This looks like it's going to be an increasingly big problem for the platform giants, as it pertains to their increasingly aggressive speech restrictions. As they ramp those restrictions up, I'd expect the need for security to increase accordingly.
A mentally unwell person is likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by being silenced. They'll feel isolated and it'll very likely feel like a personal attack by the tech company. The platforms today are so large, it surely can seem like being cut off from society in general, like a human right is being revoked.
The people the platforms are looking to restrict based on expressed views or behavior, I suspect, are going to tend to have higher than normal rates of mental illness (emphasis that I think it's likely to be a higher rate, not universal).
As far as I know, her videos were demonetized, not rejected. There's a huge difference between being silenced and being refused ad placement on your videos.
Getting paid to express your opinion is not a human right.
You are talking about people with mental illness. I think the platforms produce mental illness. If you influence and produce a certain kind of behaviour through appropriate reward mechanisms and then after a few years of conditioning reduce/remove the reward what do you think happens? Mental illness.
YouTube has conditioned a generation of people to chant "subscribe like and share" like a robots. The day the "subscribe like and share" model stops being viable the robots will break down.
For those who care about doing something here is a starting point - humanetech.com
Maybe with some AI we could target unhealthy people and flatter their egos. Like fake accounts subscribing commenting and agreeing with the troubled soul.
It certainly doesn't help that Google's customer support is so terrible. There have been several articles posted here about well known people having to use their high level Google connections or "go viral" just to make Google pay any attention.
Combine mental illness with that feeling of helplessness, and it's not going to end well.
This was nearly 20 years ago at the same building the news station was in. Maybe a news station was a platform giant in 1999. I guess it was a very restrictive platform. They talked and you listened.
> A mentally unwell person is likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by being silenced.
A mentally unwell person is equally likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by a platform that harbors content which, in fact or merely their perception, endorses, advocates, or directly does any of targeting, oppressing, threatening, or harming them or any group they identify with.
Heck, even a mentally well person might reasonably feel that way, though they may be less likely to respond to it violently.
She feels paranoid like everyone is out to get her and it probably didn't help that when YouTube "attacked" her online, it was direct, unambiguous, attributable to a distinct entity (to her at least), etc.
When she ran over some debris in the road she came to the conclusion that anti-vegan (she identifies strongly as a vegan) businesses hired unspecified criminals to harm or kill her, and that they did it because of the stickers on her car.
She might have honestly been deluded into thinking that YouTube wanted her dead.
Isn't it possible that her content just wasn't that good? I mean her website is a pretty typical looking 'illuminati controls everything' crazy conspiracy site, if her content is similarly poorly produced getting down ranked seems natural.
Usually personal sites and social media accounts for such people are quickly taken offline, so reliably that I've wondered how it is that there's always someone with the authority and access around to quickly pull the plug. Not in this case, so strange to see this site still online and open to all.
One of the reasonable conclusions to all this is that revenue sharing on user generated content is a live wire that platforms would rather not touch from now on, despite it being morally correct.
One of her complaints was that YouTube age-restricted her yoga videos (which were modest by Western standard, she was just wearing shorts, a shirt and no socks), while not age-restricting much more explicit Nicki Minaj and Miley Cyrus videos. Is there any explanation to why YouTube does this?
The big boys like VEVO get on YouTube's "Preferred Partner" program where the policies are way less strict. Last year Pewdiepie got kicked off the Preferred Partner program and makes jokes at the beginning of his videos about how he's constantly getting demonetized nowadays. Watch the first 1:20 of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJcC6ZqVPY
I'm really not a fan of the policy, and it would be a real shame if it wasn't changed. But it would also be a shame if it was changed because of a shooting. It shouldn't have come to this in the first place.
What a terrible disaster this afternoon. It should never finish like this.
The only thing I hope out of this is that it will maybe relaunch the debates about the megaplatforms and censorship. (Facebook, youtube, Google,...). The bigger they become, the more they will start censoring everything.
More people need to launch the movement to host their videos independentlty. Peertube is a good start for example https://joinpeertube.org/en/home/
There are links to her (4?) youtube accounts, which have all been terminated. There's a link to her instagram, which has also been terminated, however there is a cached-copy here http://www.pictame.com/tag/yesilnasim
It's a pity that Google terminated those accounts - I don't know what scrutiny scares them.
As for the lady, she seems to genuinely believe in veganism and fitness. Whatever weird things she did to propagate that seemed to be working (330K views?!!).
That’s a style of web design I’ve seen before - lots of colors, different font sizes, wall of text rants... something about it screams mental instability. See Time Cube for an extreme example.
As I see it: She posted on her site that she made 10 cents for 366,000 views these days. She must have been making quite a bit and then probably the algo determined that she is not making advertiser friendly videos so the spigot got closed. Must have appealed, we all know how those work.
So if this person was not an employee, it's amazing to me how she got into the building? Usually these large tech campuses are pretty locked down, with at least one badged entrance, and security or front desk staff watching who comes and goes.
That said, I've never visited the YouTube campus, so maybe it bucks the norm.
Firstly, my sympathies with the people at Youtube HQ. I have many, many friends in the bay area and so this kind of thing hits close to home.
Secondly, I struggle when thinking about if we should give airtime to a shooter's grievances, or reasons. Or even mention who they are. I tend to be on the side of: don't give them any air time. And certainly, don't acquiesce to this type of behavior because it is almost by definition "terrorism" (using violence to cause change in policies).
On the other hand, I have been hearing a lot about YouTube demonitization, censorship, etc. Should this shooting be a part of the discussion about censorship? Should YouTube and the tech community let it affect the discourse around censorship?
No justification for her actions, but Google does act as a serf master over the entire internet. It can single handedly decide who succeeds, who fails, and there is no recourse. There is no recourse, no appeal. Some 20 year old dude in Menlo Park decides, and your website, your life, your work, your future, is changed forever. Here's our account: https://www.medgadget.com/google
A lot of people in this thread are attempting to describe Nasim as a 'weird' or 'unstable' individual. I wonder if there's some narrative building here going on here? Many want to explain it away with a cliche.
It's a shame what happened. Too bad our world isn't more like K-Pax.
[+] [-] adventured|8 years ago|reply
A mentally unwell person is likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by being silenced. They'll feel isolated and it'll very likely feel like a personal attack by the tech company. The platforms today are so large, it surely can seem like being cut off from society in general, like a human right is being revoked.
The people the platforms are looking to restrict based on expressed views or behavior, I suspect, are going to tend to have higher than normal rates of mental illness (emphasis that I think it's likely to be a higher rate, not universal).
[+] [-] taneq|8 years ago|reply
Even a perfectly healthy 'normal' person will feel this way after being (what they see as) unfairly and arbitrarily silenced / disenfranchised.
[+] [-] trhway|8 years ago|reply
probably similar to say imagine Bell's denying a landline in 197x because of your speech.
[+] [-] cporios|8 years ago|reply
Getting paid to express your opinion is not a human right.
[+] [-] hux_|8 years ago|reply
For those who care about doing something here is a starting point - humanetech.com
[+] [-] hycaria|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlarocco|8 years ago|reply
Combine mental illness with that feeling of helplessness, and it's not going to end well.
[+] [-] twothamendment|8 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triad_Center#1999_shooting_i...
After that, they added some bullet proof doors. Since then the heavy doors sagged and have been replaced with ones that "look better".
[+] [-] dragonwriter|8 years ago|reply
A mentally unwell person is equally likely to feel targeted, oppressed, threatened, harmed, etc. by a platform that harbors content which, in fact or merely their perception, endorses, advocates, or directly does any of targeting, oppressing, threatening, or harming them or any group they identify with.
Heck, even a mentally well person might reasonably feel that way, though they may be less likely to respond to it violently.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] s2g|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ataturk|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ricochet310|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gaius|8 years ago|reply
Interesting that we’re going for “mentally unwell” rather than “gun owner” this time.
[+] [-] grizzles|8 years ago|reply
From her page showing a screenshot of her Youtube ad revenue dashboard:
> Analytics Last 28 days
> Views 366,591
> Revenue $0.10
Highlighted in Red: Revenue $0.10?
There's also another bit where she shows her historical vs. current traffic and makes a reasonable case that she's getting down ranked.
Interesting times.
[+] [-] MertsA|8 years ago|reply
http://nasimabc.com/sitebuilder/images/car_attack_nasim2-426...
She feels paranoid like everyone is out to get her and it probably didn't help that when YouTube "attacked" her online, it was direct, unambiguous, attributable to a distinct entity (to her at least), etc.
When she ran over some debris in the road she came to the conclusion that anti-vegan (she identifies strongly as a vegan) businesses hired unspecified criminals to harm or kill her, and that they did it because of the stickers on her car.
She might have honestly been deluded into thinking that YouTube wanted her dead.
[+] [-] orf|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leereeves|8 years ago|reply
> Revenue $0.10
So basically all of her videos were demonetized?
[+] [-] m_fayer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] majani|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaaaaaaaaaa12|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] majani|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nuzzerino|8 years ago|reply
I'm really not a fan of the policy, and it would be a real shame if it wasn't changed. But it would also be a shame if it was changed because of a shooting. It shouldn't have come to this in the first place.
[+] [-] ironjunkie|8 years ago|reply
The only thing I hope out of this is that it will maybe relaunch the debates about the megaplatforms and censorship. (Facebook, youtube, Google,...). The bigger they become, the more they will start censoring everything.
More people need to launch the movement to host their videos independentlty. Peertube is a good start for example https://joinpeertube.org/en/home/
[+] [-] skookumchuck|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fixermark|8 years ago|reply
If not, it doesn't really serve the use case that users who are upset about their ad revenue dropping are actually upset about.
[+] [-] tristanj|8 years ago|reply
http://www.nasimesabz.com/index.html
There are links to her (4?) youtube accounts, which have all been terminated. There's a link to her instagram, which has also been terminated, however there is a cached-copy here http://www.pictame.com/tag/yesilnasim
[+] [-] mankash666|8 years ago|reply
As for the lady, she seems to genuinely believe in veganism and fitness. Whatever weird things she did to propagate that seemed to be working (330K views?!!).
Why she resorted to gun violence is much awaited.
[+] [-] jl6|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vesrah|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chapill|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] make3|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flukus|8 years ago|reply
You'd hope they just set a deleted flag and didn't remove the actual files, otherwise they're interfering with a criminal investigation.
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danaliv|8 years ago|reply
Where on earth did that bad information come from yesterday?
[+] [-] ravenstine|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaomidi|8 years ago|reply
I don't even know what to make of most of her content on that channel.
[+] [-] jd20|8 years ago|reply
That said, I've never visited the YouTube campus, so maybe it bucks the norm.
[+] [-] avree|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vowelless|8 years ago|reply
Secondly, I struggle when thinking about if we should give airtime to a shooter's grievances, or reasons. Or even mention who they are. I tend to be on the side of: don't give them any air time. And certainly, don't acquiesce to this type of behavior because it is almost by definition "terrorism" (using violence to cause change in policies).
On the other hand, I have been hearing a lot about YouTube demonitization, censorship, etc. Should this shooting be a part of the discussion about censorship? Should YouTube and the tech community let it affect the discourse around censorship?
I don't know.
[+] [-] noemit|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Geee|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mudil|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flyGuyOnTheSly|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spacehome|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naasking|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fouc|8 years ago|reply
It's a shame what happened. Too bad our world isn't more like K-Pax.
[+] [-] bitL|8 years ago|reply