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."
Otherwise she wouldn't have been able to take out the shooter.
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?
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.
The people in that office were not innocent. They were working for an evil entity. They deserved it, the families they built with that profit from evil deserve their loss.
Yeah, you tell them! Those Charlie Hebdo shooters had the right idea, amirite?
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.
And the mass majority of gun violence IN THE WORLD in the last decade is mainly by white Americans
No. That award goes to MIddle Easterns, with almost 500,000 deaths in Syria alone in the last 7 years.
Close second: Latinos. Just in Mexico there was 30,000 violent deaths last year, which is twice the number of gun victims in the USA. Of course a bunch of Mexican deaths are beheadings or people burnt alive, but still. Throw in about 25,000 in Venezuela, 4,000 in Honduras, etc. and it adds up quickly to a whole lot of non-White people killing non-White people.
As for Iraq, the total death toll since 2003 is between 125,000 and 250,000 (depending who you ask). And the US military is only around 55% white, so even if only the white soldiers were guilty that's still a lot less than what has happened in many non-White countries over the same period.
I know it's easier to blame white males, but facts are not on your side.
lucm, indeed.
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.
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.
Four hits, no kills, only herself. She's bad at this. Remember the Bernie supporter who opened fire on a baseball field full of Republicans? 50 shots fired, 5 hits, no kills.
Remember when some terrorists killed everyone at the Draw Muhammad contest in Garland, Texas? That's OK, the Texans don't remember that either. The terrorists were shot and killed outside the event. They were wearing body armor, too. They were killed by head shots.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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..."
Friendly reminder that ALL Arabs and Hispanics are counted as "White"
Please forward this information to diversity@google.com so they can expand their discriminatory practices to a larger segment of the population
lucm, indeed.
When uneducated people talk about Fascism, they envision swastikas and marching stormtroopers. When educated people talk about Fascism, they talk about mandatory conformity to dogmatic ideas, threats of violence to enforce conformance, and lack of regard for individualism.
Your behavior fits my understanding of Fascism and I find it deeply ironic that you probably self-identify as anti-fascist.
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