Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Youtube Security United States

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Will Increase Security At All Offices Worldwide Following Shooting

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 05, 2018 @03:10AM (#56385299)

    Maybe just stop ripping off small content creators. It would probably work out cheaper than massively ramping up security.

    • There are content creators whose existence is toxic and damaging to Youtube brand. Obviously the shooter fell into that category. Advertisers do not appreciate advertising on videos that would potentially damage their brand. Youtube has every right to downgrade or remove stuff that is damaging to their business. If you don't like it go to another platform or go direct (via your own website - and get your own advertisers).
      • 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.

        • 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.

          I'm blown away by this. You know, the competition to serve this market is unlimited. If I had deep pockets, I'd spool up a competing service as a "Youtube replacement" for members to flock too, then market the hell out of it with marketing and social media.

          If free market principles are to take their natural course then all this crap going on with Youtube should be a temporary

          • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            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.

        • ...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.

      • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Thursday April 05, 2018 @08:26AM (#56385907)

        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.

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      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.

      • 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.

        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....

        • by Kohath ( 38547 )

          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?

  • by Max_W ( 812974 ) on Thursday April 05, 2018 @03:31AM (#56385331)
    Improving security is a good idea, however in the statement there is not a word about its content policies. Quite a few YouTube "celebreties" produce clickbait content and become "rich" and "famous".

    In my opinion, YouTube shoud do more to encourage production of meaningful conent.
    • >meaningful conent

      I nominate myself to be in charge of defining what "meaningful content" is.

    • 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.

    • by DrXym ( 126579 )
      Absolutely. This is what I saw today on YouTube:
      • 10 Unforgettable moments caught on live tv!
      • 10 people you won't believe actually exist
      • The most dangerous inmates in the world
      • How the female orgasm works
      • Most embarassing momment [sic] caught on cam

      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

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        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.

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      "Improving" security is generally a very bad idea.

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      Meaningful? So operas then? Motivational videos to show your household servants?

  • Irony (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 05, 2018 @03:34AM (#56385335)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 05, 2018 @03:41AM (#56385357)

      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.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        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.

  • by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Thursday April 05, 2018 @03:59AM (#56385393)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 05, 2018 @04:17AM (#56385423)

      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...

    • 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.

      • by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Thursday April 05, 2018 @07:08AM (#56385713)

        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.

        • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Thursday April 05, 2018 @09:22AM (#56386179)

          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.

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            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

        • 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.

          • by sinij ( 911942 )
            Spot on, AmiMoJo.
            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Thanks. I'm adding the sinij Seal of Approval (TM) to my resume. Right after Karma: Excellent.

              • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                This is a bad joke by the way, I'm not mocking sinij. I have a feeling some people will assume I am.

                • by sinij ( 911942 )
                  AmiMoJo, you triggered me with your insensitive comment and your abusive and violent conduct pushed me toward spiral of self-harm and criminality. So the entirety of my bad decisions from this point on rest on your shoulders.

                  :)
          • by DogDude ( 805747 )
            People who make/made money off of making videos should consider themselves lucky for the money they got, and get themselves a real job. It's not Youtube's fault that some really, truly, profoundly stupid people thought they were somehow *entitled* to be paid money for making stupid videos.
        • >>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

    • 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.

      • 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.

      • It's probably a thing with some companies. I've been laid off three times. The third time involved a hundred or so fellow employees. We were all given several weeks notice, all told we were going to get a severance (not a great severance, but one nonetheless), and were going to be given help finding employment elsewhere.

        No armed security present or needed. I think you have to be a pretty shitty company both to need armed security in a layoff situation, and to feel the need to deploy it.

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      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.

  • We need more cat videos.

  • Hilarious (Score:2, Troll)

    by Kokuyo ( 549451 )

    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.

  • 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.

    • by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Thursday April 05, 2018 @07:59AM (#56385823)

      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.

      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        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

      • >> 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

        • 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.

      • 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

  • by Eldragon ( 163969 ) on Thursday April 05, 2018 @09:18AM (#56386151)

    ...but don't post any videos about guns.

  • by shm ( 235766 ) on Thursday April 05, 2018 @09:30AM (#56386235)

    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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • This seems like a no brainier but, people make money and live off of YouTube, (I would also argue this could happen with any overly involved social media, i'm addicted/reliant to social media and you take that from me) They are learning if you mess with peoples lives (perceived or real) people react. And no all people react in the best or rational way. YouTube and Facebook are beginning the slow (self imposed) spiral down, it will be interesting to see how people deal with it.

Where there's a will, there's an Inheritance Tax.

Working...