Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Shooter 'Nasim Aghdam' Reportedly Had Website With Manifesto That Targeted YouTube For Censorship, Demonetization (abc7news.com)
The woman who entered the YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California, this morning and started shooting has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. According to ABC7 News, "the YouTube shooter was a user of the platform" and had "a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. According to her website, a possible motivation for the shooting could have been tied to her many YouTube accounts, which she says have seen a decline in viewership over the past few months."
Here is a timeline of events from our original post:
Police have responded to multiple 911 calls at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. From a report: Vadim Lavrusik, a product manager at the company, tweeted that there is an active shooter on campus. The San Bruno Police Department instructed people to stay away from 901 Cherry Avenue, where the company is located. Multiple 911 calls have been received from inside the building, according to a report from local news station KRON. In a Twitter thread, YouTube product manager Todd Sherman said that employees first thought there had been an earthquake. People began running out of their meetings, he said, but before reaching the exit, they got word that someone had a gun. Sherman said he saw blood on the floor and the stairs. He also said the shooter may have committed suicide. Vadim Lavrusik, who works at YouTube's products team, tweeted, "Active shooter at YouTube HQ. Heard shots and saw people running while at my desk. Now barricaded inside a room with coworkers."
Update 20:30GMT: Google has issued the following statement, "we are coordinating with authorities and will provide official information here from Google and YouTube as it becomes available." San Bruno Police said it was "responding to an active shooter. Please stay away from Cherry Ave & Bay Hill Drive."
Update 20:40 GMT: CBS San Francisco reports: KPIX 5 reporter Andria Borba said at least two Homeland Security units were responding. Police radio transmissions describe casualties being taken to local hospitals. San Francisco General Hospital spokesman Brent Andrew said the hospital received patients from the incident but could not confirm a number.
Update 21:20 GMT: ABC News is reporting that the suspected shooter is a white adult female, and that this is "leaning towards a workplace violence situation."
Update 21:30 GMT: Law enforcement has confirmed that the shooter was a white female dressed in a headscarf. The woman reportedly shot her boyfriend then herself. It's unclear exactly how many people have been injured, but early reports estimate at least 9-10 victims. There is no word on their conditions.
Update 03:10 GMT: ABC7 News is reporting that the shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. She reportedly had a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. Contrary to previous reports, she is said to have no relationship with anyone in the YouTube facility.
UPDATE 03:40 GMT: Aghdam's website can be found here.
Update 04:15 GMT: The shooter is believed to have known at least one of the victims, two law enforcement officials told CNN. Other sources suggest the shooter drove up from San Diego. YouTube says her YouTube channel "has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."
Here is a timeline of events from our original post:
Police have responded to multiple 911 calls at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. From a report: Vadim Lavrusik, a product manager at the company, tweeted that there is an active shooter on campus. The San Bruno Police Department instructed people to stay away from 901 Cherry Avenue, where the company is located. Multiple 911 calls have been received from inside the building, according to a report from local news station KRON. In a Twitter thread, YouTube product manager Todd Sherman said that employees first thought there had been an earthquake. People began running out of their meetings, he said, but before reaching the exit, they got word that someone had a gun. Sherman said he saw blood on the floor and the stairs. He also said the shooter may have committed suicide. Vadim Lavrusik, who works at YouTube's products team, tweeted, "Active shooter at YouTube HQ. Heard shots and saw people running while at my desk. Now barricaded inside a room with coworkers."
Update 20:30GMT: Google has issued the following statement, "we are coordinating with authorities and will provide official information here from Google and YouTube as it becomes available." San Bruno Police said it was "responding to an active shooter. Please stay away from Cherry Ave & Bay Hill Drive."
Update 20:40 GMT: CBS San Francisco reports: KPIX 5 reporter Andria Borba said at least two Homeland Security units were responding. Police radio transmissions describe casualties being taken to local hospitals. San Francisco General Hospital spokesman Brent Andrew said the hospital received patients from the incident but could not confirm a number.
Update 21:20 GMT: ABC News is reporting that the suspected shooter is a white adult female, and that this is "leaning towards a workplace violence situation."
Update 21:30 GMT: Law enforcement has confirmed that the shooter was a white female dressed in a headscarf. The woman reportedly shot her boyfriend then herself. It's unclear exactly how many people have been injured, but early reports estimate at least 9-10 victims. There is no word on their conditions.
Update 03:10 GMT: ABC7 News is reporting that the shooter has been identified as Nasim Aghdam. She reportedly had a website with an alleged manifesto that targeted YouTube for censorship and demonetization of her video content. Contrary to previous reports, she is said to have no relationship with anyone in the YouTube facility.
UPDATE 03:40 GMT: Aghdam's website can be found here.
Update 04:15 GMT: The shooter is believed to have known at least one of the victims, two law enforcement officials told CNN. Other sources suggest the shooter drove up from San Diego. YouTube says her YouTube channel "has been terminated due to multiple or severe violations of YouTube's policy against spam, deceptive practices, and misleading content or other Terms of Service violations."
I'm not going to try to lump this person into any particular group or ideology, but after reading some of the quotes from her manifesto, she doesn't come off as a mentally stable individual.
I don't know if her channels have been deleted or if people have made copies of her videos, but one thing that may be fascinating about this particular case is that the suspect has likely created an extensive number of videos over the past several years that will probably give investigators a pretty accurate view into her thought process. Hopefully that will prove helpful in identifying other individuals who appear to be expressing at risk behavior and that we'll be able to figure out what can be done to treat whatever it is that's wrong with them.
I'm not a fan of the companies practices but I'm not about to go kill people who work there. That's just batshit insane.
She pretty much fit the definition of batshit insane. A vegan and animal rights activist who had no trouble shooting people - who last time I checked, are also animals.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What other recourse do we have against the corporate/government AI/mass surveillance/media leviathan?
A cultural and social change? One that doesn't want a quick and violent fix to complex issues?
most of the voters are brain-deleted drones with zero self interest
No, I think you'll find that self-interest is on a massive uptick
The people in that office were not innocent
Let's say that for the moment I'll go along with your argument and assume you mean 'guilty of something' ...
They deserved it
... and then we reach this.
No.
No they did not.
I sincerely hope that I've just fed a troll, but silence is assent, and on the off chance that you actually believe what you posted - I sincerely hope that you get better because if this is what you believe, then I can only offer my sympathy and regret.
The vast, vast majority of perpetrators of gun violence in this country are not Persian or women or vegan.
Did you, by any chance, came out after the Vegas shooting to say that the vast, vast majority of perpetrators of gun violence in this country are not wealthy white males? Of course you didn't.
Spin it any way you want, you're a phony.
lucm, indeed.
The fact that a Persian vegan woman is the perpetrator in this instance does not change the fact that the vast, vast majority of perpetrators of gun violence in this country are not Persian or women or vegan.
Yeah! Just like the vast mojority of police shooting victims aren't black!
Wait ... what? NOW you want to talk about population statistics? And what about earlier?
It's also a good thing that California has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation in order to prevent this kind of thing from happening.
I'm not a fan of the companies practices but I'm not about to go kill people who work there. That's just batshit insane.
True, but maybe you and she are in different live situations.
I mean.... you're not a small channel owner whose livelihood depends on money from Youtube, who suddenly experience an unexplained loss of views and revenue due to Youtube's arbitrary and capricious algorithms.
Perhaps she already had some sort of paranoid personality issues, and when she realized, she wasn't going to have a way of making ends meet, she was driven to insane and self-destructive behaviors, including the shooting.
Why did you change it from "gun violence" to "mass shootings"?
To fit your narrative? Because the vast majority of gun violence is not committed by white men.
She's not entitled to a livelihood from Youtube.
And the mass majority of gun violence IN THE WORLD in the last decade is mainly by white Americans
Not even close. Tally up the mass murders in African and the Middle East, where people local to those regions slaughter each other in enormous numbers, and you'll see that ... never mind, you know you were lying. Stop it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
What they all have in common is the easy availability of guns, which is fucking stupid. Guns should be banned.
This is easily proved false.
The US has always had lots of guns in civilian hands. It's one of the reasons Japan never invaded in WW2.
We've only started having these problems recently.
Something has changed, and it's not the availability of guns.
Even "the gun violence problem" has not grown worse, in fact dramatically the opposite.
Over the last 25 years gun-related homicides are down over 50%.
Over the same past 25 years, gun violence victimization is down over 75%.
What we do have that nobody on either side wants to discuss or even acknowledge is a public mental health crisis.
Most of the mass-shooters in the last ten years have been either under mental health treatment and medications or were until just prior to their crimes.
Homeless shelters are packed with the mentally ill that used to be institutionalized in order to keep both they and the public safe.
Laws already on the books that should have stopped at least some of the mass shootings were not enforced.
So what happens if you pass more laws and bans and they too are not enforced? Pass more laws?
You've decided that instead of restricting the freedom of mentally ill people you'd rather restrict the freedoms of everyone in order to avoid dealing with the mentally ill.
Plus, you know what happens if a gun ban is actually passed? Look what happened with drugs. The cartels will have a new cash commodity to sell Americans. Even better, these weapons won't have any restrictions. Think of street criminals with fully-automatic weapons, RPGs, grenades, landmines, 'Stinger'-type anti-aircraft rockets, and more.
Stop with the knee-jerk emotional bullshit. Use that lump of gristle 3 feet above your ass for something more than a hat rack.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
There is no such thing as a gun ban.
There is only gun redistribution.
"Banning guns" means you give all the guns to the government to enforce the "gun ban." See how that works out, circa 1940 Jews.
Yes, I do disagree being that California is in the top ten states with the strictest gun laws. Her father wasnâ(TM)t even aware she had one. Stating crimes involving guns are committed by people who have easy access to guns is incorrect. Chicago has the strictest gun laws of all states and the highest crime. Itâ(TM)s not the law abiding concealed carry permit holders killing children and citizens in the street, itâ(TM)s criminals whose access to guns have been cutoff by gun laws and guess what...THEY STILL GET THEM!
However, it is arguably committed by people to whom guns are easily available. Do you disagree?
Not necessarily. I'm surrounded by guns. Gun shops, gun ranges, neighbors with guns. Literally within earshot of a rifle range. I can walk outside with a small rifle, kill a rabbit in my garden and wave at a neighbor playing with his kids while I carry it to and fro. Guns, guns, guns. And no one is getting shot.
Twenty minutes south of me you're in a major metropolitan area where mostly blacks and Latinos shoot each other up routinely. Another body every other day or so.
I don't know how they get their guns but it's probably not much more difficult for them than it is for me. We'll call it a wash; same ease of acquiring guns. In truth we have a LOT more guns — and vastly better guns — than they do. But for the sake of argument we'll say it's the same.
So what is the difference between here and there? It certainly isn't the ease with which someone gets a gun, as you argue. It isn't wealth either. I'm not wealthy. I'm not trailer trash but I can find those people too because they're not far away; poor as dirt and also not shooting each other with anything like enough frequency to matter.
You don't want to deal with that question, do you? You want the cop out answer and the ban hammer, because unless your will is being forced onto others you're not satisfied. You have that in common with the angry inch that shot up YouTube HQ today.
Ok, so from 1968 to 2012 the number of guns per capita doubled.
Yet the U.S. Homicide rate is currently about 20% lower than it was in 1968! You've proven increasing the number of guns in the U.S. doesn't result in more people being murdered. Congratulations.
P.S. Schools are much safer than in the 90s, shooting incidents involving students have been declining for decades.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Yet those nearby states don't have anywhere near the same violence. Nor is it actually easy to buy a gun in those neighboring states if you are from Illinois. Fact when you buy a firearm the request your ID to run the background check. If they see you are from another state, and you are trying to purchase a hand-gun (the weapon used in the vast majority of shootings in Chicago) the sale is stopped. It's illegal. A resident of Illinois can only buy a handgun in Ill. A long gun is different but they are rarely used in gun violence. (blunt objects kill more people every year than all long guns combined). Okay so you say Indiana residents are buying the guns and sending them to Chicago. A few maybe, but repeat strawman buys will get you caught. So to provide a significant supply of strawman purchased firearms would require a rather significant pool of buyers willing to risk felony charges.
More guns in Chicago are traced as stolen than legally purchased in neighboring states. Last year thieves stole over 100 handguns from a train car in the railyards. Guess where they are finding those guns. In Chicago gangs.
I wish I had mod points. That's the best thing I've read in a long time around here. Your neighborhood is about like my neighborhood.
Guns everywhere and nobody getting shot. I wonder why . . .
Until the anti-gun crowd can answer that question honestly, I don't care to hear anything they're screaming.
There's no such thing as "punching down". There's just satire, which is what they published, and actual violence, which is what their attackers did when they murdered them in cold blood.
Stop using newspeak to confuse two entirely different things. It's ideologically motivated manipulation to justify why some people do not deserve sympathy or empathy.
Signs are there that she is a Muslim. But I also see nothing there pointing to her having some sort of "jihadist" ideology. Her rant goes off against everyone who disagrees with her ideology, which appears to be a mix of left and right.
Things she rants about from the left:
* Veganism
* Corporations
* Pollution
Things she rants about from the right:
* Family values
* Sexual degeneracy
Things she rants about that could be from either:
* Materialism (although you probably see complaints more often from the left)
* Censorship (although you probably see complaints more often from the right)
Doesn't fit neatly into any box except "angry and feels the world is against her"
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
It's not about population statistics, it's about the fact that blacks are on average massively more criminal than whites. Per head of population.
Did you ever think about the fact that this crime data can easily be manipulated by the police? For instance, NYC had (has?) a stop and frisk law that they only applied to minority people. So they end up finding drugs on a lot more minorities than white people because they don't bother frisking them. Then all of the sudden you have a lot more minorities that are ex-convicts and cannot find work who all of the sudden resort to crime to live and then their neighborhoods become more dangerous, causing the police to spend more time there stopping and frisking people and all of the sudden you have a population who has been manipulated into being more criminal than others.
Most likely, it's population density, and the higher total crime rates that go along with that, even if the per capita crime rates are actually lower. Our puny little human brains SUCK at those kind of statistics for the same reason we are scared of terrorists and mass shootings, despite them being the least likely forms of violent death.
On a per capita basis urban crime rates are higher than suburban and suburban are higher than rural.
http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/default-source/ncvrw2015/2015ncvrw_stats_urbanrural.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Don't bother, they never listen. You point out countries with high rates of gun ownership and low incidence of gun violence (or any violence, really) and they cry "exception that proves the rule." You point out countries with low gun ownership but higher-than-the-US rates of gun violence (or, again, violence in general) and they scream "third-world shithole!"
Any reasonable and logical person can look at deaths-per-gun-owned and see that they're not the same in every country; they're not even close enough to be statistical error. A third-world shithole has fewer guns but more factors making people want to kill each other, so more people kill each other there, and it matters not that the idiot who can't see this wants to call the place third-world or a shithole -- reality still applies in those places just the same as it does everywhere else.
As you point out, people who want to kill each other do and people who don't don't. And if we're being honest, guns are much more precise and targeted than the alternative methods of mass killing: cars, trucks, and bombs. If I had to choose which kind of attack I was going to be a victim of, I'd choose a mass shooting every time. Stay out of sight after you hear the first shot and you probably don't get shot yourself. A bomb doesn't need to see you and take aim to kill you, and any of the other options are so sudden and make no noise prior to the event, so you don't even know you should take cover until you're already dead. Plus, mass shootings have the benefit of the shooter typically ending up dead and unable to carry out another crime, while drivers can drive off and bombers can plant devices and be out of range when they go off, living to perform another act of mass killing. Guns are definitely the least scary of the options when you consider reality.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
And not every NRA member is a gun nut. Some of us purchased lifetime memberships before they jumped the rails and are only members today for the fact that our memberships are lifetime.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Third, FBI statistics for 2016 (Obama admin numbers, not Trumpian data) point out that more Americans were murdered with bare hands and fists and feet than with rifles
Attention readers: This is where the OP drastically moved the goalposts.
By dropping handguns (and possibly shotguns), this poster eliminated the vast majority of murders using a firearm.
It's also true that most mass-shooters are politically left-leaning
And this is where the poster started lying to you.
Mass shooters, like everyone else, tend to not fit entirely within one political box. You will be able to find a "right-wing" belief and a "left-wing" belief if you dig deep enough.
In the cases where political leanings are clear, they aren't shooting for leftist causes. Shooting up a gay nightclub because the people in it are gay is not a liberal position. Neither is shooting up a church because the members are black.
most are young men who are either [a] fatherless, [b] on mind-altering drugs, or [c] associated with Islam
This is also a lie, designed to incite you into a moral panic. Fact is they either had fathers or the fathers died of old age.
Many mass shooters had received mental health treatment that usually included drugs.....but he wants you to think they're using illicit drugs to increase the moral panic.
And the number of mass shootings in the last decade that was committed by Muslims, for jihadist causes, is 2. 3 if you want to throw in non-jihadist morality issues. Christians tied that just in the last year.
NONE of the nation's infamous mass shooters or assassins has been an NRA member
"Timothy McVeigh used a bomb so nah nah nah". Also, the NRA does not disclose the membership status of anyone. You actually do not know how many were NRA members.
a politically-active Republican, or a member of a well-known Christian church or Jewish synagogue.
Note all the qualifiers. They are critically important for the propaganda.
Someone who always voted Republican and expressed support for Republican causes does not count as a Republican unless he meets the vague definition of "politically-active". That allows you to exclude someone and claim purity based on the fact that he was not an elected official.
Same with "well-known". You get to throw out Christians by claiming their particular main-line-protestant church was not "well-known".
Tacking on Jews is a subtle call-back to the moral panic statements earlier in the post. Gotta ramp up the fear of them dark people, despite the fact that the rate of criminal acts by Muslims is lower than the population overall.
Heck, the vast majority of prisoners in the US are Christians. But you dismiss that with the "well-known" formulation. As in "Sure he went to a Baptist church every week, but he wasn't really a Baptist."
ALL proposals for "gun control" inconvenience or actively violate the Constitutional rights of the very people in the USA who are least likely to do one of these shootings.
Did you know that people used to not convert the "Well Regulated Militia" clause to "..." when discussing the 2nd Amendment? The absolute personal right to a firearm is actually due to a Supreme Court decision in the 2000s. For the two hundred years before that decision, it was accepted that the government had the right to regulate guns as a mechanism to regulate the militia.
NONE of the nation's infamous shooters were deterred from doing their actions because there was a law against it
Gun control is a damage mitigation strategy. The goal is to make it harder to commit a mass shooting, and to make you slower while you are committing your mass shooting. For example, limiting magazine size obviously won't stop a mass shooting. But it will make the shooter have to reload more often, s