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

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/03/599261148/active-shooter-reported-at-youtube-hq-in-san-bruno-calif

by uptown • 8 years ago

201 402 8 years ago

sqdbps2• 8 years ago

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 100% error free but they reluctantly imposed restrictions.

After successfully manufacturing a story and gaining attention and traffic reporters continued scouring and contacting advertisers forcing youtube to enact tougher restrictions.

They then would extended the coverage to the anger in the youtube community and how it’s tough for them out there with all the latest policy changes.

Rinse, repeat; keep reporting on any video you find disagreeable no matter how little views it has.

. . .

Be sure to remind youtube of their power and responsibility after tragedy strikes.

hliyan• 8 years ago

The irony is that reporters themselves are driven by advertising pressure. I'm fond of saying that "any premise that can attract eyeballs will eventually appear as an article on an ad-revenue-driven website".

NetOpWibby• 8 years ago

Hah! Ain’t that the truth.

amelius2• 8 years ago

The irony is that reporters themselves are driven by advertising pressure.

I don't see the irony. Perhaps they are just saying "my content is better, that ad-money belongs to me!"

Kattywumpus• 8 years ago

I will cite this as "Hliyan's Law" from now on.

tootie• 8 years ago

That law is not absolute since reporter's value is ostensibly tied to their reputation and credibility.

Simulacra• 8 years ago

That's a very good analysis. You could apply that to just about anything in the news these days. What would you say are the worst organizations at manufacturing news?

guelo• 8 years ago

Breitbart, Infowars, The Blaze, Fox News, Drudge.

banned13• 8 years ago

CNN, MSNBC, mainly

Klathmon• 8 years ago

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 thing down.

I don't blame the advertisers one bit from wanting to remove their ads from many videos. Once the media starts playing the game that "an ad on the video == the advertiser agrees with the message" I too would want to do everything I can to ensure that I'm not associated with bad things.

Media outlets are (in many cases) just trying to report on things. They are (correctly) pointing out how many users and creators are upset with YouTube's moves in this case, and how many advertisers are upset about being associated with "bad" videos.

Obviously there are things that each group can do better (YouTube could stand up to the Advertisers a bit more, Advertisers could push back on the notion that "an ad == approval", and the media could stop trying to "stir up" controversy), but in each case the thing that is better for society is worse for that group (at least in the short term). I can absolutely see an alternate universe where people are boycotting Coke because they allow their ads to run on gun videos, or where YouTube ends up losing out to even more money because they won't enact more strict rules about which videos can have ads.

I don't know the answer here, but it's obvious that the current "solutions" aren't working.

DanAndersen7• 8 years ago

Scott Alexander's essay "Meditations on Moloch" is relevant here: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

The no-win situation you describe is a prime example of "Moloch."

ep103• 8 years ago

Everyone is acting in their best interest, except youtube. Youtube has a product team, its their job to come up with solutions to problems like these. If they haven't found a solution, they haven't done their job. Full stop.

contravariant• 8 years ago

If you want to look at causes then I fear that it's not the monetization itself that's the problem but youtube's 'burned bridge' approach to communication. I've seen several people complain about the non-communicative stance YouTube has taken, leaving people with little to no ways of recourse.

To me it seems likely that this person felt that this was the only way they could 'reach' YouTube.

humanrebar3• 8 years ago

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.

leshow2• 8 years ago

I don't blame the advertisers one bit from wanting to remove their ads from many videos. Once the media starts playing the game that "an ad on the video == the advertiser agrees with the message" I too would want to do everything I can to ensure that I'm not associated with bad things.

Why do we do that on youtube when we don't do that on TV? Do we assume that if you're ad runs during <some sitcom> you agree with the jokes in it?

dspillett3• 8 years ago

Media outlets are (in many cases) just trying to report on things.

I would be more guarded and say in some cases. The previous comment's accusation that "mainstream" media, televisual, radio, & written, is stoking the anti-youtube sentiment has legs to stand on. Self publishing and social media are their competition and as they are getting desperate they are playing dirty. This is true of both the big players and some collectives of small players (which like those in the Sinclair Broadcast Group are effectively one big player as the individual outles have to tow the corporate line). The hope that moving bits of advertising budgets away from online outlets will mean that some of it comes back their way.

Of course this doesn't in any way make them culpable for the events at youtube's offices this week.

Similarly while youtube's terrible user support (which I'm told is very much in keeping with Google's apparent policy of "like we give a fuck about individuals"), while it may have increased her ire, can't be considered even partly responsible either.

The woman obviously had issues, and they were going to blow up in someone's face sooner or later if not treated. I can't pretend I have an answer, as it is a very complex issue, but a key part of the problem is the lack of support available for those with mental problems, and the lack of ways to protect the rest of society from the fallout when something pushes people over the edge.

Lack of gun control is also part of the problem too IMO (sure she could have attacked with a knife instead, but knife attacks are generally less deadly).

pjc50• 8 years ago

Advertisers could push back on the notion that "an ad == approval"

Ads are far more than just "approval", they're funding. An ad appearing with a video is funding the production of more, similar videos.

It's quite meaningless to "boycott" a service that you're not paying money for, but people recognise that the modern flow of money around the economy is extremely indirect. This results in a lack of moral accountability. Campaigners aim to collapse the distance between those spending the money and the actual actions that result, to say "are you really happy paying for this to happen?"

mitchdoogle• 8 years ago

I don't understand why it's a problem at all. Can't YouTube enact settings for advertisers to choose which videos they want to advertise on. Some of the obvious things to filter could be video category, view count, number of likes/dislikes, comments. Instead of demonetizing channels, they could tag them controversial and allow advertisers to say they don't want to advertise on controversial channels. Seems a lot better than a blanket ban on advertisements.

SlowRobotAhead4• 8 years ago

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.

rhcom2• 8 years ago

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

criley24• 8 years ago

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 with your wallet (a "boycott") is Economic Free Speech. It's Free Markets in their most basic and pure form. The freedom of an actor to associate how they please. Anyone who suggests that we should not be free to spend our money how we please is acting beyond the pale in a free society.

Quite frankly, it's incredibly ironic that those in our society who used to pretend to be "pro Free Markets" and "pro Free Speech" and "pro Freedom of Association" are now howling and crying about people freely choosing to associate with cetain businesses based on their freely chosen private criteria.

And of course: relevant XKCD https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

TL;DR: Free speech includes the freedom to not spend money with businesses whose speech you disagree with.

danso6• 8 years ago

Why is it a "horrible" tactic? Citizens have a right to free speech, not to make massive profit off of it as a corporation.

thomasfortes2• 8 years ago

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.

colechristensen5• 8 years ago

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.

fzeroracer• 8 years ago

One of the most basic rights people have in America is the right to protest. You're attempting to rebrand protesting as mob censorship.

AlexC04• 8 years ago

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.

ivl• 8 years ago

I'm fairly certain they were including that in the media's reaction and participation in this.

sqdbps2• 8 years ago

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...

deftnerd2• 8 years ago

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.

frgtpsswrdlame3• 8 years ago

Actually I disagree. Obviously responsibility is shared and primarily owned by Nasim but some is also owned by youtube.

Think of it like this - does youtube bear some responsibility when creators leave the platform because of demonetization? Of course. Does youtube bear some responsibility when creators make lots of angry videos because of demonetization? Of course. Does youtube bear some responsibility when demonetization is implemented in a way that feels arbitrary to it's creators? Of course. Does youtube bear some responsibility for failing to stand up and protect it's creators from some of the advertisers demands? Of course.

The company makes decisions that affect some peoples lives in a profound way thus they also have some responsibility in the direct and indirect effects of those decisions.

psyc3• 8 years ago

Of course they are not responsible for the actions of the shooter, or anyone who decides to use violence to make their point. They are partly responsible for the mounting rage at their increasingly arbitrary treatment of users, and near-total lack of transparency about it, which has been festering for years, and is getting worse. They are quite responsible for those arbitrary decisions themselves. What's that bit about freedom not implying freedom from consequences? These things are related. 'Victim blaming' and other thought-stopping catch-phrases aside.

txsh• 8 years ago

They absolutely are responsible.

Imagine if Uber started randomly denying drivers payment, taking away their source of income for arbitrary reasons with no chance of appeal. It would only be a matter of time before someone showed up at their door with a gun.

Only the shooter is guilty of the crime. But YouTube is responsible. And the courts will agree when the victims sue.

bertil• 8 years ago

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?

jacquesm33• 8 years ago

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.

dspillett3• 8 years ago

do people violently oppose vegans

I doubt being vegan is the key here.

Though there is a fair amount of bullying, through ad-homenim attacks or idiots just trying to wind people up for shits & giggles. There are also some with a persecution complex that seem to take even the slightest criticism as a violent attack. This is not constrained to veganism though: there are similarly unhinged people in many walks of life.

or animal rights activists?

I expect this is the more important factor. Being a vegan is likely a consequence of her strong feelings in this area (the fact that some are highlighting the vegan thing is an example of the bullying I mention above). Animal rights is a very emotive area and some people (a few, but a very active and vocal few) get dangerously passionate about it to the point of losing all view of any other logic or moral sensibility (like not killing human animals).

a workout video being age-gated: who would oppose that video?

I've not seen the video in question so I can't make specific guesses, but there are a couple of possibilities that spring to mind:

* Some people are very puritan about the showing of skin and so forth, perhaps there was a complaint about that sort of thing?

* Was anything potentially divisive said during the workout clip, even in passing? Given her apparent anger at the world that is not unlikely.

* It could just be someone that disagrees with her views on something else. Down-voting and reporting entirely unrelated content in response to something else is an immature but very common reaction.

benmmurphy2• 8 years ago

Probably some busy bodies were upset about her other videos (the animal rights ones?) and decided to mass report her other work out videos and they got age-gated. Another person has a different opinion on the internet so destroying their livelihood is the correct response.

frgtpsswrdlame3• 8 years ago

Sure the media played some part but really it seems to fall more on youtube to me. Youtube used to be a steady source of basically reliable income if you had 'made it.' So people flock to the platform, start producing tons of content and basically link their lives not just to the platform of youtube but to the job of video maker. This works out great for youtube, no real competition ever rises up because it can't buy away the big hitters, then once youtube has true, lasting dominance they begin to squeeze the people that got them there, they pay less, they start restricting content and worse as a content creator you can see other big channels getting away with what is prohibited to you. Youtube basically becomes the worst, most arbitrary boss at a piece work, gig economy crap job. And the creators have nowhere to go because all the competition was crushed long ago.

That type of systematic degradation always pushes some people beyond the edge but because internet companies are disconnected from their users/workers they've mostly been able to ignore these side effects. This woman's act is horrific but it's also illustrative of the effects these companies actually have on people's lives.

watwut5• 8 years ago

Be sure to remind youtube of their power and responsibility after tragedy strikes.

I don't think they have any responsibility for the shooting. None at all. Whether the videos were demonetized rightfully or not.

clairity• 8 years ago

that's a plausible narrative but where is the research thst shows this is an actual problem?

DanAndersen7• 8 years ago

One possible way out of the trap is for regulation to acknowledge and classify these massive social media and content delivery platforms like YouTube and Facebook as the new version of the public square.

One of the big issues with the demonetization on YouTube is that it's a binary flag -- either "acceptable content for advertisers" or "unacceptable for advertisers." As if advertisers were a single block with a single set of values!

When YouTube is not under an obligation to act as the virtual-public-square (because "they're a private company"), then they are especially vulnerable to defining that "acceptability" either by internal ideological conformity, or by external ideological pressure. Part of the concept of "free speech" (as a doctrine, not just as 1A legal structure) is that it allows for a society where the distinction of "I don't agree with this but someone out there might and so it's OK for it to exist" is a distinction that is possible. Without that, we're left with a world in which expression has to be mediated by the approval/whims of external forces for it to be present.

Whatever strange, fringe things this person was having as YouTube videos, I'd be willing to guess there's some fringe company out there who wouldn't care if they were advertised on those videos. Think of the kinds of advertisers 4chan, Infowars, or adult websites get. Their standards don't fit into a generic mold of "acceptability." But if someone was a video creator who wanted to court such advertisers, what kind of audience would they even be able to build without access to the de-facto public-square that YouTube is?

I don't know how to get there from here. But I think a more healthy ad-revenue model would somehow have YouTube saying "OK, these mainstream videos are able to be monetized by mainstream ads from companies A B and C, while these fringe/controversial videos can be monetized by whatever companies X Y and Z want to."

speeder• 8 years ago

This person videos weren't even strange or fringe...

The attacker videos seemly were mostly about exercising, vegan diet, and some lighthearted videos...

AFTER demonetization, seemly some videos with criticism about Youtube and US, saying that Iran (her home country) had more free speech than US, showed up.

swalsh• 8 years ago

I agree with this view, platforms like Youtube (and Reddit) can't be allowed to hide behind this veil of being "private". As major platforms, they're important channels for speech. I think once a private company has amassed this level of the public attention their influence needs to be kept in check. The profits will stay private, but there needs to be limits on what they can "limit". I think it's a similar argument to why a diner can't choose to not serve a person only on their ethnicity.

I think all speech should be protected (the good, the bad, and the weird). Ideas should die on their own merits.

simion314• 8 years ago

YouTube is not transparent about it's algorithm, this produces a lot of frustration because of uncertainty.

The algorithm also seems very poor implemented, like it should give the benefit of the doubt, like if I have 10 wrongly flagged videos that a human decided it is advertising friendly then mark my channel as "trusted" and don't allow the AI to de-monitize the video , flag it and have a human check it.

In the present the algorithm is favorable to YouTube and advertisers and creators suffer.

amelius2• 8 years ago

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

meddlepal• 8 years ago

21st century reporters or "journalists" as they like to be called seem to be the equivalent of schoolyard tattletales.

The death of traditional media and "news" cannot happen soon enough.

jacquesm33• 8 years ago

Be careful what you wish for.

blarneystun• 8 years ago

It's interesting how algorithmic the process of fabricating ( real or fake ) news has become.

rdtsc• 8 years ago

At the end of the day it is still a private company and if it wants to censor or otherwise supress certain types of content it is free to do so. Everyone is also free of course to criticize it for bias and/or use another video sharing site.

Also I don't see the last part about their responsibility in the shooting. Had this been a gun (2nd Amendment) fanatic whose gun demo videos were banned, like many on Reddit prematurely guessed, I don't think anyone would be saying " youtube is responsible for this". Now that it is a woman and she was pro-animal rights suddenly the blame is starting to shift towards YouTube, gun laws, society in general.

orasis• 8 years ago

What’s with all of the conspiracy theory type comments on HN lately?

nullifidian2• 8 years ago

I'm not an American. The fact that a targeted online advertisement shown before the video is associated with the video and not with the platform, and requires damage control is perplexing and unexplainable to me... "There is no direct relationship between the video and the ad - It's matched by the machinery to the viewer, not to the video." should be the official answer and the end of the story.

Is an ad exposure before a "controversial" video any different in its effect compared to "acceptable" video exposure? It shouldn't be. I presume ad-to-video strong association is some kind of established US norm, where you pressure companies to "pull ads" when something offends you. Not being able to pull ads in a targeted manner is unacceptable I suppose, and that great American institution of pulling ads is "ought to be preserved".

Also I don't understand why Youtube went with advertisers' demands -- they have near-monopoly, big coffers and can impose their own rules. Like "You can't dictate at the start of which particular video your ads are shown, only the demographics and some keywords". The current set of rules is giving advertizers the power they shouldn't really have. It's as if the ogranization is willing to implement what equals to advertizers moralistic/political policing of content.

jmull3• 8 years ago

Here's the rationale:

The advertisement pays for the video. Without the ads to provide money for a given type of video, there will be less of them and they will be less sophisticated. Thus, whether an advertiser likes it or not, they are supporting the video content, albeit indirectly.

Also, I don't think advertisers care at all to engage in moralistic or political policing of content. They just want to sell stuff. Being associated with controversial content offends people, which drives away what could otherwise be good paying customers. So they just want to avoid it.

londons_explore3• 8 years ago

Also I don't understand why Youtube went with advertisers' demands -- they have near-monopoly

When this happened, total ad spend on youtube dropped dramatically. It was a real emergency inside youtube. Had it continued for any long period of time, I would guess youtube would have been forced to close.

ensignro234010• 8 years ago

It’s not the media’s fault. If you’re going to blame anyone - blame the advertisers. They are the ones with the money everyone (YouTube and YouTubers alike) is trying to get their hands on. Unfortunately they are the ones who hold the cards at the end of the day when it comes to their money.

jacquesm33• 8 years ago

It wasn't the media that pulled the trigger.

untog• 8 years ago

I guess I'm not seeing where the media's part in this is bad. They're raising legitimate questions about programmatic advertising.

mschuster9110• 8 years ago

I don't sympathize with shooting up a company's headquarters at all, but I feel that this could have been avoided by forcing Youtube (and, for that matter, all other social networks!) to have a way to reach an actual human support.

In the end, this is one of the "externalities" that get forced upon society when the big companies decide to cut corners on support. Some will... take matters into their own hands. Be it by spraying racist tweets as graffiti in front of the Hamburg Twitter office or by running amok, when they feel desperate enough. Desperation, especially perceived desperation, drives people to really horrible decisions - and demonetizing all videos of someone who depends on YT income for life is certainly enough to seriously mess with people.

jimmies2• 8 years ago

But she said she talked to the support team...

meri_dian3• 8 years ago

She was crazy. I don't think attempts to walk through her thought processes will bear fruit

mschuster9110• 8 years ago

I mean a support team that has actual freedoms to help the customer and is not forced to operate on a script that has only one option to tell the customer: You're screwed.

Or, even better: as here the case seems to be that the shooter depended on Youtube as income, why shouldn't she have the right to have her effective "firing" appealed in a proper court of law, like in Germany?

isseu• 8 years ago

The problem is not Youtube support ...

wehadfun2• 8 years ago

Yea. To even suggest this is Youtube supports fault is absurd.

YetAnotherNick3• 8 years ago

You can blame everything on a lunatic and that is right thing, but it won't change anything.

GiorgioG• 8 years ago

It isn't so much that companies decide to cut corners on support, it's that at companies that operate at this scale (YT, FB, Twitter, etc ) the individual content-creator is a drop in the ocean. When she was de-monetized, it may have meant the world to her, but in YT's perspective it's not worth the time/effort to even have a conversation about it (say beforehand.)

Mithaldu6• 8 years ago

Well, they made an economic tradeoff, and now people have been injured. As the famous comic says: "But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”

jmull3• 8 years ago

I don't see a how you could come to a reasonable accommodation with someone who thinks, "You will let me do anything I want on your platform (with full benefits) or I'll shoot you."

This doesn't look like a support issue at all to me.

sh4z• 8 years ago

His point is if the person could have reached some kind of support they might never have ended up in such a desperate situation.

When I get really mistreated / fooled and can't reach any kind of human support and none of the "robotic" support options work - it's incredibly frustrating. Not to the point where I'd shoot someone, but I've definitely smashed my fist on a table once or twice.

GVIrish2• 8 years ago

Sorry but this is ridiculous. Someone decided that to respond to having video de-monetized on a website was justification for trying to kill people. How on earth is it reasonable to start down the path of 'well if she had talked to tech support...'

Tier 1 support is now supposed to dissuade lunatics from murdering people? Are we supposed to construct our society around making sure that nothing, nowhere could possibly lead to a lunatic getting upset at some decision that could inconvenience them?

mschuster9110• 8 years ago

at some decision that could inconvenience them?

Losing one's job is not just an "inconvenience". It is an inconvenience in a country with a social safety net. In a country like the US where job loss often enough means direct loss of health insurance and a place to live, losing a job can (and will) lead to homelessness and eventual death.

MikkoFinell• 8 years ago

Yeah you're right, and those people who got shot probably deserved it because they were probably racists or something.

arenaninja• 8 years ago

Man, I wanted to have a go at making a YouTube competitor, I think there's room for one, but SESTA makes me wary to have any platform that hosts user-generated content

EDIT weary -> wary. Thanks wccrawford

wccrawford2• 8 years ago

I think you man "wary".

sidyapa• 8 years ago

I think you meant "meant".

bscanlan• 8 years ago

Yeh, how hard could it be? Pesky regulation.

matte_black2• 8 years ago

Require videos to be approved by a human before being available to the public.

sodafountan• 8 years ago

I don't think there's enough man hours in the world to accomplish this believe it or not, do you know how many hours of videos per day get uploaded to youtube?

edit: Just looked it up because I was curious, 300 hours of video get uploaded per minute to Youtube. That's 18,000 hours of content per hour meaning you'd have to hire that many people to work 24/7 365 days a year non stop just to view every piece of content uploaded to Youtube.

Raphmedia• 8 years ago

There is https://d.tube/ which pays content creators with crypto coins based on watch time. What's interesting too is that instead of having ratings on videos, it shows you how much money a video has made.

detaro• 8 years ago

earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16751608

alex_young• 8 years ago

The monetization of YouTube has created a perverse set of incentives which have in turn driven noise up and signal down.

A few years ago videos were generally interesting, or at least authentic, ads were mostly uncommon for non-commercial content, and comments were a cesspool.

Today the comments are marginally better, the content is worse, and there are ads everywhere.

The focus of many creators isn't creating useful content, but tricking people into watching or playing on the notoriety of making money itself.

This unfortunate event probably wouldn't have happened if the system wasn't designed to incentivise controversial posts in the first place.

daemin• 8 years ago

I kind of think/feel that YouTube is turning into regular TV in terms of the content that is on it, if not the delivery. There's a reason that normal TV is bland and mediocre (for the most part), and that's because it has to be inoffensive for the advertisers to put ads next to. Any sort of risque content has very low-value ads next to it, i.e. gambling and penis pills. So for YouTube to profit it has to be seen as having mostly inoffensive content, which will inevitably drive out any interesting and non-mainstream stuff, for better or worse.

wehadfun2• 8 years ago

Zucerberg Hospital

http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-general-hospita...

trisimix• 8 years ago

When the media attacks you for doing something, you should question the repercussions of changing that thing before you do it. Obviously you cant have perfect hindsight, but use some common sense.

danso6• 8 years ago

You don't think any thought was put into these decisions?

mtgx• 8 years ago

The YouTube ad-pocalypse was a set of terrible policy decisions from Google. They demonetized a ton of legitimate YouTube channels in a rush to appease their advertisers. Only after much outcry, did they re-enable the monetization for some of those more popular channels. But many channels remained affected by it.

You would think that with all of this talk about "human-beating AI" lately, these things would be better and more precise by now. But they're not. It's almost looks like they've gotten worse. Unwarranted censorship on social media platforms is just as rampant as fake news and manipulation is.

ensignro234010• 8 years ago

“They demonetized a ton of legitimate YouTube channels in a rush to appease their advertisers.”

It’s almost as if the money those channels felt entitled to came from advertisers. /s

simonsarris• 8 years ago

I can't help but think of of the Tunisian guy who was trying to eke out a living, faced his own Arbitrary Machine (the state in this case) and lost, getting de-monetized. Then set himself on fire, more or less starting the "Arab Spring."

If you never read of the Tunisian man, from wiki:

Twenty-six-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi had been the sole income earner in his extended family of eight. He operated a vegetable or apple cart (the contents of the cart are disputed) for seven years in Sidi Bouzid 190 miles (300 km) south of Tunis. On 17 December 2010, a female officer confiscated his cart and produce. Bouazizi, who had had such an event happen to him before, tried to pay the 10-dinar fine (a day's wages, equivalent to 7USD). In response the policewoman insulted his deceased father and slapped him. The officer, Faida Hamdi, stated that she was not even a policewoman, but a city employee who had been tasked that morning with confiscating produce from vendors without licenses. When she tried to do so with Bouazizi a scuffle ensued. Hamdi says she called the police who then beat Bouazizi.[35] A humiliated Bouazizi then went to the provincial headquarters in an attempt to complain to local municipality officials and to have his produce returned. He was refused an audience. Without alerting his family, at 11:30 am and within an hour of the initial confrontation, Bouazizi returned to the headquarters, doused himself with a flammable liquid and set himself on fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Revolution#Mohamed_Bo...

They are obviously not the same, and the Mohamed didn't attack other people, but as people earn a monetary (or just a social) living on more arbitrary platforms, they are conjoining their own fates to these platforms, for better or worse.

If you ask Fukuyama, Niall Ferguson, or many historians how to build a non-dysfunctional state, they will tell you that rule of law and property rights matter. Systems that can easily and arbitrarily take away one's living (monetary or social) are not good for society.

morley3• 8 years ago

Self-immolation is nowhere near in the same ballpark as taking a gun into an office and murdering a bunch of people.

I really don't like the parent article's line of thinking of explaining or justifying this person's act. There are plenty of ways of protesting that don't involve hurting others. And it's mind-boggling that we have to point that out at all today.

pja• 8 years ago

Methods of suicide are strongly culturally determined I believe.

It wouldn't be entirely surprising if the impulse that expressed itself via self-immolation in one cultural context did so via mass shooting culminating in 'suicide-by-cop' in another one (vis, the United States.)

analognoise4• 8 years ago

I can't tell if you're serious.

One of those 'systems' is governmental corruption, the other is Youtube; the comparison makes absolutely no sense. Youtube is a private company, not a corrupt government. If you're living in the states and trying to "eek out a living" and Youtube steals your proverbial "apple cart", too bad, so sad, go get a different job - they don't exist as a platform to ensure people get paid, people getting paid is a side effect of them existing. If it doesn't work for you, find other work.

To compare them indicates a level of myopia and entitlement that is profoundly distressing.

rowyourboat3• 8 years ago

You could argue that since Youtube has created a public forum for others to work in, they should be held to different standards than a regular private company. I.e. Youtube should be regulated as infrastructure and thus can not longer unilaterally changes rules or make judgements based on those rules.

elvinyung• 8 years ago

It's very interesting to me that the shooter was basically a disgruntled user who complained that the platform discriminated against her and filtered her content.

I think this and Cambridge Analytica means that we're finally entering an era in which the public is conscientious of the fact that the massive power wielded by "big data" platforms, combined with the lack of transparency, has tangible adverse effects.

Hopefully this paves the way for more transparent (and beneficent) visibility into how such data is consumed and used, possibly by using public utility-like regulation [1][2].

[1] https://datasociety.net/events/databite-no-105-k-sabeel-rahm...

[2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2986387

alehul• 8 years ago

"The night before Nasim Aghdam opened fire in a courtyard at YouTube's headquarters Tuesday afternoon, Mountain View police found the San Diego woman sleeping in her car. She had been reported missing by her family in Southern California, and her father Ismail Aghdam told police she might be going to YouTube because she 'hated' the company. Police called the family at 2 a.m. Tuesday to say she'd been found and that everything was 'under control,' her father said."

The most noteworthy part of the article to me, granted that this excerpt is taken from a different San Jose news source.

Could this have been prevented? Should the father's comments have been enough reasonable suspicion to arrest her, or at least search her for firearms and confiscate them, given her threat level to society?

Edit: The replies do offer good points, so thank you! I'm personally a supporter of the Second Amendment as well; it's just heartbreaking, especially if any of the victims die, to know just how close we were to stopping it.

jacquesm33• 8 years ago

Lone wolf crazies are the hardest to protect against as an open society. Say she was arrested and her gun confiscated. Nothing actually happened, so she'd be out on the street two days later and could go and buy another gun for a retry.

tantalor• 8 years ago

go and buy another gun

Presumably having the first gun confiscated would prevent that in the background check.

salgernon• 8 years ago

A mentally ill relative of mine in another state (us citizens here) threatened “to shoot” me in an email and asserted he had a gun. I contacted law enforcement in his area and they picked him up and based on his behavior and statements he was put in a 72 hour psych hold.

During this, the police and mental health workers were able to convince him to give up his gun.

This was about 6 years ago and as far as anyone knows, he hasn’t re-armed himself.

I guess my point: If you have a gun, you may feel justified in using it to solve your problems with violence (suicide or other). If you don’t have a gun, the friction of acquiring one could be sufficient to deter you from trying to get one.

dec0dedab0de2• 8 years ago

Should the father's comments have been enough reasonable suspicion to arrest her, or at least search her for firearms and confiscate them, given her threat level to society?

Not from the information in this article. That would mean any adult who gets upset, and goes on a roadtrip without telling their family, could get arrested. If the missing persons report noted that she could be dangerous, then that's a different story.

INTPenis6• 8 years ago

I think the only thing that could have been done differently is to ask the police to search her for potential firearms but then you have to wonder if they're legal or not and if they'd have the right to confiscate them.

arkades2• 8 years ago

Sounds like you're doing a little monday morning quarterbacking here. Neither of us heard the dad's tone or saw his body language, so neither of us knows just how strongly he was communicating "she's going to Youtube because she hates them."

But, if we are to judge on the words alone, nothing in that phrasing says "mass shooting in the offing." Most people who go to the offices of a company they have a grievance with are going there to complain or raise a ruckus, not start shooting folks. As evidenced by, you know, the extremely anomalous nature of this shooting.

("extremely anomalous" as in "mass shooting of a corporation you're unhappy with", not just "mass shooting," because those are a popular pastime in the US.)

maherbeg• 8 years ago

If you start threatening people with your weapons, you should have them confiscated, or rather more likely to have them confiscated. This is one of the few instances where this could have been completely prevented.

jacquesm33• 8 years ago

'De-Monetized' suggests that someone who produces a video has an automatic right to income. That's bonkers, it's already quite a service that Youtube allows you to upload your videos to reach an audience that you'd be hard pressed to serve from your own server. They do this for free. In the previous iteration of such platforms all the ad income would go to the owner of the website, not to the rights owners of the videos.

The company then decided to cut the producers of the content in on the advertising income. Some of those have apparently taken this to mean that they have an inalienable right to this income, to the point where they will take out their entitlement complexes on the employees of the company.

The terms of service are pretty clear about all this too.

If you want control over your content and you want to get all the advertising income associated with your content set up your own bloody server and leave youtube and it's employees alone.

On another note: I hate fanatics, no matter of what plumage.

Edit: And I hate their apologists as well.

_delirium4• 8 years ago

I don't think this kind of reaction is about philosophical "right" to an income from a particular company, more about sudden changes. It's similar to being fired: you previously got an income from this company, then they decided not to give you an income. Some people get angry at that, and sometimes feel desperate, worried about ending up homeless etc. depending on how much they relied on this income and what kinds of safety nets they have access to. Which is all true even if the company was within its rights to fire you. Of course most people who get angry about being laid off don't shoot anyone, but it's unfortunately not really a new story in the US (Google for something like, [laid off employee shooting], and there's dozens of hits).

emodendroket13• 8 years ago

Mark Ames wrote a whole book (which I admit I didn't quite finish) with the thesis that you could tie the rise of workplace shootings to an increase in worker precarity.

jacquesm33• 8 years ago

The problem is - and this goes for all the apologists for this person in this thread - that having your stuff on Youtube isn't a thing you should count on. If you run a small business and you make that business entirely dependent on a third party you are inherently setting yourself up for failure.

Whether it is Youtube, Facebook, Twitch, Medium or any other user generated content site you give up control the moment you start using them and you are essentially working for whatever crumbs they decide to throw your way.

Being fired in many countries actually does come with a whole pile of assurances about your continued income, but it is ridiculous to compare the situation of a content producer on a free platform with the one of a salaried employee.

And to take that anger out on the employees of Youtube is utterly ridiculous, if you feel that there is some form of breach of contract then the courts would be your avenue to seek redress.

ensignro234010• 8 years ago

It's not similar to being fired. [REDACTED: It's similar to a store owner allowing you to panhandle outside their business, and then later telling you you can't panhandle there anymore (but loiter all you want!).] It is not reasonable for adults to look at internet ad revenue as a reliable source of income. It's unfortunate if/when they fall on hard times because they made the mistake of relying on something so volatile. I really wish people this confused on the issue would google (heh) AdWords certification study guide and "Google Penguin"/"Google Panda"/"Google Hummingbird"/etc.

EDIT: many people are upset by the panhandling comparison. I just meant that as a juxtaposition to those saying "it's like being fired". It was meant as an analogy - no intent to insult anyone (YouTubers and beggars alike). A better analogy would be a musician who was paid to perform in a bar, and the bar owner tells them "you can still play here all you want, but we're no longer going to pay you." (mind you - they are not saying "you have to continue playing here and do it for free")

ekianjo3• 8 years ago

Which is all true even if the company was within its rights to fire you.

What point are you trying to make then? People get angry because they feel it's unfair, so...?

ben_jones2• 8 years ago

Don't companies like Google and Facebook paint an altruistic picture of themselves which creates the expectation of "rights" from its users? You can't gob up all that juicy PR and political correctness then whack people with a reality hammer and expect them not to be surprised.

This was a terrible tragedy and as with all tragedies I fear it will cause parties to double down rather then be introspective of themselves and find a way to grow from it, be it monetization policies, gun rights, office security, etc.

dec0dedab0de2• 8 years ago

'De-Monetized' suggests that someone who produces a video has an automatic right to income. That's bonkers, it's already quite a service that Youtube allows you to upload your videos to reach an audience that you'd be hard pressed to serve from your own server. They do this for free. In the previous iteration of such platforms all the ad income would go to the owner of the website, not to the rights owners of the videos.

I tend to agree with you, especially since they could put ads directly in the videos. However, they changed their policy fairly recently. If it was money producers were relying on to live, then they are definitely going to be upset.

It's like when Apple pulls something from the AppStore because they want to release something similar. They shouldn't have tried to build a business on someone else's platform, but it's still shitty.

On another note: I hate fanatics, no matter of what plumage.

100% agree, no "however"

dwighttk5• 8 years ago

It's like when Apple pulls something from the AppStore because they want to release something similar.

when did that happen?

emodendroket13• 8 years ago

I'm not going to defend shooting anyone, obviously. But YouTube has captured the entire market, practically, for streaming video, and encouraged people to look at it as a way of making money (even a full-time time job, for many). Why would you be surprised that someone would be upset about a capricious decision, which cannot be appealed, suddenly taking away the money?

jacquesm33• 8 years ago

I'm not going to defend shooting anyone, obviously.

And then you proceed to defend that anyway.

Any webserver will be happy to serve up .mp4 content. There are free players (JWPlayer for instance) and you are entirely free to serve up whatever you want from your own hosted service.

That capricious decision can be appealed, you can take Youtube to court if you feel they have wronged you.

Why would you be surprised that someone would be upset about a capricious decision, which cannot be appealed, suddenly taking away the money?

Because it never was theirs in the first place. The contract which you engage in when you sign up with Youtube or any other user created content service is pretty clear in that respect: the service can be withheld at the discretion of the company. If you can't live with those terms don't host your content there.

MaupitiBlue2• 8 years ago

I'm not surprised. While I love YouTube, most of the YouTube personalitys seem to be emotionally unhealthy and making videos for people drawn to that sort of psychic disorder.

yoz-y4• 8 years ago

A big problem with automatic demonetization is that what frequently happens is that (let's assume that you are a popular Youtuber):

You spend a lot of time and money to make a video.

You upload it to youtube.

It trips some random check and is flagged and de-monetized, you appeal.

People come and watch your video, with this type of content the vast majority of views is in the few first days since publishing.

Your appeal finally gets through, you can now monetize the video. However it is too late because 80% of the views the video will ever have have been without ads.

You are not entitled to revenue, however if you make your living off Youtube, you may expect that it will not randomly shoot you in the foot for no reason.

MaupitiBlue2• 8 years ago

If you thought investing your future in internet videos was a good idea, I'd stay away from cryptocurrency.

chii3• 8 years ago

It trips some random check and is flagged and de-monetized

this is the problem i think a lot of youtubers have. If only youtube can clearly say what they are checking or set guidelines for monetizations to follow. Of course, the issue they must have is that guidelines are often skirted around - youtubers (and internet in general) is known for attempting to edge towards the limits...

majani2• 8 years ago

Sometimes I wonder if YouTube should cut their losses regarding this whole revenue sharing thing. It's so far caused so much grief and losses for them and it doesn't seem to be able to sustain high quality content like it was intended to. Perhaps they should just leave YouTube to go back to its roots where people were just video sharing for sharing's sake and perhaps focus the money on YouTube Red where they can just buy high quality shows outright

ensignro234010• 8 years ago

I wonder the same thing sometimes. I remember being happy when they lowered the bar to entry to the Partnership Program. Now I think that was a huge mistake and they should think of phasing it out completely. Too many people have misunderstood where the money comes from and whether or not they're employed by YouTube (they're not).

jonathanstrange• 8 years ago

It is not the right place to discuss this issue in the context of this shooting, and I accept if I am downvoted for it, but since you answered in general, I'd like to point out that I generally disagree.

In my point of view, it can be reasonable and morally justified to subject companies that manage to obtain a quasi-monopoly on some form of information distribution to rules that go beyond of what is required for a company merely by law, or even to adjust the law in order to better protect those companies' users.

I would consider it fair and reasonable, for instance, to demand of Facebook, Youtube, and similar platforms (incl. app stores with quasi-monopoly status on a given platform) to be fair, to not manipulate content in favour of the company's political ambitions, in favour of obviously immoral or of decidedly anti-democratic agendas. I also think it is fair and reasonable to expect these companies to remove dangerous, illegal, or decidedly anti-democratic content, to remove radical propaganda, and so on, within reasonable limits. And it is also reasonable and fair to expect or even regulate these companies to adequately compensate content-providers, since they de facto act as their publishers, make money of this content, and have besaid quasi-monopoly. I also think that companies that hold some quasi-monopoly over some information channel should be held to higher standards than those for which there are many viable alternatives, since the former are closer to being utilities. (What constitutes a quasi-monopoly or enough of a monopoly is, of course, another, quite debatable question.)

Obviously, none of this justifies any kind of violence, and the shooter was deranged and most likely wrong about her perceptions of her supposedly unfair treatment. But I couldn't let your statement stand on its own, since I believe it to be wrong in general. This is a debatable standpoint, of course, but there should be a debate. To give another example, I really don't think that Google should be allowed to skew their search results as they see fit, e.g. to influence elections in various countries, just because they are a private company and using Google search is free.

miralabs• 8 years ago

"They do this for free" in return for something. Google/Youtube is not doing this for free. They are a corporation in it for the profit

Sir_Substance• 8 years ago

Without prejudice to the fact that it's not ok to shoot people:

Youtube set out to "own video", and they've been very successful at it. There are a few alleged alternatives out there like vimeo, but come on, how many smart TV's do you know that have a vimeo app pre-installed? Google favors youtube content over other video sites in its search results, and youtube is on-again-off-again zero rated with ISP's all around the globe. Youtube is dominant.

As a result, cutting someone off from youtube is actually a pretty big deal. It's a critical platform for all modern charities, and most modern companies. It's very hard for a marketing department to compete with other companies if they can't use youtube to distribute tutorials, promo content, key announcements and other errata. In most countries, youtube could swing an election by cutting off one party without warning mid-campaign.

And yeah, it's a platform for people to make independent income. Youtube channels are modern busking. I personally would consider income from youtube too tenuous to be willing to commit to a rent contract on the back of that income, but some people are more adventurous.

Youtube wanted a near-total monopoly on internet video, and now they have it. Good for them, but it's not consequence free in my opinion. If they could legitimately tell this person "go use one of our competitors, we don't care", then I'd consider them in the clear. But youtube has successfully suppressed any serious competition, and as a result I consider them to have the same responsibilities as a public utility. They're the USPS of video now. If they're going to have no competitors, they also shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily cut anyone off from their service.

simias3• 8 years ago

Are you seriously framing the discussion as "people who think ill of Youtube's monetization scheme are shooter apologists"? I didn't think so reading this comment but you seem to imply than in all your replies in this thread. That's such a ridiculous strawman that I don't even know where to begin.

That being said I agree with your non-crazy point about how video uploaders shouldn't feel entitled to a share of the cake in the first place. If your business model is entirely based on some multinational corporation giving you scraps of their ad revenue then you better have a backup plan ready. Unfortunately the people who do that seem to be very young and probably don't plan that far ahead.

jacquesm33• 8 years ago

Are you seriously framing the discussion as "people who think ill of Youtube's monetization scheme are shooter apologists"?

No, but there are such 'shooter apologists' in this thread.

Read the whole of it, at least one person writes that they feel that it was only a matter of time before someone brought a gun to a dispute like this.

_dps• 8 years ago

"Demonetized" is exactly the term used both by Youtube creators and by Youtube representatives for this phenomenon for as long as it has been around.

Youtube first made the pitch that you could "monetize" your videos. Then they had to deny that offer to certain cases. This naturally led to "demonetized" (as opposed to some awkward phrase like "ineligible for monetization").

The word is reasonable in context, and the usage ship has sailed — all market participants use it. I think it's a big stretch to see any presumption of a right in the use of this word.

DanAndersen7• 8 years ago

I feel like there are a lot of parallels between these "private" web services that are extremely dominant, and the "company towns" of previous decades/centuries. Workers didn't have a right to dictate what the town could and couldn't do, and if they were fired or felt they weren't getting enough pay they could always pack up and move to a new town or found their own city with their own money like a good bootstrappy entrepreneur... right?

For some people in the new gig economy of attention/viewfarming, they've found themselves dependent on a particular 'company town' online service. I'm not so much of an anarcho-capitalist that I find this situation hunky-dory.

jacquesm33• 8 years ago

That's an interesting parallel worth researching further.

kamaal3• 8 years ago

>That's bonkers, it's already quite a service that Youtube allows you to upload your videos to reach an audience that you'd be hard pressed to serve from your own server.

And discoverability.

A whole generation of stand up comedians, music instrument players and other people have been able to reach people easily and then make careers on top of it all because one easily discovers content on YouTube.

YouTube to me is to get your content some mindshare in the crowds. How you build your career from there should be up-to you.

jacquesm33• 8 years ago

Yes, that's a very important part here. But that audience isn't 'yours', the content is yours, and if you drive any measurable new traffic to Youtube (which would be quite hard) then maybe you could lay a claim to that fraction of the audience. But on the whole Youtube functions as a cable network with a huge number of eyeballs on the other side and they (not you) control that network and they will protect the network at the expense of the individual content generators (as they should).

It's pretty easy to get sucked in to the illusion that Youtube needs the content generators more than vice-versa but Youtube is drowning in content, a lifetime worth of new content is uploaded every day so they have the freedom to pick-and-choose at their pleasure and if you want access to those eyeballs then you are playing their game.

dragonwriter• 8 years ago

'De-Monetized' suggests that someone who produces a video has an automatic right to income.

No, it doesn't: it suggests, accurately, that without and until that action, the content would be permitted to be enrolled in some income-generating program. Whether this is a matter of natural or legal rights or (as is in fact the case) merely the discretionary policy of the program operator is outside the scope of the implication of the term.

stareatgoats2• 8 years ago

Funny how a very complex situation can be synthesized into a single perspective. Is this heading what will become the lasting impression of this tragedy?

I can imagine a few other possible and maybe more valid interpretations, none of them exclusive though. (I don't have all the facts so this list should probably balloon, or have items removed as facts unfold):

An example of how some people are so triggered by advocacy groups (in this case PETA) that it just takes a slight economic misfortune to bring out the guns?

An example of how when the shooter is a woman she is not really demonized the way guys are (even when being an immigrant)?

An example of immigrants in the US being pushed over the edge in view of current anti-immigrant policies?

An example of how the mentally unstable have ready access to guns in the US?

An example of how the final solution to personal insignificance in the US is to shoot innocents? The media will oblige with full page analysis of you, your childhood, family and neighborhood and make sure you are granted long lasting and global fame.

There are surely many more that has to be part of the full narrative. That last one is often forgotten though.

spraak2• 8 years ago

Are you just extrapolating assumptions here? Because you're saying a lot that hasn't been said.

E.g.

An example of how some people are so triggered by advocacy groups (in this case PETA) that it just takes a slight economic misfortune to bring out the guns?

They said she was a vegan activist [1], not part of PETA.

An example of how when the shooter is a woman she is not really demonized the way guys are (even when being an immigrant)?

Where did it say she's an immigrant? Her parents maybe.

[1] I really hope the media doesn't spin the vegan part.

stareatgoats2• 8 years ago

Yes, those are just assumptions more or less, although I'm guessing all those points could be valid aspects of the narrative. Primarily it's just annoying that a complex situation is condensed down to "it's because her videos were 'de-monetized'".

It seems you take offense with me singling out the PETA connection however. But it was just an example of how certain advocacy groups are not afraid to stir up hate, PETA is not alone there. I honestly do think it needs to be included in the analysis of these shootings however, but as I said in the original post, not as a single explaining factor and finally; not sure at this point if it is really applicable here.

morley3• 8 years ago

I'm really surprised at how many of these HN comments are so sympathetic to this murderer's cause. To me, this illustrates how dangerous this type of reporting is, this media obsession with the perpetrators of mass shooting. This is the problem that I feel utterly powerless against. You can make more mental health programs, pass more gun control legislation, pay more for security, but what can you do when the culture around you lionizes these sorts of people?

walshemj2• 8 years ago

probably shows how concerned people are getting about the monopoly power a tiny number of companies.

arkades2• 8 years ago

I largely agree with you.

But, about 1% of me, can't help but note that... well, I think there's a reason for people's tendency to give the perpetrator some sympathy. The thing is, we abstract this away into things like "it's not censorship if a private organization declines to monetize the content you freely publish with them," but... let's be clear about what happens here, at the granular ground level:

1) Company creates a space for people to do work that pays their bills. This is for company's benefit as much as theirs. 2) People do that work, pay their bills. Mutual joy. 3) Company suddenly, and apparently arbitrarily, and without adequate communication, yanks people's ability to pay their bills away from them

Most people that suddenly and apparently arbitrarily go from "paying my bills" to "holy fuck not paying my bills" flip the hell out. It's like a lay-off, but even more inscrutable and un-appealable.

Whatever abstraction is laid upon this at the 10k-foot view, I think people are sympathetic to the fact that YT basically did a really shitty thing to a lot of people (or maybe did a totally not shitty thing in a really shitty way). And, if you do something really shitty to a large number of people, yeah, you run the risk of having done something really shitty to a nutjob. The nutjob isn't a black swan, though: they're an extreme version of the response that a lot of people are having.

So, yes, "organization that did really shitty thing to a lot of people accidentally included violent nutjob on list of shit-receivers," doesn't really merit any lionization of the nutjob, but it's hard to ignore the "really shitty thing" aspect of it. Because it's not a black swan - it's just a (much more) extreme version of the same feelings we'd have if we were in their shoes.

MrMetlHed• 8 years ago

This is basically how I see it, and it's probably going to be worse the more we get into whatever this "gig job" world we are entering is. Uber reduces payouts to enough drivers, or goes all in on self-driving cars? One of them is probably going to be an extremely unwell gun-owner that's suddenly broke and hopeless. This is part of humanity that can't be explained away with "You should have known it wasn't a REAL job (but please make content for us / drive for us anyway)!"

morley3• 8 years ago

The nutjob isn't a black swan, though: they're an extreme version of the response that a lot of people are having.

I appreciate you laying out your thoughts, but I vehemently disagree with this idea. Like all terrorists, the shooter's actions were grossly disproportionate to their cause. A lot of people were affected by Youtube demonetization, but only one of them chose to perpetrate a violent act in response to it. That's the very definition of a black swan.

The thesis if my main comment is that media coverage that focuses on these shooters (a) makes it seem more common, and (b) legitimizes either their actions or their cause, which causes (c) more people to perpetrate mass shootings in the future.

I'm not saying that Youtube handles demonetization in the best way possible. I'm saying that taking a gun to the problem is completely off the wall, and that this sort of media coverage just adds fuel to the fire. And that the media coverage is just a mirror to the values of our society. And that I'm frustrated by this sort of reaction, and don't have any recourse other than to point out that there's another way to react.

ensignro234010• 8 years ago

I’ve been getting increasingly more annoyed by the entitlement some YouTube creators have shown towards Adsense dollars. And I’m perplexed at some of the comments on this story (“YouTube was her main source of income”). Yeah, she hedged her bet and put all her content on a platform she didn’t own or control, then thought it’d be a good idea to be financially dependent on them facilitating ad deals for her. Many of ya favorite youtubers complain about demonetization - I get it sucks and cuts out cashflow they were expecting but they’re not entitled to money from advertisers. This is like me demanding Facebook pay me for allowing me to put up a profile and running ads in my friends’ newsfeeds. That’s not how the real world works, kiddo. I think way back when YouTube opened up their “partner” program - that was their big mistake. It allowed far too many people to start viewing Adsense $ as earned income.

INTPenis6• 8 years ago

Americans in the comment section are reacting about this woman being a disgruntled user, angry about perceived discrimination from Youtube, down on her luck, suicidal.

Me, a european, I'm reacting to how easily she found a gun.

I hate to bring up this very toxic debate, my comment will seem like fishing for trouble.

Yet you have to understand our perspective. Not every lunatic where I live can find a gun when they need one so to me it's clear as day that the issue is the availability of firearms.

There are always going to be disgruntled or unbalanced people but they can't be allowed to find a deadly firearm as easy as it is in the US.

post_break2• 8 years ago

If it wasn't a gun it could have been a knife. Or like the epidemic over seas, a bunch of acid thrown on peoples faces. We don't know how she got the gun, but in America, if you have no criminal background, haven't done anything crazy, and they do a background check, you can purchase a weapon. You can't ban crazy, and until we have some way of seeing into the future, you can't stop all crimes. Also, our gun ownership in America has absolutely exploded. Like doubled. And have shootings and killings doubled? Nope.

mrtksn2• 8 years ago

Do you have examples of mass acid attacks, mass stabbing attacks in Europe? Maybe we can do a quick sanity check for the hypothesis about lunatics using knives and acids when guns are not available?

Sure, there were some jihadist attacks but these are institutional attacks, I can't really recall having any angry person going on a rampage. In Europe, the act of an angry or crazy person will probably result in a break down in tears...

I'm not anti-gun, in fact when I was a kid I loved shooting with airguns and I bet it's a great hobby to shoot real guns but the European approach seems to be working.

Anyway, can you prove that my perception is wrong and in reality, people use knives and acid when guns are not readily available?

INTPenis6• 8 years ago

I can't comment on the acid attacks, I doubt they're common.

But the knife vs gun argument is also very clear cut to me. It takes very little effort or training to point a barrel and pull a trigger from across several meters or a courtyard.

While a knife is actually not so easy to get into an expecting person. The knife would be most effective against unsuspecting persons but once a struggle breaks out it's down to physical strength and training.

The knife vs gun thing hits close to home too because one of the very few school rampages performed here by an unbalanced student was actually performed with a sword because that's the only weapon the student was able to put their hands on. Despite being relatively far north in the country where there are more people with hunting licenses.

And sure enough I believe they did manage to murder at least one person, it was a teacher or a teacher's aide who defended the other students. But that's where it ended. It requires significant strength and training to go on a killing spree with melee weapons, compared to firearms.

sergiotapia• 8 years ago

In every thread - every single thread - there's some euro guy with this exact comment verbatim. Line for line, word for word.

Mithaldu6• 8 years ago

That's because we euro tech people keep being invited by americans we know and/or work with to "come to the usa, it's great working here". And then we see stuff like this.

INTPenis6• 8 years ago

I know! I know! That's how stupid I felt writing the comment but I still had to say it because it's just that obvious to me.

And every single time people counter with the same arguments.

Background checks.

Knives.

Statistics.

bo1024• 8 years ago

I would be really interested to see statistics about this. I hypothesize that the prevalence of "violent lunatics" is a bigger factor than availability of weapons, i.e. that the US just has more of these people than other places due to something in the media and culture.

In other words, if availability of guns were really the most important factor, then wouldn't we expect Europe to have a similar number of attacks but conducted with knives, cars, etc? Do you think there are a number of europeans out there with the desire to commit these acts, and would do so if they only could get a gun more easily? I'm skeptical.

That isn't to say I think gun control would hurt, just that I see a deeper problem it wouldn't solve.

yashap• 8 years ago

IMO it’s both - America has a lot of violent lunatics, and extremely available guns, which exacerbates the issue. If your society has few violent lunatics, you can probably handle available guns with few additional deaths, but this is clearly not the case in America, where guns are used by psychopaths to kill other Americans at an exceptionally high rate for a developed nation.

Largely removing violent lunatics from society is a way tougher problem than largely removing guns - there are good blueprints to follow re: removing guns, like Australia and the UK. The big impediment here is that guns are deeply engrained in American culture, plus an amendment to the constitution from the late 1700s that is arguably very out of date today. I do understand why America won’t ban or heavily restrict guns, but I strongly disagree with it, and find it sad that Americans are willing to let so many innocents die out of a mix of “don’t take my toys” and “anti-government paranoia.”

reitanqild• 8 years ago

In other words, if availability of guns were really the most important factor, then wouldn't we expect Europe to have a similar number of attacks but conducted with knives, cars, etc?

Depending on how you count, here's some support for this (argument against at the end):

A number of European countries has or has had large numbers of actual assault rifles (not the semi automatic ones that are legal in USA) distributed in the population.

Switzerland, Austria and Norway are three countries I know have or have had this.

Neither has had this school/church/mall shooting thing that USA has.

On the other hand these weapons weren't sold, they were distributed only after mandatory training.

Faark• 8 years ago

There probably has a huge cultural factor that people think at first of a gun as solution to their problem. Why not a bomb? Or poison? Or car? Burn down target property? So much options, but US culture seems to strongly favor guns. There is more than just availability. Glorification of guns (and solving problems using them) in US media might play a huge influence, and as a leading cultural influence might lead to similar problems else were in the world. But yeah, I'd love to see real studies about that. But those won't be easy, including the funding part...

neuland• 8 years ago

I haven't seen any of the shooter's videos. But from what I've heard, most people were characterizing them as "weird" and not a rock-solid case that the is a danger to herself or others.

Given that, it sounds like very little would be able to prevent her from obtaining a firearm. She could likely walk right into a gun shop and pass a background check. As far as I know, she hasn't had a domestic violence conviction, involuntary commitment to a mental health facility, or anything else that would disqualify her from buying a gun legally.

Now, you may think that this is an issue in and of itself. But at least in the US, the right to bear arms is a natural right of the individual. It's protected by the constitution. And, there needs to be due process if you want to deny someone of their rights.

ma2rten• 8 years ago

I haven't thought about this before, but there is something about shooting someone with a gun that's more impersonal than stabbing someone.

I am pretty sure I would never do something like this woman did, but if I was really angry at an organization I would see myself more likely to go to their headquarters and shoot everyone than go to stab everyone there.

openasocket• 8 years ago

There's certainly some arguments to be made in that vein. A stabbing is much more visceral and requires you to really commit to it, while pulling a trigger is simpler and farther removed from the violence of the act. There's also something to be said for training. Most people who own guns spend time shooting them, either through hunting or at a gun range, and so they know how to aim and shoot. And all that practice and repetition might make that action seem more "natural," they don't have to think as much about what they are doing. In contrast, very few people practice stabbing. As a caveat, though, FBI studies on the performance of their agents in the field have shown that proficiency on the shooting range is not really correlated with proficiency in (for lack of a better word) combat with firearms.

It should also be noted that while this may be the case for spree killings or maybe muggings gone wrong, it isn't necessarily the case for domestic homicide. Domestic violence incidents are characterized by great rage and aggression. Domestic homicide is often preceded by beatings and abuse. I don't really have any statistics or expertise here, but I feel like the sort of person who beats their spouse and is willing to kill their spouse with a gun isn't above killing their spouse with a knife, especially when the violence is happening in a fit of rage.

smoothgrips2• 8 years ago

Not every lunatic where I live can find a gun when they need one

While I agree it is more difficult to find a gun in Europe than in America, that doesn't mean that a lunatic _can't_ get a gun. Guns exist in EU countries that have very strict gun laws. If said lunatic was determined enough, they _will_ get their hands on one.

Despite these strict laws, France seems to be awash with guns.
In 2012, French authorities estimated that there were around 30,000 guns illegally in the country, many likely used by gangs for criminal activities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/11/16...

Firearms in Europe _are_ available, they're just harder to find. But I believe that if someone is determined enough, they'll find them, and use them.

Places like England, and Whales, which have very strict gun laws in comparison with places like the US, still suffer from gun related homicides all the time.

gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year. [...] Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed. [...] Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362. [...] It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soa...

peteey• 8 years ago

There is merit to making guns harder to find.

A crime motivated by anger might not happen if a few days pass while searching for a weapon. Passion fades with time

Effort is also a factor. Most people I have worked with will completely fail at a task if it requires them to get up from their desk and talk to someone. Finding a gun on the black market seems significantly harder than a shopping trip to Walmart

INTPenis6• 8 years ago

Your arguments are pretty hollow to me.

Comparing your proposed 30000 guns in France with more guns than inhabitants in the US.

Yes people get guns here in Sweden. You see it on the news almost weekly sometimes how gang members shoot each other. Smuggled weapons or imported plugged weapons that have been modified into live firearm.

This argument still does not negate the fact that it's much harder to get your hands on a working firearm. And that makes all the difference in crimes of passion.

forgottenpass• 8 years ago

There are always going to be disgruntled or unbalanced people

Well, yes, of course. But their overall number and the number willing to pick up arms are not immutable.

And americans are even less likley to do anything about that than they are gun ownership.

We've been taught not to focus on the fact we do basically zero for people in distress beyond making sure they don't kill themselves. Or try and understanding how and why society puts people into mental states such that they think violent outbursts are their only recourse. We've been taught to focus on guns. Not for it's utility in fixing the root cause, or proximate cause. We fixate on a "but for" cause, which also happens to be an entrenched political issue that makes for clickable coverage.

And once guns are banned, will we have our European friends smugly rolling their eyes that we obviously need to institute background checks to buy fertilizer from farm supply stores? And ought to abridge another right of Americans so we can finally scrub the Anarchist's Cookbook from the internet?

jokoon• 8 years ago

If monopolies are allowed, the bigger a company is, the increased responsibility it should have. Many of large IT companies deliver free products and services, yet they still make the rules because they are in a monopoly nobody can compete with, because they give it for free.

Since it's not their data, they should have tougher restrictions the more data they handle.

It's weird because those online platform are thriving thanks to the ideal of free speech, but they are not public entities so free speech doesn't apply to them. It is very frustrating to see private interests seize the tools people use to express themselves.

As long as online data rests on private servers which are tied to lucrative interests, the internet will not be a platform where you can freely express yourself.

I have always thought that the whole online advertisement model is unhealthy and not a good system to make the internet cheaper for consumers. Ad blockers are a proof of this. If tomorrow firefox or any browser decide to not display ads and consumers go along with it, it would create a big mess.

pitaj• 8 years ago

I am off the opinion that it is precisely because of the backwards copyright policies, namely the DMCA, that YouTube ever became a monopolistic force on the internet.

zelon88• 8 years ago

To be fair, it is bullshit that they demonetized peoples accounts without paying them out.

Most small YouTubers that monetized their accounts have no other revenue streams with adSense. So when YouTube cancelled their YouTube Partner Program these people wound up with stagnant adSense accounts that were probably below the payout threshold. I tried in vain to get YT to pay out my adSense account because there would be no way for me to ever hit the payout threshold. I tried to explain that there is no difference between holding my money in escrow forever and stealing my money, but the YT reps (who were very unhelpful when I asked for resources to cancel YT Red) largely blew me off and insisted that the money was mine without recognizing that they would never let it out of their possession.

It really was a sly trick and not at all in keeping with the "Don't be evil" mantra.

_bxg13• 8 years ago

No sane person would argue that what she did was okay.

With that disclaimer, I can't help but feel sorry for her. In the unregulated gig/"creator" economy, someone's entire career - not just their livelihood but their life's work - can be wiped out in an instant. In her case it doesn't even sound like it was intentional. An algorithmic blip. That kind of hopeless, pointless loss would make anybody's mental health take a nosedive.

It's time the government stops treating the tech giants as neutral, private platforms, and acknowledges how big the pieces of society are which they underpin.

pg_bot• 8 years ago

Explain what you mean by your last sentence.

_bxg13• 8 years ago

I'm no expert in these matters so I'm not very qualified to give specifics, but roughly:

1) Something modelled after employment regulation to protect people whose full-time income comes from these platforms. There are tons of rules designed to protect employees which services like YouTube and Uber have been dodging (and actively fighting) for years.

2) Something like common-carrier status to protect the users of the most critical platforms (Google search, Facebook, etc.).

panzagl• 8 years ago

So what exactly is the difference between a disgruntled youtuber and a coal miner fighting Pinkertons trying to break their strike? While I'm being facetious, the attitude of 'Oh well, they took away your livelihood sucks to be you' in this thread is kind of how US labor rights have been eroded for the last 40 years.

throw2016• 8 years ago

This is a weird event, a tragedy even that perhaps could have been averted if someone had spoken to her and calmed her down.

But perhaps even then the outcome would have been the same. We can't know. And so must put this down to an individual failing and resist the temptation to seek answers in something larger.

No one can deny there is anger and frustration but the sheer scale and volume of content being uploaded hourly means it's simply not viable or even possible for humans to vet with proper support mechanisms, and automated systems are a big hammer that will inevitably leave people feeling helpless and dehumanized.

ekianjo3• 8 years ago

Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital

not on topic, but did not know that the hospital changed name after Zuckerberg made a donation.

bsenftner3• 8 years ago

People need to realize that YouTube and all social media are "person farms" that use the public to create their platform's attractiveness and value. The only purpose of you being on social media is to generate money for the platform, through any means the company can devise with the information you (un)knowingly give them for free.

Any platform claiming to pay you (real money or virtual currencies or "likes/points/karma") for activities on their site are creating dependent persons, and for those with less (less economic opportunity, less experience, and less experience with fraud) become unnaturally dependent upon these platforms. It is a shameful scam that moral persons should recognize on sight and shun. But our lack of critical thought today has people wholly unaware of these predators in our society, and the dependent persons they are collecting as economically disadvantaged and unaware slaves.

nearmuse• 8 years ago

This reminds me of the moment in the earlier years of YT when I realized that production of a lot of the content there I would not even care to scoff at is a real job for those people and "youtuber" is actually their full time job. Now it is a given obviously.

patientplatypus• 8 years ago

Well...

My opinion is going to be unpopular, but...frankly I empathize with the woman. YouTube controls the entire streaming market and there are no legal controls in place to treat their streamers like employees - they're contractors so YouTube can skirt employment laws. Same way Silicon Valley has been making money for years with things like Task Rabbit and Uber - they're not being innovative they're breaking the social contract for profit.

And what's the alternative here, other than violence? SV has successfully shown that they can make products that find loopholes in laws faster than laws can be made, and frankly, our political system is broken. I'm not saying the woman was rational in what she did...probably she was acting out of sadness and despair. However, it's not like there exists a rational way of fixing the kinds of problems she has. Like, what is she going to do, sue for lost income? Appeal to the labor relations board? This is what happens when we don't look out for the despairing - they shoot up schools and workplaces.

alexburciu• 8 years ago

AI kills again.

analognoise4• 8 years ago

If you were silly enough to go "all in" on being a "pro YouTuber" and it failed, do what other businesses do: stop crying, move on.

Nobody cares about your need for a platform - nobody owes you a platform for your videos. Can't make a living at it? Get a real job. I can't believe how ridiculous and entitled a lot of these comments are.

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

Related Stories