
Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Been 'De-Monetized' - uptown
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/03/599261148/active-shooter-reported-at-youtube-hq-in-san-bruno-calif
======
detaro
earlier:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16751608](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16751608)

------
sqdbps
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.

~~~
Klathmon
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.

~~~
leshow
> 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?

~~~
Kylekramer
Happens on TV relatively often. Bill O'Reilly got the boot because advertisers
pulled their ads after he got caught up in sexual harassment claims.

TV just has also built up years of trust with advertisers and have legal
departments reviewing all their content while YouTube was throwing up ads in
front of ISIS recruitment videos.

~~~
leshow
You're probably right, I don't watch cable TV so it was a poor comparison.

Nobody is complaining that ISIS is losing their youtube ad revenue stream,
that's a strawman argument. ISIS recruitment videos violate youtube's
guidelines so they'd just be taken down, that's not what we're talking about
here. What's actually happening is videos that have a dissenting or unpopular
viewpoint have their ads removed, with a lot of harmless content caught in the
crossfire due to the indiscriminate nature of youtube's algorithms.

------
mschuster91
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.

~~~
isseu
The problem is not Youtube support ...

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

------
alex_young
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
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.

------
jokoon
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
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.

------
morley
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?

~~~
arkades
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.

~~~
morley
> 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.

------
ensignro2340
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.

------
_bxg1
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
Explain what you mean by your last sentence.

~~~
_bxg1
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.).

~~~
_bxg1
Regulation comes in when it's necessary to acknowledge, as a society, that the
natural forces at play (from the market or otherwise) in some context aren't
enough to guard against sufficiently large risks to society's members or
ability to function. It has less to do with the nature of the thing being
regulated and more to do with the impact it has/can have on society.

With that perspective in mind, these platforms have (intentionally) maneuvered
themselves into a position where millions or billions of people depend on them
for some combination of livelihood and/or basic connection with the world
around them. That is what makes them good candidates for regulation.

------
simonsarris
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Revolution#Mohamed_Bouazizi_and_Sidi_Bouzid)

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.

~~~
morley
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
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.)

------
elvinyung
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...](https://datasociety.net/events/databite-no-105-k-sabeel-rahman/)

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

------
alehul
> "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.

~~~
jacquesm
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.

~~~
salgernon
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.

~~~
jacquesm
That's about the best possible outcome.

Unfortunately there are also plenty of counter examples where law enforcement
was alerted and nothing happened.

------
zelon88
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.

------
jacquesm
'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.

~~~
_delirium
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).

~~~
jacquesm
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.

~~~
emodendroket
I want to see what the reaction here would look like if instead AWS we
dropping a bunch of customers with no warning.

~~~
jacquesm
Hopefully it would simply mean more customers for other hosting centers. If
you feel that people should take up arms against AWS employees in that case
then you have other problems.

Business disputes are as old as businesses and we have ways to resolve those
disputes: the courts.

And be sure to read the fine print of any service or company that you are
going to do business with if your business will be dependent on that other
party. Avoid such dependencies as much as possible.

So yes, signing up with AWS is a calculated risk. You should know the possible
downsides of that decision, and you should be aware of your position, rights
and obligations as well as the terms of service.

~~~
emodendroket
Migrating off of AWS is a difficult, drawn-out process which can take months,
if you've got a lot of stuff there or are using a lot of AWS-specific
features. That's part of why I chose that example. A lot of businesses a lot
of people here work for would be in quite difficult straits if that happened.

~~~
fixermark
... but the fact remains: AWS is a service provided by a private corporation,
not the government. There's no requirement or mandate in criminal law that it
exist or continue to function. It could be dropped without warning at any
time, and the only recourse customers would have is whatever contracts provide
for them. This isn't something Amazon would do, because "Leaving millions of
dollars of revenue on the table" isn't in their best interest. But if it ever
becomes in their best interest? Nothing but civil contracts stopping them.

Most of society actually works like this, and we somehow manage to muddle
through without shooting each other most of the time.

~~~
emodendroket
Well, again, I'm not advocating murder. But cris de coueur about changes to
services like AWS or the App Store get plenty of upvotes and attention here,
while the attitude toward people trying to make a living off of YouTube is
different. Why?

------
analognoise
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.

------
arenaninja
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

~~~
wccrawford
I think you man "wary".

~~~
sidyapa
I think you meant "meant".

~~~
wccrawford
Haha. Wow. Yeah, I meant "mean". Ouch.

------
stareatgoats
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.

~~~
spraak
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.

~~~
stareatgoats
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.

~~~
spraak
OK, I understand you more now, and I agree it seems more complex than just
being angry about de-monetization. However I don't think it's specifically
helpful to imaginatively enumerate what the other underlying reasons are. And
finally no, I don't care about PETA. I am personally a vegan and get annoyed
when all vegans are seen as one, crazy group, but no, I have no connection to
PETA.

------
patientplatypus
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.

------
bsenftner
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.

------
panzagl
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
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.

------
INTPenis
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.

~~~
bo1024
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
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.”

------
nearmuse
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.

------
ekianjo
> Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital

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

------
alexburciu
AI kills again.

------
trisimix
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.

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

------
wehadfun
Zucerberg Hospital

[http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-general-
hospita...](http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-general-hospital-
will-be-named-after-mark-zuckerberg-2015-2)

------
mtgx
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.

~~~
ensignro2340
“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

