
YouTube Suspect Was Popular and Ridiculed in Iran - mistersquid
https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/middleeast/100000005833316/youtube-shooter-was-popular-and-ridiculed-in-iran.html
======
danielvf
Wow - It’s an amazing omission how the end of this article skips over any kind
of attack on YouTube employees.

> “Then, just after noon, she parked her car at a business near YouTube’s
> offices. She walked into one of YouTube’s parking garages, and then emerged
> into an outdoor courtyard where employees were eating lunch.”

> ”Emergency officials arrived at YouTube’s offices two minutes after the
> police first received 911 calls about shots being fired. When they arrived,
> they found Ms. Aghdam dead. A 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun, registered
> in her name, was found at the scene.”

> “By Tuesday night, YouTube, as well as Instagram and Facebook, had taken
> down her pages and videos...“

~~~
danso
When I saw it earlier today, the video accompanied a longer story about the
shooter and what she did:
[https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-
aghda...](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghdam-
youtube-shooter.html)

------
mistersquid
This video is also featured in the article "‘Vegan Bodybuilder’: How YouTube
Attacker, Nasim Aghdam, Went Viral in Iran" [0] which I came across after
submitting story.

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-
aghdam-y...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghdam-
youtube-shooter.html)

------
meric
> By Tuesday night, YouTube, as well as Instagram and Facebook, had taken down
> her pages and videos.

Her videos seemed quite harmless - home exercise, veganism, animals.

I don't understand the motive for YouTube to take down her remaining videos.

~~~
sushid
Are you serious? Maybe YouTube isn't so keen on hosting videos of attempted
mass murders. Doubly so if the person attacks their employees.

Don't conflate social media site hosting policies with the first amendment.

~~~
meric
Her livelihood was destroyed by a YouTube algorithm change and she couldn't
handle it emotionally, and attacked YouTube headquarters, as a result YouTube
takes down her remaining home exercise and vegan videos.

It doesn't need to be said that she is in the wrong, there's no excuse, no
defence that can be offered - but I said it anyway in case you misunderstand
me in my next statement:

Tech companies and employees and the people who use their products live in the
same world. Even if there is no legal or financial responsibility between
ourselves and others, it doesn't mean we can forget about the fact that we all
live on the same planet. Whenever we are thinking about making a change in the
code, we have a responsibility to be empathetic and also think about its
effects on other members of the same society we all belong to.

------
pvelagal
I am not sure if this incident would/should cause any review/discussion of
youtube's or any site's policies relying mostly on user generated content ?

Should there be a broad industry standard / governing body / laws to make sure
attackers don't go crazy after innocent employees ?

~~~
apotheothesomai
What would be effective is a real-life way for families or friends of a
mentally ill and possibly violent adult to have some useful recourse.

Banning her videos wouldn't have made her less violent, and a tech company
wouldn't have any resources beyond what her family had. The problem wasn't the
effect her videos had on other people.

In the U.S., it's already illegal to threaten violence against others.
"Conspiracy to commit" charges and "terroristic threats," for example.

Select illustrative incidents:

Florida night club shooter - mentally ill and violent in word and deed - his
dad warned the FBI and police and asked for help.

Florida school shooter - mentally ill, violent in word and deed, multiple
instances of minor run ins with the law - family and friends warned the FBI
and police.

This woman - mentally ill and voicing intent for violence - family warned Law
Enforcement and tried to get help.

~~~
pvelagal
I am not sure why i got down voted, but I was wondering if it is possible to
isolate policy + enforcement of policies by the industry, through an
independent body (say w3.org) over all, instead of individual companies. This
will make sure that the policy is uniform no matter where the content gets
posted, be it youtube or face book or any site. Think about movie ratings by
Motion picture association. If a movie is rated R, it is R no matter where you
watch it, be it netflix or any movie theater.

~~~
supreme_sublime
I believe that different countries have different ratings systems. This is
part of the problem as well. Germany for instance has recently crafted laws to
try to financially punish companies for content on their site that is deemed
"hate speech". [0]

Should this "universal" body be established country by country?

Should laws in Germany affect what people in the US can see?

What about competitors who want to have different policies in an attempt to
give themselves a competitive advantage?

Personally I'm not a fan of the direction the major tech companies have gone
with free speech, but I hope and believe that ultimately these principles will
win out. However, when a man is convicted by the UK government of committing
"gross offense" by recording a joke video of his pug responding to Nazi
references; the situation seems a bit more dire. [1]

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/17/german-
of...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/17/german-officials-
say-facebook-is-doing-too-little-to-stop-hate-speech)

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_QlnY8Ggg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_QlnY8Ggg)

