppliers as advertisers, or knife manufacturers, the NRA, Gun Sellers, sellers of meat processing items, etc, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The world needs 2 or 3 viable YouTube competitors, so when YouTube abuses their position, content creators have recourse.
Governments should find a way to offer Microsoft and Amazon incentives to expand Mixer and Twitch to become true YouTube competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite so. Note that there is absolutely nothing stopping YOU from doing a YouTube competitor. Come up with a business plan, buy (or rent) hardware, hire programmers, go to town....
Re: (Score:3)
Quite so. Note that there is absolutely nothing stopping YOU from doing a YouTube competitor. Come up with a business plan, buy (or rent) hardware, hire programmers, go to town....
Will you loan me $3 Billion to fund it until it is cash flow positive?
clickbait & fad content policies (Score:5, Insightful)
In my opinion, YouTube shoud do more to encourage production of meaningful conent.
Re: (Score:3)
>meaningful conent
I nominate myself to be in charge of defining what "meaningful content" is.
Re: (Score:2)
In my opinion, YouTube shoud do more to encourage production of meaningful conent.
Define meaningful. Clickbait wouldn't work if people didn't find it meaningful. Just because some people are fascinated watching others opening their mail doesn't mean we need the thought police to step in.
Re: (Score:2)
And on and on. Channels like Looper, WatchMojo etc. and perhaps a dozen other channels pumping this garbage out day in day out and being rewarded for it. Most of these clickbait videos have a high number of thumbs down which is a strong indicator that they're push
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube is showing you that content because that's the content you've been watching, viewing, and repeatedly looking at. That's how the entire algorithm works. You know what I see when I look at youtube? Let's plays, game reviews, canadian politics, disassembling shitty chinese electronics that will light your head on fire if you look at it sideways.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes you might be able to suppress it by viewing other videos but this is the default. This what the majority of visitors see when they click. This should tell you something.
Re: (Score:2)
"Improving" security is generally a very bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Meaningful? So operas then? Motivational videos to show your household servants?
Re: (Score:2)
It did. I mean, it took years before gun crime reached pre-ban levels again.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't bully innocent Muslims because of terrorism. Gun owners are just as innocent of murder as Muslims are innocent of terrorism. Why do you want to scapegoat and bully the innocent?
Re:Or take away her gun (Score:4, Insightful)
No because she could have just as easily have ran over people in the parking lot with her car. Gun control will not stop violent people from finding a way to act out. It's treating a symptom and not the cause.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So give in to a nut with a gun? Why not take away her her gun?
Did anyone even know she had a gun? Did she show criminal tendencies in the past? Or have a history of poor mental health? I'll admit to ignorance here but I saw nothing on how she got the gun. As far as I know nobody knows yet how she got the gun and therefore nobody can claim any kind of gun control would have been effective.
Gun control in Australia slashed gun crimes.
And banning bridges would prevent people from jumping from them. I see your argument but I think it's a very stupid one.
How about instead of focusing on guns and "gun crime" we l
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving. This, US citizens are fine with.
But needing to show that you know the laws pertaining to gun ownership, that you understand gun safety both in usage and in storage before being allowed to own a gun, that they balk at. It boggles the mind.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving
Yes because somehow car accidents can't be solved by more car accidents they same way gun violence can.
Re: Or take away her gun (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, I'll do it for you, then I'll respond to that as well; it'll save us both a post.
Yes because somehow car accidents can't be solved by more cars they same way gun violence can.
The problem isn't gun violence, it's violence and you don't solve it by taking away guns, because there are plenty of other ways to enact violence and the violent types will use them. Similarly, you don't solve humans being inattentive, or irresponsible, or simply being human and making mistakes, by taking away cars, because there are plenty of other ways in which humans are inattentive, irresponsible, or simply human and make mistakes.
I haven't heard a single person advocate for more guns, that's just a strawman your kind put up because you know nobody will defend it, because you're the one who said it in the first place. Go argue with yourself elsewhere, you're the reason we can't have reasonable gun laws in the first place and, as long as you keep at it, we'll never have gun laws that actually work.
Re: (Score:3)
You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving.
You need a license to operate a vehicle on public roadways. It's a small but significant difference.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need a license to publish a newsletter. Because one of the first 2 Amendments in the Bill of Rights protects the freedom of speech and of the press. The other one protects firearms possession.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving. This, US citizens are fine with.
I'm not fine with it, and I'm an American citizen.
Licenses to drive are, in my opinion, a waste of money. We have traffic cops to make sure people know how to drive, so I don't know how having a piece of paper in the driver's pocket is supposed to improve things. What if a person doesn't have a license? How would anyone even know unless they broke the law? I don't care if people have licenses, I care that they follow traffic laws.
I know people would ask, how we would know people know the traffic laws be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But needing to show that you know the laws pertaining to gun ownership, that you understand gun safety both in usage and in storage before being allowed to own a gun
One, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is a right, like voting is a right. Change "gun ownership" to "Voting" and "gun safety" to "Constitutional law" and you'll start to see where the problem is in your logic.
BTW, I consider VOTING to be far more dangerous than owning a fire arm. People voting to take away my liberty and property is a huge problem that most liberals have no problem with. The passions of the people stirred is why democracies are inherently dangerous to liberty, and why we need constraining do
Re: (Score:2)
When we're discussing responsibility, can we please not muddy the waters by making it about race, gender, or any other factor oth
Re:Nope (Score:4, Insightful)
There basically is no place in the world where is as easy to legally get a gun as in the US
Fixed that for you. Due to smuggling, it's basically equally easy to get a gun in illegally in any industrialized nation. If it weren't, we should expect there to be literally zero gun crime in countries where it is difficult or impossible to legally obtain a gun, but there is no place in the world with zero gun crime. Funny how that works out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or take away her gun (Score:4, Informative)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/01/south-london-stabbing-death-brings-capitals-tally-to-31-this-year
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/teenage-girls-killed-as-london-murder-rate-outstrips-new-york-for-first-time/news-story/e36a80d11985b3d72d0f9f00887f3c69
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5566689/London-murder-rate-overtakes-New-York-time-including-11-killings-just-16-days.html
All those and several more articles found on first page of search results. All these articles published in the last few days.
Re: (Score:3)
From one of your links (The Guardian):
A claim over the weekend that London’s murder rate in February and March exceeded New York’s has been dismissed by police chiefs because it was based on too short a period. New York had 292 murders in 2017 and has had 50 so far this year.
Irony (Score:4, Interesting)
So they're adding more guns for their defense while deplatforming gun videos and advocating that everyone else give up their guns?
Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
The loudest anti-gun people are always surrounded by people with guns (think Mike Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, etc.)
It's OK for them to have guns but not for you.
Re: (Score:2)
That would only be true if they took away your guns and then retained their own. Perhaps they would prefer not to have the armed security around the whole time, like high ranking public figure in other countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Screwing over loyal creators is worthy if a shooting.
I don't think I'd go quite that far, but I do find the timing of this to be delightfully ironic.
Finally, following one best practice. (Score:5, Insightful)
When a large corporation fires/lays off hundreds to thousands of employees, it's a best practice to have armed police on business campuses for a period of time (months to even years).
Giving severance pay is another best practice..
So is giving advance notice that the change is coming (actually that's a legal requirement too).
So is having a meeting and giving some kind of explanation which shows respect for the employees and a reason why the change needs to take place and isn't arbitrary.
When youtube demonetizes content without warning, what they are doing is akin to a layoff.
Youtube could have reduced the likelihood of a shooting if they had:
Given 30, 60, or even 90 days notice that demonetization was coming.
Given "severance" pay based on the content creators historical income.
* To high income earners because they've done a lot for youtube in the past and they are less likely to get angry if youtube shows respect by giving severance.
* To low income earners because *it's very cheap* and generates a lot of good will.
* Distributed a video or -better- had a live conference where they explained why demonetization was necessary (advertisers refusing to pay for content, legal exposure to risk, etc.)
* Let everyone know that there would be armed uniformed police on campus starting immediately and continuing for for an unspecified period of time.
Instead, Youtub did it in a really roughshod way, with little explanation, no to almost no advance warning, and then expected, in a country full of gun owners and regular mass shootings, that nothing bad would happen.
I've been seeing youtube content creators posting upset videos for a while now.
I don't blame Youtube for demonetizing content. I just think they ignored best practices because they didn't see it as a layoff/firing of thousands of employees. And that is part of the reason their employees were shot.
Re:Finally, following one best practice. (Score:4, Funny)
Dom Portwood: So um, Milton has been let go?
Bob Slydell: Well just a second there, professor. We uh, we fixed the *glitch*. So he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it will just work itself out naturally.
Bob Porter: We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem solved from your end.
...
Milton Waddams: I could set the building on fire...
Re:Finally, following one best practice. (Score:4, Insightful)
When youtube demonetizes content without warning, what they are doing is akin to a layoff.
You hit the nail on the head. People started treating YouTube like their job, and I think there is actually a good argument that they should get some employment rights and protections.
The gig economy was largely about screwing works out of job security and benefits, and it has taken the law time to catch up and give people like Uber drivers some of the rights they deserve as effective employees.
YouTube is big enough to handle this. Initially when you suggested notice periods for demonetization I thought that advertisers would never go for that, but actually it doesn't matter. YouTube can afford to keep paying the ad revenue without showing the ads for a few months, the same severance pay.
Of course if you do something really bad you might get fired with no severance, and video removals / channel bans are still going to happen. Again, long established employment law exists to deal with this.
Re:Finally, following one best practice. (Score:5, Insightful)
People started treating YouTube like their job,
This sounds like extreme stalking to me . . . where folks in disillusion convince themselves that they are the "true love" of some Hollywood celebrity.
The YouTube film producers are no different from other artists . . . you create a painting . . . hang it in a gallery . . . and then someone buys it . . . or they don't.
and I think there is actually a good argument that they should get some employment rights and protections.
Did YouTube ever insinuate that they would have a job for life with YouTube? No, they are just like any other contractors . . . you make big bucks when you are needed . . . but have no long term commitments.
The gig economy was largely about screwing works out of job security and benefits, and it has taken the law time to catch up and give people like Uber drivers some of the rights they deserve as effective employees.
A lot of folks like doing contract work . . . if you are young and single, and understand the risks and can financially plan for them . . . it can be a great deal.
If you are married, with two kids to feed and a house to finance . . . well, maybe a steady job is better for you.
But at any rate, contributors to YouTube who think that they have a lifetime employment commitment at YouTube are idiots.
Re:Finally, following one best practice. (Score:4)
you create a painting . . . hang it in a gallery . . . and then someone buys it . . . or they don't.
When you apply to the Youtube content creators, "then someone buys it" is building a following. When Youtube demonetizes it is equivalent of arts gallery forcing return and refund of all paintings sold through it, without refunding commissions.
Ideological commitment to freedom speech aside, you should care about Yutube demonetizing because it chills all similar speech. This will result in more shallow and pointless content and less critical commentary. This will make Youtube less valuable as a source of knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Employment rights won't get Nazi videos re-monetized though. Nothing will do that, and that's fine because the messages are still there, YouTube just isn't paying anyone to make them.
What employment rights would help with are people like this woman who have multiple channels to separate out different types of content, and who wouldn't get so frustrated and angry if the system was more transparent. The kafkaesque strike and appeal system, and the inability to contact a human being, and the lack of any suppor
Re:Finally, following one best practice. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people who making a living off YouTube (or Twitch or any other social media platform) started out casually and grew in popularity.
YouTube benefits greatly from them producing content full time. It encourages them to do so, with awards and promotion. Yet, it offers no security if they do make it their job.
Sounds a lot like Uber, doesn't it? They want all the benefits and encourage people to generate revenue for them, but don't want to take on the responsibility of employing them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. I'm adding the sinij Seal of Approval (TM) to my resume. Right after Karma: Excellent.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a bad joke by the way, I'm not mocking sinij. I have a feeling some people will assume I am.
Re: (Score:3)
:)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>A lot of folks like doing contract work . . . if you are young and single, and understand the risks and can financially plan for them .
There is a subtle difference between contracting and producing youtube content.
In the former you do work and get paid. In the latter you do work, post a video, and an AI clicks a switch and you don't get paid. It's roulette, with no meaningful appeal system, no way to recapture your lost revenue, and no humans you can complain to.
In addition to reconsidering their
Re: (Score:3)
When a large corporation fires/lays off hundreds to thousands of employees, it's a best practice to have armed police on business campuses for a period of time (months to even years).
WTF is that a thing in America? Hell last time we laid off 700 people we didn't even increase the number of security staff (from 1 to 2*).
*Side note we did have a security incident caused by the fact the only security guard we had went to the toilet, and some random person let themselves in and stole the shower heads from the men's showers. You can't make this shit up. At least after that incident they considered having 2 security guards. .. They still didn't though.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the way our system is set up, job loss can be very close to killing people and their children. People spend too much and carry too much debt. The entire system is built to encourage this behavior.
Now add guns to people who feel they are being killed and their life is being destroyed by the company that may have asked them to work nights, weekends, and holidays.
Then add a history of work violence after layoffs going back for decades so people consider it an option.
It's a volatile mixture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When youtube demonetizes content without warning, what they are doing is akin to a layoff.
It's actually worse than this because there are no other viable platforms. It's like firing people when you're the only business of that type, so those people can never work again in that business.
Cat videos (Score:2)
We need more cat videos.
Hilarious (Score:2, Troll)
The amount of karmic justice happening right now is just great.
I'm very sorry for the employees who really bear the least of the responibility for what Google has been doing lately... but from a commercial PoV, it' could only have happened to a handful of more deserving companies.
Or they could quit pissing off users... (Score:2)
The shhoter was a whack job, but had YouTube not "demonetized" her content, she would have probably lived out her life in well deserved obscurity.
Re:Or they could quit pissing off users... (Score:5, Interesting)
The shhoter was a whack job, but had YouTube not "demonetized" her content,
YouTube decided that her content was worthless . . . why should they continue to give her any more money for it? She could have taken her content to anyone who thought that it was worth any money.
she would have probably lived out her life in well deserved obscurity.
I doubt it. She was a ticking time bomb, and if it wasn't YouTube, something else later would have set her off.
She needed serious mental health care. But mental heath still has this heavy stigma in the US . . . pumping your children full with Ritalin is OK . . . committing your daughter to a mental health institution is not socially acceptable.
Calling the cops is no answer . . . they are not able to legally do anything, and are not trained mental health professionals.
Ideally, this woman would have been evaluated as to her threat to herself and others, and would have received treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube decided that her content was worthless . . . why should they continue to give her any more money for it? She could have taken her content to anyone who thought that it was worth any money.
That's not really what's happened though. Youtube decided to cave to old guard media and advertisers fled(remember the adpocolypse?). I'll bet 2 years ago she was making $10k/year or more, and then she was making $0.10/mo with 50k+ views. Big shock that someone who loses a major source of income suddenly starts going off the deep end.
Calling the cops is no answer . . . they are not able to legally do anything, and are not trained mental health professionals.
Not true. Legally they can detain you and remand to the hospital if you're a threat to yourself or others. Police and EMS are the frontline in mental health care all acros
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the time when the abusive, exploitative, and ineffectual facilities were exposed for their incompetence and malignancy, and when revealed in court, the right-wing partisans decided the easiest fix was to throw them out and pretend they were forced to do it because really, that's the only way to treat mental illness.
Which is why it happened under left-wing governments, and those 'right-wing partisans' had to follow through because the courts made it so with no actual recourse to amend the law, or rewrite the law because the rulings were repeatedly overly-broad.
This is what conservatives still think, afterall:
I can't figure out how you've got through life thinking like that, especially after that really good bit of hypocrisy.
That's the ethos responsible for it. But you can't take responsibility, so you have to blame your enemies when it fails. Always and forever.
You should really go read the court cases, and the causal effects.
The amusing thing is that you're on record mocking other people who got laid off by corporate downsizing and relocations to foreign sites. Funny, isn't it how you change your tune when your perceived enemies are involved?
Funny how you come across as a bit of a stalker isn't it? Yep, you really do n
Re: (Score:2)
>> YouTube decided that her content was worthless.
Incorrect, that's not how this works.
It works like this: n number of people didn't like her content and clicked the report button, creating a strike. One strike is a warning. You can appeal, but it takes weeks to clear an appeal. If your appeal is denied you can't appeal again for 60 days.
If it happens again, you can't upload videos for two weeks.
If it happens again, your account is terminated.
This _automated_ process means that one person with a s
Re: (Score:3)
I should add to this that the reports and strikes can be filed for content you've had uploaded for years. e.g. Some people objected to Cody'sLab use of gunpowder for mine blasting from 2015/2016 and he's been fighting report/strike/appeals for months now.
He's on strike 2, and has made >50% of his videos private so he doesn't get thrown off the platform. This is/was legitimate and interesting content, not just "cat videos", and now it's gone.
Re: (Score:2)
She needed serious mental health care. But mental heath still has this heavy stigma in the US . . . pumping your children full with Ritalin is OK . . . committing your daughter to a mental health institution is not socially acceptable.
It probably doesn't help that the government (state, federal, and local) has been taking guns from people that sought out mental health care. Just because someone is being treated for depression does not make a person homicidal or suicidal. There's still means to take guns from people that pose a high risk to themselves or others without making a blanket determination that anyone seeking care for a temporary bout of depression needs to have their guns taken from them. Just because someone files for power
Youtube: Protected by men with guns... (Score:4, Insightful)
...but don't post any videos about guns.
So let me get this straight. (Score:3, Insightful)
An anti-gun company is going to add security, ie guns.
While demonetising the NRA which didn't shoot them up.
Because a vegan leftist nut job shot them up?
Payback's a bitch? (Score:2)
Youtube profits a great deal from triggering outrage. Is it karma that they suffer the boomerang of someone 'triggered' by their policies/choices?
I would have expected better video of the event, honestly.
um (Score:2)
The move reflects a growing concern in Silicon Valley that the effects of increasingly toxic and partisan online behavior may translate into violent offline actions.
Er, her politics appear to align nicely with Google and YouTube's.
They are messing with peoples lives (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They are, actually. But in europe it's mostly random rapes, truck rampages, grenade attacks, knife attacks, bombings, etc etc.
I feel safe knowing all i have to worry about is guns.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And every day I feel reassured that moving to Japan 20 years ago was the best thing I ever did. I only have to worry about earthquakes.
But ... but ... no vibrant diversity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Private businesses have the right to associate (Score:4, Insightful)
... create your own content portal or find another one that feels you are a good fit ...
It's impossible to create your own content portal like YouTube, because creating an organization like this requires thousands of qualified specialists, billions of investment into infrastructure and promotion, governmental support on external markets, and so on and so forth.
So it does have certain responsibility towards its content creators, society in general, including international community.
Re: (Score:2)
should have said - it is private property (Score:2)
Re:should have said - it is private property (Score:4, Interesting)
it is not a public space ... it is private property... you do not have the right of free speech.
This is the part where you've got it wrong. In most of the west, if a place "becomes a regular meeting area" for the public, or an active venue of communication then regardless of whether or not it's private property free speech laws apply. In the US, there's multiple court cases on this already.
YouTube has no obligation to be open to anyone saying anything.
Except that it holds dominant marketshare, uses it's platform to crush competition right? Maybe anti-trust laws would be a better answer to this.
Re: (Score:3)
I may have used the wrong words. It is not a government organization, it is not a public space ... it is private property... you do not have the right of free speech. There are a few non-discriminatory laws that you must abide by, but other than that YouTube has no obligation to be open to anyone saying anything.
It's a "place of public accommodation," which means it has to honor your civil liberties.
Same shit they pull to ban smoking in bars.
Re:Analogy (Score:4)
Yep, adding more guns and security scanners on all the entrances to their buildings wi.e a corporate image of tolerance and harmony.
It won't give anybody the impression that they're a big bad corporation or make them even angrier.
Re: (Score:2)
And in addition, nobody will surely ever think of shooting people when they get off work, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care for all this; it happens now and then, not every day. Eventually we're going to have to go through metal detectors at every super market and library and other place we enter.
Why the show of fear? As soon as something happens once, people say, "Something must be done!" You've been a soft target for decades; you can be a soft target for a few decades longer; you're not going to have 15 more active shooters this year by staying a soft target.
Re: (Score:3)
Given the fact they pissed off a huge amount of their content providers lately they should have realized that it was a large enough group that something like this was not unlikely. Now that it has occurred it's a certainty that others will attempt a copy cat attack. The security they had was laughable. I guess they didn't understand that a lot of people hate them.
Re: (Score:2)
2 Wrongs don't make a right, neither does 2 1/2 fixes fix the problem.
Google/YouTube, are public targets. It does make sense for them to improve security. As nearly any crazy out there will blame the biggest name out there. Google/Facebook/US Government/Big (industry)... For all of life's woes no matter what they do.
That said, Google/YouTube seems to be rather blind on the problem with such algorithm and how it is affecting the lives of content creators. Being that a lot of the content creators see themselv
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You realized they just banned videos that have anything to do with guns, right?
Re:Theirtube (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Theirtube (Score:5, Funny)
"Please don't let this be one of the gun channel people". It wasn't of course. Just a peaceful California vegan/animal rights activist nut bar angry over not enough people getting to see her homemade music and bunny rabbit videos.
A vegan trans immigrant SJW, in fact. Actually, I think I'll change my sig, as the irony is humorous.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is the story about a lover's quarrel probably originated from the social engineering tactic she used to gain entry to the building.
Re: (Score:3)