America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by DrMaddVibe. 83 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Shooting@youtube hq...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
female shooter, apparently has a youtube channel and was struggling with the demonitization of some of her content... committed suicide after shooting 3...
Burner02 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,861
You banning females or guns?
Thunder.Gerbil Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 11-02-2006
Posts: 121,359
Armed teachers at youtube could have prevented this.
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
I heard Leo DeCrapio played a chick shooting up the You-tube headquarters in a movie once... Mellow
Thunder.Gerbil Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 11-02-2006
Posts: 121,359
DrafterX wrote:
I heard Leo DeCrapio played a chick shooting up the You-tube headquarters in a movie once... Mellow


Did he learn how to use guns from youtube videos?
Mrs. dpnewell Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 08-23-2014
Posts: 1,373
The female suspect in Tuesday's shooting at YouTube's headquarters appeared to have an active presence online. YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook accounts connected to the woman featured a wide range of content — from dancing to fitness tips, and commentary on veganism.
San Bruno police identified the suspected shooter as Nasim Aghdam, 39, on Tuesday night.
The woman had expressed some heavy criticism for YouTube's move to demonetize certain channels. She took issue specifically with what she believed to be a targeted reduction in viewership on her videos.
Aghdam also engaged in some political speech.
"BE AWARE! Dictatorship exists in all countries but with different tactics!," a website that appeared to be linked to Aghdam read.
Her alleged Instagram account had over 16,000 followers before it was shut down.
In one missive about YouTube's move to demonetize certain channels, Aghdam said: "There is no equal growth opportunity on YOUTUBE or any other video sharing site, your channel will grow if they want to!!!!!"
Aghdam, a resident of San Diego, reportedly drove from Southern California to San Bruno days before the shooting, the local news station KRON-4 reported.
She is believed to have used a handgun to shoot three people before fatally shooting herself.
A fourth person sustained injuries that were not gun-related.
Investigators earlier on Tuesday said they believed the shooting was connected to a domestic dispute between the woman and her boyfriend, who works at YouTube, a law-enforcement source told Business Insider. The source said authorities do not believe the woman was connected to international terrorism in any way.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/04/04/the-woman-who-opened-fire-at-youtubes-offices-heavily-criticized-the-video-platform-online/23402525/


David (dpnewell)

DrafterX Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
Pretty sure he never learned to shoot... He just learned how to make funny faces in front of da camera.. Mellow
jjanecka Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
At least she kinda went for the people that are partly to blame.
ZRX1200 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
MK Ultra.
Gene363 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
A vegan terrorest.

YouTube and others have done their best to eraser her content, but this is her web cache:

https://everipedia.org/wiki/nasim-aghdam/



jjanecka Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 12-08-2015
Posts: 4,334
So what really caused her to shoot em up? Did a deal go South?
dstieger Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
I was oblivious to the whole demonitization thing until a few months ago. New (to me) generation of content 'creators' and providers have been extremely upset by YT policies and 'censorship'. I was reading from hunters and other gun-related sport enthusiasts who were livid. Makes for some interesting free speech arguments. I came from a FOG angle with little understanding of any of it, but figured that YT is a private company that can freely choose what to promote (and delete.) But, I get that the near-monopoly of YT (and all of Google) makes them a target for free speech protections. If YT is really the only viable pipeline, maybe its more of a utility subject to govt oversight, or 'gasp', even regulation. Is it OK for the YT snowflake employee of the week having a bad day to put in an algorithm that removes all ads from, or censure every homemade vid with a Glock in it? I'm borrowing TW's fencepost for now
victor809 Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Not the only ones tho...
There's twitch... I think there's a 3rd as well.

And monetization isn't necessarily the same as a platform. I think her issue was she wasn't getting the ad revenue she had gotten before...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Vimeo i think... neither they nor twitch can do what YouTube does though, especially in terms of ad revenue...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Honestly, what YouTube is doing sucks... they have a very obvious left- leaning bias (although for the life of me i can't figure out why fishing is considered right wing)...

what really started it all is when users started noticing the "trending" section clearly didn't line up with what was actually being most viewed... it was all just promotion of heavily produced content - like John Oliver and Ellen - and promotion of left wing causes.... videos featuring people like Jordan Peterson were being systematically hidden and demonitized.... anything with Sam Harris mentioning Muslims was labeled hate speech...

I get that YouTube is a private company and can do what they want... eventually they'll lose out to a competitor but it'll take awhile... not sure what's stopping/ What it would take to start strictly outdoors video platform... when it does show up it'll be a huge success...
Gene363 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
YouTube is ubiquitous in the video delivery rely, IMO, their service is like a power or water utility. That said, some sort of content limitation is almost unavoidable.

As for YouTube screwing over content providers, they are. Content providers were getting paid, some modestly, other very popular providers were getting very large checks. YouTube, in order to improve their bottom line, has figured out a way to cut those payments while retaining the content and collecting advertiser income. This is especially clear when a video is immediately demonetized during the first few days of introduction. The first few days are the time new videos garner the most views. The provider can appeal, get the video remonetized but it's too late for the initial release rush of views. Meanwhile YouTube is running adds on the video from the start and keeping the income.
victor809 Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Still a private company. If you have a problem with how they are paying their providers.. or what content they provide... then start a new video sharing service where you pay the providers better and don't censor them....

I find it amazing how quickly some here will complain about the free market.
Gene363 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
victor809 wrote:
Still a private company. If you have a problem with how they are paying their providers.. or what content they provide... then start a new video sharing service where you pay the providers better and don't censor them....

I find it amazing how quickly some here will complain about the free market.


I'ma buy your water company and refuse you service.

About like trying to start your own automobile company. The bandwidth and server capacity to do even a fraction of what YT does would cost several tons of ca$h.
victor809 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Mmhmm... so?
If you don't like any of the current models of cars are you going to demand that the current auto manufacturers be forced to make a model you like at a price you want?

Posting your videos online is far from a "necessity". It isn't even "news"... if you are looking at it as a source of revenue then you sure as hell better have alternative content delivery plans as part of your business model.
victor809 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
And it would barely cost you any money to put whatever videos you want online. Start a website and load them. Just a couple hundred bucks and you own everythng

What people want is for their videos to be easily found by people searching IN YOUTUBE... if you want to use their hosting service to be easily found by people searching IN their hosting service... then you have to follow their rules and accept their payment structure.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
The whole situation is far more complex than what you're talking about Victor... YouTube - whether they would say it or not - employs their content creators... they're essentially employees... they get paid by YouTube and YouTube doesn't function without them...

When you look at it through that lens - and i know, it's also more complex than that - but if you look at it as an employee- employer thing, YouTube is refusing to employ anyone who might be viewed as right wing... and that's the problem.... just as it would be if pg&e refused service or charged more to anyone they thought was liberal... after all, if you don't like it, you can start your own power company...
DrafterX Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,508
TW has something called 'IN ME-TUBE'... I've never visited the site tho.. Mellow
Gene363 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
victor809 wrote:
Mmhmm... so?
If you don't like any of the current models of cars are you going to demand that the current auto manufacturers be forced to make a model you like at a price you want?

Posting your videos online is far from a "necessity". It isn't even "news"... if you are looking at it as a source of revenue then you sure as hell better have alternative content delivery plans as part of your business model.


You can buy bottled water to drink so your washing and flushing water isn't a necessity, you can just pee in the street like your neighbors.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
DrafterX wrote:
TW has something called 'IN ME-TUBE'... I've never visited the site tho.. Mellow

#youarethesite
opelmanta1900 Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Another view on this thing would be to look at YouTube like a magazine... a magazine is a private company and people can submit whatever they want and the magazine can print or reject whatever they want... but what YouTube does is essentially willingly publish everything, make money off everything, but then only pay for the articles that they agree with...
victor809 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
I think you are making the relationship between the two more than it really is.

This is much closer to a facebook/person relationship. You use their platform to host your content. They advertise on it... in YouTube's case they kick some back
opelmanta1900 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
not at all... facebook can exist - and did exist - without ad revenue generated by user content... that's actually a relatively small amount of revenue for facebook.... for youtube it's nearly all of their revenue...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
youtube also doesn't create content... it's 100% dependant on user contribution... to go back to the magazine analogy, youtube is like a magazine that only publishes reader-contributed content... if they didn't pay their contributers, their contributers would go elsewhere, their content would diminish in quantity and quality, their subscribers would cancel.... youtube survives because they have a 100% unique monopoly/stranglehold over a relatively new sector that hasn't seen government interference yet...
victor809 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Facebook youtube and Twitter only publish user content. (Yes... aunt Francis's Facebook page of cats is "content")
Revenue for these companies comes from ads either shown before the videos or plastered all over the page. YouTube is the only one of these to actually give the people posting crap a percentage of this revenue.

Differentiating a video someone made with the specific intent of it being viewed by 100,000 people vs one made just for their closest 500 friends is essentially irrelevant.

Any of this content could be hosted on a platformless website. They cost almost nothing to make. Why would anyone claim that hosting on YouTube is a requirement for getting your information out there.
teedubbya Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
YouTube is not a utility, or necessary to sustain life. YouTube has competition. Don’t like ‘em....cool. Don’t use them.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Victor, with Facebook the site itself is monetized, not the content... aunt Ruth's cat videos on Facebook dont have commercials, nor do her cat slideshows have advertisements in them... YouTube is the only one monetizing user content...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
teedubbya wrote:
YouTube is not a utility, or necessary to sustain life. YouTube has competition. Don’t like ‘em....cool. Don’t use them.

That's like saying Uber doesn't pay their black drivers but since it's not a utility, oh well... if you don't like it use lyft...
victor809 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Opel. YouTube only monetizes some videos. I bet aunt Ruth's cat videos on YouTube wouldn't be monetized either.
I don't think (maybe I'm wrong) that videos I host on YouTube have advertisements in them.

My understanding is they only directly monetize videos which are of sufficient popularity from people with sufficient viewership. And that probably comes with a contractual agreement about content.
victor809 Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Opel. YouTube only monetizes some videos. I bet aunt Ruth's cat videos on YouTube wouldn't be monetized either.
I don't think (maybe I'm wrong) that videos I host on YouTube have advertisements in them.

My understanding is they only directly monetize videos which are of sufficient popularity from people with sufficient viewership. And that probably comes with a contractual agreement about content.
victor809 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Opel. YouTube only monetizes some videos. I bet aunt Ruth's cat videos on YouTube wouldn't be monetized either.
I don't think (maybe I'm wrong) that videos I host on YouTube have advertisements in them.

My understanding is they only directly monetize videos which are of sufficient popularity from people with sufficient viewership. And that probably comes with a contractual agreement about content.
victor809 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Holy triplicate batman...
dstieger Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
As explained to me, it was way too complicated for this non-content producing old phart....but, the gist of it seemed to me that YT used to contract with these 'providers' -- deal structures varied, but essentially, if you allowed ads....and you got lots of views....and you got lots of subscribers, you got cushy deal....if your viewers watched ads and didn't hit the 'SKIP AD' button, there was further bonuses avail...or something like that. YT continued the monetizing structure, but shut out stuff that some algorithm deemed objectionable, or not supporting their views, or whatever...no clue as to just what was and what wasn't allowed to be included.

I don't agree with the 'monetize-ees', but I sympathize a little bit;
-the censure seemed, at times arbitrary;
-the vids may have continued to make YT money, without paying creators (its a lot worse when something is given and then taken, than never to have loved at all....or something)
-despite posts above, YT is pretty monopolistic in a lot of people's eyes (in fact I've never heard of the alternatives mentioned above)...IF you accept that view, then the idea that YT can control content might seem a bit offensive


I've said it before recently....I'm as Adam 'laissez faire' Smith as they come, but Alphabet, Amazon, Apple could use a bit of regulating pretty soon


Gene363 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,669
victor809 wrote:
Opel. YouTube only monetizes some videos. I bet aunt Ruth's cat videos on YouTube wouldn't be monetized either.
I don't think (maybe I'm wrong) that videos I host on YouTube have advertisements in them.

My understanding is they only directly monetize videos which are of sufficient popularity from people with sufficient viewership. And that probably comes with a contractual agreement about content.


Not true, I see commercials on specifically demonetized channels.
victor809 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
dstieger wrote:
.IF you accept that view, then the idea that YT can control content might seem a bit offensive




Not even close.

I don't understand how people can't figure this out....
Youtube is a tiny tiny part of the internet. They aren't close to being able to monopolize content... not even content delivery.

Start a website... make it www.ihateyoutube.com and put every video you made on there.

Will anyone see it? maybe not. but if they don't go and find it, then part of what you were getting out of the relationship with youtube was cross-pollenization with other similar video providers.

If we were talking about control over the internet itself, we might be having a different discussion (and may even be on different sides)... for instance, I start to look at things like net neutrality as a potential infringement on content. In that case, the service provider a customer uses to access the open internet, is able to influence what content the subscriber can access... through speed throttling. If there is only one internet service provider, then you have a problem.

But this is literally the same as cbid controlling the content on their pic post page. And maybe if they started paying us for reviews....
dstieger Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Gene363 wrote:
Not true, I see commercials on specifically demonetized channels.


And that there's the kick in the nuts, I'll bet...keep showing 'em....keep raking cash from 'em...but pull back from the part where the creator gets a cut
victor809 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Gene363 wrote:
Not true, I see commercials on specifically demonetized channels.


stitched into the video? or just on the sidebars?
ZRX1200 Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Into the videos.....

Glad to see you projecting again Mr Hypocrite.
victor809 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
how is anything I've said different than how I've acted or asked people to act?

If you're gonna call someone a hypocrite you may want to look the definition up first.
RMAN4443 Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
victor809 wrote:
Not even close.

I don't understand how people can't figure this out....
Youtube is a tiny tiny part of the internet. They aren't close to being able to monopolize content... not even content delivery.

Start a website... make it www.ihateyoutube.com and put every video you made on there.

Will anyone see it? maybe not. but if they don't go and find it, then part of what you were getting out of the relationship with youtube was cross-pollenization with other similar video providers.


I'm not a lawyer but I stayed at Holiday Inn last night......

I'd be willing to bet if you did that, that you'd be getting a letter or a phone call from some YT lawyers "Tout de suite"

Damn, I didn't even know I knew any FrenchAnxious
opelmanta1900 Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
victor809 wrote:
Not even close.

I don't understand how people can't figure this out....
Youtube is a tiny tiny part of the internet. They aren't close to being able to monopolize content... not even content delivery.

Start a website... make it www.ihateyoutube.com and put every video you made on there.

Will anyone see it? maybe not. but if they don't go and find it, then part of what you were getting out of the relationship with youtube was cross-pollenization with other similar video providers.

If we were talking about control over the internet itself, we might be having a different discussion (and may even be on different sides)... for instance, I start to look at things like net neutrality as a potential infringement on content. In that case, the service provider a customer uses to access the open internet, is able to influence what content the subscriber can access... through speed throttling. If there is only one internet service provider, then you have a problem.

But this is literally the same as cbid controlling the content on their pic post page. And maybe if they started paying us for reviews....


Part of the uniqueness of this situation is the near monopoly google has as a search engine... since they own YouTube, YouTube's videos will always be treated preferentially...

For instance, if hank made a "i hid 100 Easter eggs up my butt" video and uploaded it to his own website www.hankhideseastereggs.com, you could google search "manboy child sodomizes himself with 9 dozen eggs" but you're not gonna find hanks video... not in the first 10 pages at least... those will be filled with a bunch of other videos of hank that have been uploaded to YouTube...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
All that is just to say, if someone wants to start a site that is a serious competitor with YouTube, first they have to start a company that's a serious competitor with Google...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
#hankhideseggs
victor809 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Interestingly... you assume you're restricted to Google as a search engine?

If you really want to find pictures of hank with 9 Easter eggs in his butt... you probably should use bing...

Or jeeves... is askjeeves still around?
opelmanta1900 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Its probably around, but probably a porn site now... and i don't actually need bing or google, I do all of hanks editing work... I'm just concerned for MACS...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
And it's 9 dozen... please don't under-promote our channel..
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>