YouTube Will Increase Security At All Offices Worldwide Following Shooting (theverge.com)

Following the shooting at YouTube's headquarters in San Bruno, California, yesterday, the company has announced plans to increase security at all of its offices worldwide. YouTube says this is intended to "make them more secure not only in the near term, but long-term." The Verge reports: The move reflects a growing concern in Silicon Valley that the effects of increasingly toxic and partisan online behavior may translate into violent offline actions. YouTube's statement was released through Google's Twitter account for communications; it's not clear whether Google itself will be implementing stronger security measures beyond YouTube. The shooter, 39-year-old Nasim Aghdam of San Diego, died yesterday of a self-inflicted gunshot wound after shooting and injuring three employees. From police reports, testimony from Aghdam's family members, and extensive traces of the woman's online behavior on YouTube and other platforms, we now know that Aghdam was disgruntled over the demonetizing of her videos and harm to her financial well-being.

Comments

Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Great idea. Do not remove the root of the problem (crappy content and tune the controversial argorithm), add more guns. Sounds familiar?

Re:Analogy

[Joce640k]

Yep, adding more guns and security scanners on all the entrances to their buildings wi.e a corporate image of tolerance and harmony.

It won't give anybody the impression that they're a big bad corporation or make them even angrier.

Re:Analogy

[gweihir]

And in addition, nobody will surely ever think of shooting people when they get off work, right?

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically you're victim blaming YouTube.

And isn't the entire argument to ban guns that Professionals, such as Law Enforcement, will be there to protect you? What are they supposed to use to stop bad people, Facebook Thoughts and Prayers???

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats: " You don't need a gun because the police will protect you"

Democrats: "The police are murdering, racist pigs!"

Re:Analogy

[amiga3D]

Given the fact they pissed off a huge amount of their content providers lately they should have realized that it was a large enough group that something like this was not unlikely. Now that it has occurred it's a certainty that others will attempt a copy cat attack. The security they had was laughable. I guess they didn't understand that a lot of people hate them.

Re:Analogy

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If you protest against violent people, you should expect an increase in violence, yes. And that requires you to have more security, and yes, more guns.

Re:Analogy

[bluefoxlucid]

I don't care for all this; it happens now and then, not every day. Eventually we're going to have to go through metal detectors at every super market and library and other place we enter.

Why the show of fear? As soon as something happens once, people say, "Something must be done!" You've been a soft target for decades; you can be a soft target for a few decades longer; you're not going to have 15 more active shooters this year by staying a soft target.

Re:Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

you're not going to have 15 more active shooters this year by staying a soft target.

15 is optimistic. We've had more than that this year already and it's only the beginning of April.

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Supreme Court: Police have no obligation to protect you.

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrats: " You don't need a gun because the police will protect you"

Democrats: Trump is literally Hitler!

o_O

Re:Analogy

[jellomizer]

2 Wrongs don't make a right, neither does 2 1/2 fixes fix the problem.

Google/YouTube, are public targets. It does make sense for them to improve security. As nearly any crazy out there will blame the biggest name out there. Google/Facebook/US Government/Big (industry)... For all of life's woes no matter what they do.

That said, Google/YouTube seems to be rather blind on the problem with such algorithm and how it is affecting the lives of content creators. Being that a lot of the content creators see themselves as independent business folks, hits to their income from a computer glitch that isn't trying to be fixed, will make people angry. For some people this anger can turn into violence.

Re: Analogy

[iamhassi]

So basically you're victim blaming YouTube.

You're using victim blaming wrong. Victim blaming is when the victim did nothing wrong but people still blame them. For example, saying wearing a skirt is the reason she was raped. YouTube took away this woman's income and her perceived free speech. YouTube is very much to blame for what happened. If a thief stole your wallet and you shot them, the thief is not the victim. Too bad she shot herself, her YouTube channel would have been very popular after the shooting and she would have got back her viewers and remoneitized her account.

Re:Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Google isn't doing anything wrong. Their security is/was as good as any dot.com. I've worked at many places, for better or worse, and dot-com companies pay little to no heed in physical security. They get a HID card system, a photo ID, and maybe a security guard to walk the place after business hours. Think the H-1B masses in most companies are going to be packing? Nope. Military veterans? The politics of most startups will not have those people working there. It absolutely doesn't even enter in people's minds that someone is going to shoot the place up.

However, this is only going to become more common, as the press showcases the shooters, reads their manifestos, and treats them as martyrs. (The shooter in Parkland now has multiple people paying the maximum the jail allows for his canteen fund, for example.) The adulation and praise the shooters get is only going to encourage more people to "go postal", because they know that they will have a monument with their name and political views forever made at the site where they did their crimes.

What should one do? If a company were sane, and people there were US citizens, they would pay for their employees to have concealed carry, with days off work devoted to range time. This way, just the fact that people will be packing, will be a deterrence.

Re:Analogy

[PopeRatzo]

I don't care for all this; it happens now and then, not every day.

Yes, it happens every day. According to the Center for Disease Control, there are about 80-100 firearm deaths every day. Every year, about 115,000 people are shot. So yeah, it happens every day.

About 10 out of every 100,000 people will die from being shot in the US every year.

https://drive.google.com/file/...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

member that time earlier this week when Mueller said Trump wasn't under investigation for any crimes?

I member.

Re:Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a traitor is why he's dying in prison you dumb cunt lol. And his bitch beta sons.

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Now give us those stats without suicide included.

You won't, because your retarded narrative collapses entirely... Just like you won't look at the demographics of non-suicide gun crimes, and will pretend that it's exclusively NRA member white men, instead of overwhelmingly black hood rats.

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever notice how those countries are demographically homogeneous, and also don't have many black people?

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

I will just leave this point up here:

Ever notice the countries with the most gun control are the safest? Japan, Australia, Europe, China, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and many others. If a "gun grab" ensures no more mass shootings, why shouldn't the US do it?

*drops mic.*

Oh...yeah...I *totally* noticed: http://libertarianhome.co.uk/2... See...the United Kingdom is *so* much safer. /sarcasm. Shut the fuck up you liberal-talking-points spouting twatwaffle. Go eat a cargo container of unwashed dicks.

Re:Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

You know I'm really not pro Trump, quite the opposite, but this wife cheating accusation is just ridiculous and stupid. It's the 21st Century, time to grow up.

Re:Analogy

[Archangel Michael]

"Something must be done!"

This is something.

Therefore it must be done!!!!

(how bad laws are created)

Re: Analogy

[PopeRatzo]

Now give us those stats without suicide included.

Since we're talking about the YouTube shooting, which happened to be a suicide by the way, why would we exclude suicides?

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you doing feeding the trolls, you piece of shit?

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

We're cool with suicides?

Are we equally cool about it when it's not an abstract right but your brother or girlfriend?

Are we still cool if they would not have killed themselves if they hadn't had a gun, which statistically some fraction of them wouldn't?

Re:Analogy

[Mike Van Pelt]

Besides, the Tangerine Troglodyte was a Democrat when he was doing all the illicit hanky-panky, and we were told over and over that it's a Very Bad Thing to go after someone about sexual misbehavior back in the 90s. At least, if the person doing it was a Democrat.

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

The YouTube nice dent was one suicide and a few homocides.

Most gun death is just suicide.

  If the YouTube shooter had only shot herself, we would not be considering how to protect people from nuts shooting innocent people.

Re:Analogy

[Mike Van Pelt]

The simple solution: Guns aren't the problem. Crazed maniacs with spoilt brain-meats aren't the problem.

The sensation-mongers who are determined to give the crazed maniacs with guns extravagant, unlimited publicity for their "cause", re-hash their grievances over and over for weeks, give the maniacs everything their heart desires if they go on a shooting spree.... THAT is the problem.

Outlaw reporting of this kind of incident. Seriously outlaw, with nasty sharp teeth. I'm talking about long prison terms for the reporters, editors, owners, anyone who knew or should have known that one of the stories was in the pipeline and didn't act to stop it. Shut down and confiscate the newspapers, TV and radio stations, and networks that refuse to comply with this very reasonable modest proposal.

You'd never hear about this sort of thing happening in a proper police state.

Re:Analogy

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes, but how often does it happen at a given location? How often does it happen at Google?

For a given heavily-hardened school or airport or corporate office, how many active shooter attacks do those metal detectors and armed security forces actually stop?

Re: Analogy

[bluefoxlucid]

The suicide line is bait. US has a larger proportion of homicides than other nations, but a huge amount of suicides. Take the suicides out of the equation and the number is a lot smaller... take it out of the equation for Canada and Switzerland and America's numbers are enormous. Switzerland actually is at parity with the US for firearms deaths per 100,000--a larger portion of theirs come from suicides. Canada has fewer total firearms deaths per 100,000 than either.

People are trying mostly to not look at the problem, or to look like they're looking at the problem.

Re:Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Is 'brain-meats' something you made up yourself? What does it even mean?

Re:Analogy

[PopeRatzo]

Yes, but how often does it happen at a given location? How often does it happen at Google?

So, your argument appears to be, "Not everyone is killed by guns every day, so..."

I'm not sure what you're saying. Given the mentality of people who make their living recording YouTube videos, I'm pretty sure they should have a moat with lasers for security.

For a given heavily-hardened school or airport or corporate office, how many active shooter attacks do those metal detectors and armed security forces actually stop?

All of them?

Re:Analogy

[bluefoxlucid]

All of them?

On the one hand, there's no evidence that metal detectors have reduced the number of mass shootings in schools that have them.

On the other, I work in a building where you can kick the all-glass front door in and come through with an AR-15 pretty easily, although there are easier ways in without raising the alarm until you start shooting. Hasn't happened in 40 years, although somebody showed up with a (fake) bomb once. This despite protesters and several crazy people routinely showing up here and a large amount of bad public sentiment.

You could also shoot up the local super market, college, or 7-11. Those don't have metal detectors and armed guards.

So all of zero?

Of course we could say, "Hey, someone gets shot somewhere in America every day! That means every day, we need to be on MAXIMUM ALERT for an active shooter IN OUR OFFICE! We must install magnetometers and hire a paramilitary security force to cavity search our employees every single morning!" That would be stupid, and wouldn't accomplish anything except to annoy people.

Here's one for you: cars catch fire sometimes. Does your car have a fuel pump kill switch and built-in automatic fire extinguishers?

Re:Analogy

[PopeRatzo]

On the one hand, there's no evidence that metal detectors have reduced the number of mass shootings in schools that have them.

Whoa there. You were talking about "heavily hardened" places, not just somewhere that's thrown up a few metal detectors. I've been to schools with metal detectors that have one very sleepy security guard manning them. A metal detector alone does not make a facility "heavily hardened".

Second, you mentioned airports. There have been zero mass shootings at airports behind the metal detectors. The only shooting we've seen at an airport was Ft Lauderdale, and that was in the baggage area, where there are no metal detectors. So, in the case of airports, metal detectors and the "heavily hardened" facility have stopped 100% of the mass shootings.

See, the thing is this: mass shootings require gun(s). Without guns, there are no mass shootings. As in zero. There have been no mass shootings in the United States using bombs, cars, knives, clubs or glaives.

Re: Analogy

[Motard]

So basically you're victim blaming YouTube.

You're using victim blaming wrong. Victim blaming is when the victim did nothing wrong but people still blame them.

YouTube is very much to blame for what happened.

So the company that got shot up is to blame for not paying someone what she wanted to be paid.

Re:Analogy

[david_thornley]

No, GP's argument is that shootings like this are really very rare, and unpredictable, so to stop a very small number of shootings we'd have to have massive security all over.

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Shark attacks someone...

Australia : "We need some shark nets"

America : " We need more sharks !"

Re: Analogy

[david_thornley]

YouTube had no contractual arrangement. YouTube is a free service. YouTube allows people to make money off their videos because YouTube believes it will make money that way. If YouTube concludes that hosting some things will cost money for whatever reason, YouTube will drop them. It's that simple.

It's foolish to rely on a business relationship without some sort of commitment, and YouTube doesn't make such commitments. Nor does YouTube have to provide free speech. Forcing them to host stuff they think will damage their brand or their profits is a bad idea for several reasons.

If people are getting annoyed by YouTube, they can set up their own video sites. Getting to be as profitable as YouTube isn't going to be easy, but it's possible. If too many people dislike YouTube, then they'll go to MyTube, and YouTube will lose relevance.

Re:Analogy

[PopeRatzo]

so to stop a very small number of shootings we'd have to have massive security all over.

Or get rid of guns. It's hard to have a shooting without guns.

Re: Analogy

[Cajun Hell]

YouTube took away this woman's income and her perceived free speech.

By that logic, she took away my income, since she wasn't paying me anything. I should have shot her first.

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, and I'm sure he would have stayed in office if it had come out that he paid Monica Lewinsky $130,000 of campaign funds to keep her mouth shut about it.

Re: Analogy

[iamhassi]

This isn't a contractual arrangement that can be won in court. This is about morality, and morally YouTube should not have suddenly turned off many users income. Like when a wife kills a cheating husband, it's not illegal to cheat but he isn't an innocent victim.

Re: Analogy

[iamhassi]

So the company that got shot up is to blame for not paying someone what she wanted to be paid.

No, the company that got shot up is to blame for stopping payment to someone for something they had previously been paid for. Essentially she was fired without cause and without notice. YouTube needs to realize we're not sheep, that if you poke a dog with a stick long enough eventually it will bite back and while the dog will be blamed for biting it had a good reason.

Re: Analogy

[Motard]

We're not sheep? You view yourself as an employee because you signed up for a service?

Re: Analogy

[another_twilight]

Did you read that graph?

There are only 4 states with a lower murder rate than England and Wales, and only 10 with a lower rate than Scotland. The UK, as a whole, has a lower murder rate than the US as a whole.

So yes, the UK is safer than anywhere except a few mostly rural states in the US

For the record, I don't think a ban on guns is going to be as effective in the US as in other places (like Australia) for cultural reasons, even if it could be enacted effectively. There are a number of criticisms that can be made of the fairly superficial comparison of murder rates between countries, but your rebuttal isn't among them.

Re: Analogy

[another_twilight]

YouTube took away this woman's income

She certainly seemed to believe this to be the case.

She produced a product which she sold to a single buyer. The buyer stopped purchasing her product. There was no contract, real or implied between them - except the usage agreement which specified that this could happen at any time. In no other situation would the buyer be described as 'taking away her income' or be considered to have any obligation to the seller.

In other industries, the seller would be expected to find another buyer or change what is being produced to match the needs of the market. The problem that I see is that the people complaining about Youtube's new policy aren't complaining about Youtube not paying for content, they are complaining that Youtube doesn't want to pay for the content they produce. It happens. Especially when what you are selling is often faddish, niche and superficial. If the content had real value, there would be other buyers. It seems more as though the people complaining have grown accustomed to being paid for being minor celebrities and when their 10 minutes of 'fame' have passed can't reconcile that.

If a thief stole your wallet

Loaded language. Youtube is not a thief. The income she may derive from the sale of her products is not the same as the money she owns. She still has her products. No-one has taken away anything except that they have declined to buy them. FFS, her videos were still being hosted. For free.

I know amateur, semi-professional and professional film makers. They produce work for their own pleasure, for art and for market - and the material they produce for market is made to appeal to the market they are attempting to sell to and whether it sells or not, whether the market changes or not, none of them think that the buyer owes them an income.

I am sorry that this woman reached the point where this was the only solution she thought she had. I am saddened that others have been hurt - those directly injured and their families and her friends and family. However, blaming Youtube is very much victim blaming.

Re: Analogy

[another_twilight]

Essentially she was fired without cause and without notice.

No, she was not. Nothing in the arrangement between her and Youtube could be or should have been seen as an employer/employee. At best it's a seller/buyer and without some kind of agreement or guarantee then expecting a buyer to continue to buy your product is naive. Shooting them is a sign of a deeply disturbed mind and your support of her position is disturbing.

YouTube needs to realize we're not sheep

Ah, you're a content creator who has been affected by Youtube's decision. I am sorry. Genuinely. I think that the observation that multinational corporations have little care or concern for the people that are affected by their decisions is accurate. What I cannot understand is why you have or had anything to do with them.

that if you poke a dog with a stick long enough eventually it will bite back and while the dog will be blamed for biting it had a good reason.

Then I sincerely hope that what you've learned is that when a large corporation provides you with a free service and offers to pay a portion of the revenue they generate from your content with no contract or guarantee that expecting that to continue is foolish.

I expect that you've taken your valuable content and found alternative methods of 'monetising' it - Patreon or similar, perhaps. Maybe hosting it yourself and asking for donations. Perhaps selling directly to a buyer.

and while the dog will be blamed for biting it had a good reason.

Turn it around. You/she took money from a corporation and they didn't care about you. What exactly were you expecting?

Re: Analogy

[another_twilight]

This is about morality, and morally YouTube should not have suddenly turned off many users income

You've an odd sense of entitlement, and a strange idea about income.

Youtube no longer wishes to pay for certain types of content. The market changed. No other industry works the way you seem to think this should

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to lying under oath to congress and the entire nation?

You have a retarded moral compass.

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you're knowingly and dishonestly misrepresenting information to derive an invalid conclusion: That guns are a major social hazard, or that banning them would have a statistically significant impact on deaths.

People do not kill themselves because of guns, nor does banning guns reduce suicides. Including suicides when talking about mass shootings and violent crime is not meaningful, in the same way that information about house fires isn't meaningful in a conversation on home invasions.

You also failed to address the question of demographics. It would solve almost 80% of all non-suicide gun deaths to simply ban black people from owning guns.

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

The countries with the highest suicide rates all ban guns.

Your argument is fucking stupid, demonstrably wrong, and intellectually dishonest.

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many injuries or deaths have been prevented, every day, because of a responsible citizen with a gun, or the fear of an armed victim?

In other words, tell us about London, dipshit.

Re: Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to protect your family from a home invasion without them, but a smug arrogant rich white liberal asshole like you has a gated community and wealthy police, so it's not your problem.

Re: Analogy

[PopeRatzo]

In other words, tell us about London, dipshit.

London (which has gun control) is safer than Houston (where everybody has a gun).

https://www.numbeo.com/crime/c...

Re:Analogy

[KHKw2k]

Or we could take the simpler option, repeal the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, and more heavily regulate gun sales and ownership. Then we don't need maximum alert, just standard situational awareness.

Oh wait, no, "mah guns". Sorry.

Re:Analogy

[bluefoxlucid]

metal detectors and the "heavily hardened" facility have stopped 100% of the mass shootings.

So, there was ONE shooting in a populated, soft target several meters from the hard target, ever. These soft targets are directly adjacent to all locations with hard airport targets. Those hardening measures stop all of the mass shootings.

That being... all zero of them?

mass shootings require gun(s). Without guns, there are no mass shootings.

And so the solution is to make sure the guns are around the crowd just outside, not the crowd that has managed to get inside already?

Re:Analogy

[bluefoxlucid]

The second amendment doesn't prevent regulations. That's a NGRA/NRA myth.

Re: Analogy

[david_thornley]

Why would there be any moral obligation for YouTube to continue offering a free service in ways that make people money? If they find that they were making money themselves on the deal, and now appear to be losing money, how long do you think they should feel morally obligated to continue it for the benefit of someone who wasn't paying them anything?

Re:Analogy

[david_thornley]

Or, if you like, we'd have to get rid of massive quantities of guns. Getting massive security in place is a lot easier and more reliable.

Re:Analogy

[PopeRatzo]

Or, if you like, we'd have to get rid of massive quantities of guns. Getting massive security in place is a lot easier and more reliable.

Or, we could just study the way all the other large, industrialized democracies in the world manage to minimize gun violence. Surely, we're capable of learning something?

Re:Analogy

[Citizen of Earth]

Will the guards be armed with muskets like Chelsea Handler's bodyguards?

Maybe just stop ripping off small content creators

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe just stop ripping off small content creators. It would probably work out cheaper than massively ramping up security.

Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Once they knew the identity of the shooter, the Fake News made up the false and baseless claim that the attack was a crime of passion.

Damn lying CNN. They just had to make up some fake news during that tragic moment.

Re: Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

One of these days you guys are going to figure out the blatantly obvious was information gets to you.

Why was it reported as a crime of passion? Because that's what it looked like at first to the cops who showed up. So thats the first thing they told a local reporter and booom there you go.

Your boys CNN had fuck all to do with it and you just heard it there first or the spin you heard had an agenda to pin it on CNN.

So your little poot here is just silly to say and you should feel bad about your life.

Re:Fake News

[Narcocide]

My guess is the story about a lover's quarrel probably originated from the social engineering tactic she used to gain entry to the building.

Re:Fake News

[dwillden]

She was never got further in than an open courtyard accessible to the public. They went with lover's quarrel because surely a female can't just go on a shooting rampage unless it's over a broken heart.

Re:Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm of mixed feelings about that. On the one hand it seems like willful ignorance of reality to pretend that a woman would only go on a shooting rampage over a broken heart. On the other hand it's kind of refreshing to see a trans woman get woman stereotypes applied to her automatically and without reservation.

clickbait & fad content policies

[Max_W]

Improving security is a good idea, however in the statement there is not a word about its content policies. Quite a few YouTube "celebreties" produce clickbait content and become "rich" and "famous".

In my opinion, YouTube shoud do more to encourage production of meaningful conent.

Re:clickbait & fad content policies

[mapkinase]

>meaningful conent

I nominate myself to be in charge of defining what "meaningful content" is.

Re:clickbait & fad content policies

[thegarbz]

In my opinion, YouTube shoud do more to encourage production of meaningful conent.

Define meaningful. Clickbait wouldn't work if people didn't find it meaningful. Just because some people are fascinated watching others opening their mail doesn't mean we need the thought police to step in.

Re:clickbait & fad content policies

[DrXym]

Absolutely. This is what I saw today on YouTube:

• 10 Unforgettable moments caught on live tv!
• 10 people you won't believe actually exist
• The most dangerous inmates in the world
• How the female orgasm works
• Most embarassing momment [sic] caught on cam

And on and on. Channels like Looper, WatchMojo etc. and perhaps a dozen other channels pumping this garbage out day in day out and being rewarded for it. Most of these clickbait videos have a high number of thumbs down which is a strong indicator that they're pushing crap.

YouTube really needs to start monetizing content that is not populist empty clickbait and develop algorithms that focus on the quality of the content. Is the video particularly good within its particular genre, does it impart genuine information and entertainment, does it come from a channel that has good standing amongst its peers, does it have an extremely low ( Because at the moment YouTube is a cesspit.

I doubt it would do anything to help when some nutball decides they're not getting the clicks they expect but it might improve the service overall.

Re:clickbait & fad content policies

[gweihir]

"Improving" security is generally a very bad idea.

Re: clickbait & fad content policies

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube tries to find content you've told it you want.

I see lots of incredibly interesting videos about law, and technology, making things, and long form essays on game criticism that sometimes go as long as 10 hours for a single critique. I see these because I've consistently shown YouTube I'm interested in these things.

If all YouTube is showing you is clickbait, why do you think that is?

Re:clickbait & fad content policies

[Mashiki]

Youtube is showing you that content because that's the content you've been watching, viewing, and repeatedly looking at. That's how the entire algorithm works. You know what I see when I look at youtube? Let's plays, game reviews, canadian politics, disassembling shitty chinese electronics that will light your head on fire if you look at it sideways.

Re: clickbait & fad content policies

[DrXym]

This is the default front page of YouTube. This is what the site feeds to anybody who hasn't logged in, or those who but have clicked on some of the links.

Yes you might be able to suppress it by viewing other videos but this is the default. This what the majority of visitors see when they click. This should tell you something.

Re:clickbait & fad content policies

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it isn't. Their algorithms just suck. I watch Jenna Marbles because I think she's funny. But she occasionally does weird makeup stuff. My channel is full of makeup tutorials. Note that the only makeup anything I'll watch is when Jenna Marbles decides she's going to do her own acrylic nails and hilarity ensues. I have never watched one of the "real" ones, only ever hers, yet my entire god damn feed is full of those damn things.

Re:clickbait & fad content policies

[Kohath]

Meaningful? So operas then? Motivational videos to show your household servants?

Re:clickbait & fad content policies

[DrXym]

No, that's the default front page when you open the site from a clean browser. After I log in, it shows something more relevant to me however the clickbait appears from to time, e.g. I watch movie reviews and that opens up "10 ten bullshit facts about some movie" style vids.

And the point is that's the default view that most people visiting the site will see until they log in, is just clickbait garbage. And I suspect people who click on it will then see more of it thereafter. It's indicative to YouTube's low threshold for promoting quality content. Clickbait should be sunk like a stone. There is plenty of valuable content as well as music, current events, sport etc that has thought and effort put into it that could showcase on the front page.

Re:clickbait & fad content policies

[Anonymous Coward]

No its not, disabling your history in Google / YouTube and then clearing the history in Chrome doesn't work (I went to lengths one day trying to figure out). But I always those get horrible sexuality motivated clickbait videos on the front page of Youtube all the time, like a hot chick in a bikini in the thumbnail then you click on the video and watch it to only learn that the hot chick isn't even in the freaking clip! Or there is all that other populist nonsensical crap like the Paul brothers which we have all come to know and instantly detest. The best way to describe all of this in one word - SPAM.

In general, if you look at what has happened because of YouTube the service itself has lead to a subculture being created and the need to always add new things which are fresh, controversial, funny and so on has now become so important. This subculture is known as being a YouTuber and as such this subculture is pretty much governed by YouTube. The problem being is, just that, it's governed and it's governed by business heads and executives, which don't get it (and on their own never will).

In order to make YouTube work you need both, you need the business head but you also need people who know how to foster an online subculture and treat it with the respect it deserves. They need to understand how to cater to this subculture safely and effectively. But instead what's happening is YouTube is inadvertently killing the subculture because
a) they are making it up as they go along; and
c) technology has been the biggest killer of true culture in our society since day one, expecting a culture to flourish in technology is not only ironic but is also quite contra to one another at as well.

Re: clickbait & fad content policies

[F.Ultra]

You don't need to login in order for youtube to present a specific front page for you. They track your ip address among other things, e.g my kids view videos on their phones over our WiFI and suddenly the youtube front page on the TV (which is not logged in at all) changes to promote content that is similar to what the kids where watching on their phones.

Re:clickbait & fad content policies

[Mashiki]

No, that's the default front page when you open the site from a clean browser. After I log in, it shows something more relevant to me however the clickbait appears from to time, e.g. I watch movie reviews and that opens up "10 ten bullshit facts about some movie" style vids.

Really? Doesn't look like that from my end. All I see is: trending(mostly entertainment), TV shows, reality TV, comedy and music trailers in the first 5 rows. Maybe you're seeing low quality content because of the country you're living in?

Idiots.

[Anonymous Coward]

Security would not have helped at all. She was outside the building.

But not censoring people and fucking them over would have...

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're adding more guns for their defense while deplatforming gun videos and advocating that everyone else give up their guns?

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

The loudest anti-gun people are always surrounded by people with guns (think Mike Bloomberg, Hillary Clinton, etc.)

It's OK for them to have guns but not for you.

Re: Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube have a responsibility to keep their platform to open and fair as that is how they attracted content creators to make it what is today. Private companies have a responsibility to serve their customers. Screwing over loyal creators is worthy if a shooting.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

It's OK for them to have guns but not for you.

This is the reason why the 2nd Amendment exists.

Re: Irony

[BronsCon]

Screwing over loyal creators is worthy if a shooting.

I don't think I'd go quite that far, but I do find the timing of this to be delightfully ironic.

Re:Irony

[AmiMoJo]

That would only be true if they took away your guns and then retained their own. Perhaps they would prefer not to have the armed security around the whole time, like high ranking public figure in other countries.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this tripe voted up?

Re:Irony

[thegarbz]

Echo chamber much? Some of us are anti gun BECAUSE we are surrounded by guns senselessly.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

That would only be true if they took away your guns and then retained their own.

Politicians, and all upper class people that own land, kept their guns in the UK. Politicians in all of the EU kept their guns, kept their armed bodyguards. Same is true for Australia.

What "would only be true if" is that state of the world in nearly every country with strong gun restrictions.

Perhaps they would prefer not to have the armed security

Clearly not. Bodyguards and politicians did not have to turn in their guns with everybody else and they chose to keep them when everyone else became disarmed.

Know your place. Your betters have better rights than you.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

See also Dianne Feinstein, the California Senator who actually sponsors bills that ban firearms and supports confiscation and personally carries a gun herself.

Re:Irony

[Zontar The Mindless]

So it's hypocritical for those in favour of gun control to protect themselves, but not for those opposed?

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Re:Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

The NRA too. They frantically lobbied for an assault weapon ban when Black Panthers armed themselves to defend their community against police. That says alot about their stand on gun rights: White people can have guns, nobody else can. Almost all of their propaganda points to this as well.

All Offices? Worldwide?

[bursch-X]

Because random shootings are a worldwide problem, right? Right? NUCLEAR FACEPALM.

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[Anonymous Coward]

They are, actually. But in europe it's mostly random rapes, truck rampages, grenade attacks, knife attacks, bombings, etc etc.

I feel safe knowing all i have to worry about is guns.

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[bursch-X]

And every day I feel reassured that moving to Japan 20 years ago was the best thing I ever did. I only have to worry about earthquakes.

Re: All Offices? Worldwide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not move the headquarters to a safer country?

Re: All Offices? Worldwide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those things happen in the USA far more often than in Europe.

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[Anonymous Coward]

And North Korean nuclear weapons.

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am pretty sure there's been a fair few bombings in the US, and plenty of rapes, and guys crashing planes into buildings*.

*Not just jihadists, remember the guy who tried to crash his plane into the White House during the Clinton years?

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[drinkypoo]

And every day I feel reassured that moving to Japan 20 years ago was the best thing I ever did. I only have to worry about earthquakes.

And sea level rise. In 20 more years, they're either going to have to turn their country into a boat and float it away, or prepare to live like spongebob squarepants.

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[volodymyrbiryuk]

Yeah, like rape doesn't happen in the US (rape cases on college campuses), like car rampages don't happen in the US (car rampages in New York and Charlottesville), like bombings don't happen in the US (Austin bomber). Nice try though.

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[volodymyrbiryuk]

You could say the same about NYC. So what's your point?

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly not sure where you stand. Are you trying to say gun violence in unique to the US, or just random gun violence? Why would you care about random shootings when this was a specific targetted attack?

Did you not hear about Charlie Hebdo? Why do you think enhanced security is only about guns, what if they wanted to stop explosives? Do you remember the Ariana Grande concert? Could enhancing security also include driving barriers in front of building access / pedestrian walkways on campuses? Do you remember the Westminster Bridge attack?

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[drinkypoo]

You could say the same about NYC. So what's your point?

NYC can pack up and move inland. Not most of the buildings, obviously, but all the stuff in them.

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, not like rape wasn't happening at some capacity already in a given country, but now people are inviting in droves of people who don't integrate into their culture and are directly causing those rape stats to spike, right? Nice try though.

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[cascadingstylesheet]

And every day I feel reassured that moving to Japan 20 years ago was the best thing I ever did. I only have to worry about earthquakes.

But ... but ... no vibrant diversity?

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that this kind of thing happens all the time in the US.

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[djinn6]

Don't forget suicide, rape, 90% confession rate in criminal trials, xenophobia and economic depression. Not to say there's nothing good about Japan, but every place has its tradeoffs.

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[CanHasDIY]

And every day I feel reassured that moving to Japan 20 years ago was the best thing I ever did. I only have to worry about earthquakes.

... and one of the highest suicide rates on the planet.

Pobody's Nerfect.

Re:All Offices? Worldwide?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Spoken like someone who's never set foot on the European continent.

Those of us who actually live here know better, though.

Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[CraigCruden]

There are content creators whose existence is toxic and damaging to Youtube brand. Obviously the shooter fell into that category. Advertisers do not appreciate advertising on videos that would potentially damage their brand. Youtube has every right to downgrade or remove stuff that is damaging to their business. If you don't like it go to another platform or go direct (via your own website - and get your own advertisers).

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are content creators whose existence is toxic and damaging to Youtube brand.

That would be youtube. All you need do is look at the like to dislike ratio on some of the SJW bullshit they've promoted. The public don't like having identity politics forced down their necks - being told they have internalised racism or sexism. These are the videos advertisers *should* be avoiding.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of small content creators are not toxic in the least. If YouTube enforce arbitrary restrictions on small content creators, they can monetize the videos themselves and keep every cent of the advertising revenues. They also allow copyright giants like WMG to "claim" videos that have nothing to do with them. Usually, WMG and their friends win any appeal no matter how absurdly wrong the claim is, and they are never punished for falsely claiming ownership of videos.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Mashiki]

Content creators don't have anything to do with damaging youtube's brand. Youtube has done that all on their own, not only that but then they decided to fold on a smear campaign. Right now the following things are deemed "toxic" gun rights, free speech, anti-free speech, anti-gun rights, masculinity, femininity, pro-trans, anti-trans, pro-illegal alien, anti-illegal alien, discussing current politics, discussing historical politics, news, and well pretty much everything except content directed at 8 and under.

Youtube doesn't have a clue what their business is, the CEO has no idea what youtube is as by seen with her videos. Youtube didn't listen to content creators when they warned about actual extremism(isis videos), or content that sexualized children/appeared to be grooming children. Then they launched a "youtube hero's" which has been just as partisan as twitters "safety and trust council" those individuals simply go out of their way to restrict/strike content that they view as offensive or going against the progressive narrative. When creators then said well, if you don't want advertisers we'll find our own and they freaked the fuck out again, and went out of their way to restrict that. Then youtube after not listening to content creators and users, freaks the fuck out again when the old guard media starts attacking them - for the same shit that people had been warning them about for nearly 2 years and then starts using a wrecking ball approach.

To be honest, I'm surprised that it took this long for someone to snap. People who were in the 250k-500k sub range with 30-40% engagement were making $500-2500/mo a few years ago, and now make under $10/mo.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Narcocide]

Nice attempt to shift the subject, but I'm sorry you're way out of order. The videos were demonetized for inciting violence. A personal response of real-world violence does not constitute proof that demonetizing them was wrong or unjust.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

The videos were demonetized for inciting violence.

WTF are you talking about? Videos have been demonetized since the WSJ and friends became threatened by the success of the platform.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

All those things you say are toxic are visible on YouTube.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Q-Hack!]

Visible, yes... monetized, no.

Re: Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll have to forgive me for not falling over myself crying for the poor content creators, whose apparent only source of income just changed the rules.

If they can't make money without YouTube, it's inevitable that YouTube will cut rates and increase limitations.

The Internet isn't actually owned by Google, so YouTube doesn't owe anyone anything.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[sinij]

There are content creators whose existence is toxic and damaging to Youtube brand.

Is radical left ideology is part of that brand? If not, they should also demonetize toxic radical left content creators, and there are plenty of these. However, Youtube are not doing this. So it isn't about brand, but about ideology conformity.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Mashiki]

All those things you say are toxic are visible on YouTube.

Except where they aren't right? Why not go look over the past year of people who've had their visibility revoked. Whether it's Chris Raygun, Pat Condell, MundaneMatt, Sargon of Akkad, Laci Green, Shoe0nhead, Undoomed, Top Hat's and Champagne, h3h3, Phil Defranco and on and on and on and on.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[sycodon]

There is a very popular channel (Deermeatfordinner) that is run by a very nice family guy, talks about doing good, participates in charity events, fishes, hunts, and cooks.

Youtube has demonetized most of his hunting videos. They have even deleted some. Essentially, anything that shows how to clean and butcher an animal. But not fish. You can show all the fish guts want and Youtube doesn't care.

Youtube is apparently an uncoordinated collection of SJWs who pretty much hate anything and anyone who isn't like them responding to other SJWs flagging videos because they anything and anyone who isn't like them.

Anyone with a few million bucks to spare could probably steal their market away practically overnight I bet.

Vimeo needs to step up. There's market share up for grabs.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[DigiShaman]

People who were in the 250k-500k sub range with 30-40% engagement were making $500-2500/mo a few years ago, and now make under $10/mo.

I'm blown away by this. You know, the competition to serve this market is unlimited. If I had deep pockets, I'd spool up a competing service as a "Youtube replacement" for members to flock too, then market the hell out of it with marketing and social media.

If free market principles are to take their natural course then all this crap going on with Youtube should be a temporary disruption. It might take a year or so (or less), but this wrong will be corrected on its own, and hopefully, content creators can get on with their lives doing what they love to do, and get paid for it.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

way to not understand what fascism is.

Please show us that you are different and understand what fascism is. Is it left or right ideology? Who was first fascists dictator? Who is founding philosopher of fascist ideology? What are the core ideas of fascism?

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as Youtube started censoring, that's when their problems began.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now the following things are deemed "toxic" gun rights, free speech, anti-free speech, anti-gun rights, masculinity, femininity, pro-trans, anti-trans, pro-illegal alien, anti-illegal alien, discussing current politics, discussing historical politics, news

Apparently chemistry, physics, and electronics are also not allowed, as my favorite nerd channels keep getting banned for no reason.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[AmiMoJo]

Lots of left leaning channels have been hit. Examples include:

Shaun
Kim Justice
Steve Shives
Kevin Logan
ContaPoints
Three Arrows
Brianna Wu
Claudia Brown
Kristi Winters
mtv braless
chescaleigh
anactualjoke
PBS Game/Show
H. Bomberguy

Most of them get hit on Twitter too.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

What silly world do you live in? The only stuff that gets more dislikes than likes are:

- Shitty reboots of kids shows

- Shitty reboots of movies

- Shitty people being Shitty

- Gamers being assholes to other gamers

"SJW" stuff doesn't even appear on the radar for the vast majority of people who just watch cat videos.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Mashiki]

You offered things that you claimed were excised from YouTube.

Not what I said, you also apparently don't understand how "toxic" is defined these days.

When rebutted that they are visible on YouTube, you move the goalposts and rail about a few worthless individuals instead.

"move the goal posts" says the person who's reading comprehension is a bit on the low side. "Worthless" people with 250k-6m+ subs

This is why we know you are a fraud. You can't back your own claims. You can't even stick to them, but keep changing the terms.

Takes less then 40 seconds to find their own, or other videos on it, or via other social media platforms.

Why don't you just start being honest?

You could start by getting your GED first, then we can follow up. Or you could always not post anonymously since your last couple of sentences kinda give away who you actually are. There, there, have some of my pity. You obviously need it.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is radical left ideology is part of that brand? If not, they should also demonetize toxic radical left content creators, and there are plenty of these. However, Youtube are not doing this. So it isn't about brand, but about ideology conformity.

If radical left ideology *is* part of their brand then you would expect them to do exactly what they have been doing: demonitizing and censoring anything even slightly to the right of the radical left. And it's not like Youtube is some aberrant division, Google has repeatedly shown this identity elsewhere; for some time now it's been clear that Google, like many other of the new tech giants, are thoroughly and radically leftist.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Mashiki]

I'm not sure why pornhub hasn't turned around and made their own yet. They not only have the capacity, but the knowledge to do so. But as it goes right now, it looks like bitchute is going to be the challenger at least in the short term.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

You also realize that it's google themselves that are causing the revenue bleeding right?

5 years ago you could be making 5000$/mo on youtube or any website with adsense. Now you're lucky if you make a few pennies. Who is responsible for that? Google and it's subsidiaries like Youtube, because advertisers realize that they are throwing money at sites, and their ads are not landing on the popular good content, but all the shitty content that they neglected to filter out beforehand.

There should literately be nobody advertising on shitty channels like "infowars", and "the amazing athiest" yet somehow the algorithms think these channels are the same as teens getting kicked in the nuts.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube doesn't have a clue what their business is, the CEO has no idea what YouTube is as by seen with her videos.

I didn't read everything you put down I got as far as the above quote which I feel you nailed the problem. Just have a look here https://socialblade.com/youtube/top/100/mostviewed and you'll see what YouTube business is.

When you look at the top 10 most of the top channels are either PewDiePie, Justin Beiber and other pop star music, or WWE. Which for me tells me that a) YouTube is no NetFlix b) Nobody goes to YouTube for serious reasons, they go to be entertained, music or otherwise, the news is pretty much at the bottom of all popularity metrics unless its something trashy like India's Enews or something.

What YouTube is, is a cheap broadcasting platform which if you get noticed (or have a sponsor paying to promote you) you can make money from. The favor is having the ability to quickly and easily upload videos for people see. As fro those who have been hit by the Adpocalypse have found other ways to make money from their views. Ask their users to download apps, review products, sell products, patreon, and so on. YouTube ads is just one of many ways to make money and you don't need to be a tech genius to do any of this.

This whole self entitled attitude the shooter had, by being disgruntled because she doesn't get enough views or ad money. Sadly there are a lot of people like that and for me I'm happy to tell all these people with this mentality to grow the hell up, get out of the basement and stop putting your problems on a company which quite frankly should not be promoting any type "welfare" situations, which I feel has happened with YouTube.

I say qo and build your own streaming video service and promote it. See what the costs are just to broadcast your own videos on a personal website, after you factor in the costs of distributing the video to 1000's of people simultaneously and having to support all the million devices out there and do it fast. It's really quite an expensive process which requires a lot of technical skill. Networking, programming and whole 9 yards need to be considered.

My attitude on YouTube is put it in its box where it belongs and see its importance and relevance as I always have. If you need a free and quick place to upload a video for people to share and I know will get downloaded quickly and support pretty much all devices. My answer to the solution, YouTube. If I ever received a dollar from one of my views, I'd be ecstatic and see it nothing more a good luck and a bonus.

But this goes with everything in the tech industry. There are TOOOO many clueless idiots out there making money from tech.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Liveleak is the future Youtube. Vimeo is super uptight; just no one notices because no one uses it. Liveleak on the other hand will let you post anything. They can easily transition from shocking gore vids to every kind of vid if their management has the will.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Type44Q]

...except content directed at 8 and under.

That's not actually for kids; the "Coloring Books for Millenials Channel" will be here any day now.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are content creators whose existence is toxic and damaging to Youtube brand. Obviously the shooter fell into that category. Advertisers do not appreciate advertising on videos that would potentially damage their brand. Youtube has every right to downgrade or remove stuff that is damaging to their business. If you don't like it go to another platform or go direct (via your own website - and get your own advertisers).

Uhm. Don't click on those videos?

Is this some sort of russian bot I am responding to? Where it doesn't understand this basic stuff?

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[DigiShaman]

because advertisers realize that they are throwing money at sites, and their ads are not landing on the popular good content, but all the shitty content that they neglected to filter out beforehand.

There should literately be nobody advertising on shitty channels like "infowars", and "the amazing athiest" yet somehow the algorithms think these channels are the same as teens getting kicked in the nuts.

It's metric based, statistics. Advertisers aren't "ministries of culture", nor should the be. They will match proper advertisements to specific markets however, but in the end, it's about making money.

Clickbait is a problem? It's symptomatic of people just being stupid. If it didn't generate so much ad revenue, you wouldn't see so many of these sites everywhere. That costs money to host and upkeep.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Half of those have done something directly to provoke hate and should be banned from youtube for life.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[sinij]

Interesting. This stood out: PBS Game/Show. Is this Public Broadcasting Service?

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

An then there are the mass stereo-typists who stereotype everyone they disagree with to the most extreme fringes of those groups.

Example your "Gun-Nuts": We don't want to kill anyone. We'd rather not have that on our conscious. What we want to enjoy our hobby, enjoy hunting and shooting sports (none of which involve killing people) and we insist on being able to defend ourselves and our families.

The "Purge" is a leftwing Hollywood vision of what we gun-nuts want. I won't say there is no support for such, but it is an extreme minority. We want our guns, we are not giving them up, and we want people to stop trying to take them away from us. That's it. But that doesn't fit the lurid stereotype you wanted to present.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[AmiMoJo]

The amount you earn from views varies massively. Have a play with this calculator: https://socialblade.com/youtub...

"CPM" is the amount paid per 1000 ad views. The range is huge because some channels attract much better paying ads than others.

What changed over the last couple of years is that high paying brands started being much more selective about the videos they were displayed on.

They started targeting certain channels and certain topics, rather than the more broad categories like "lifestyle" that was basically a dumping ground for everything from make-up tips to political videos. They also started avoiding some content entirely, and YouTube provided them with the tools to do it such as automatic transcription and content detection.

The result is that a lot of channels that were previously doing well because they were "under the radar" and advertisers were not really aware of their content started to lose revenue. Many offset it by pushing viewers towards Patreon, which is often a lot more lucrative anyway.

If you started your own YouTube alternative you would find advertisers make the same demands of you.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[sinij]

There is a very popular channel (Deermeatfordinner) that is run by a very nice family guy, talks about doing good, participates in charity events, fishes, hunts, and cooks.

Youtube has demonetized most of his hunting videos. They have even deleted some. Essentially, anything that shows how to clean and butcher an animal. But not fish. You can show all the fish guts want and Youtube doesn't care.

This is just strange. Especially if I am a hunting store/supplies business, this is EXACTLY the type of video I'd like to advertise with.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[PopeRatzo]

Why not go look over the past year of people who've had their visibility revoked. Whether it's Chris Raygun, Pat Condell, MundaneMatt, Sargon of Akkad, Laci Green, Shoe0nhead, Undoomed, Top Hat's and Champagne, h3h3, Phil Defranco and on and on and on and on.

I encourage readers to google those names and discover for themselves how much of cultural importance has been lost by those people not being able to make money on YouTube.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[AmiMoJo]

I believe so, yes. They had a show about video games, on around the time that GamerGate was in full swing. There was an episode looking at similar issues to the Tropes vs. Women series, I guess getting in on the zeitgeist and also reacting to the attacks and dismissals. Like a lot of other media around the time.

Naturally it was targeted too.

Re: Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, society is always improved when we crush all counter-culture, and march in lockstep.

Fuck off, Nazi.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Mycroft-X]

Youtube doesn't want their money.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[iamhassi]

If you don't like it go to another platform or go direct (via your own website - and get your own advertisers).

I'm tired of hearing "if you don't like it, don't use Facebook/android/twitter/etc". Just because first amendment says you can't go to jail for speech does not mean private companies are allowed to censor indiscriminately. If I sent a racist text to my friend, should google be allowed to censor it or delete it? Should Verizon be allowed to read my text and kick me off Verizon? Should Facebook remove private messages that "incite violence"? Because Facebook already has https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Laci Green, as one example, has had videos demonetized because her sex ed videos are too progressive. I find it funny though that you feel the need to say "progressive narrative" for why demonetizing has occurred or on in an article about Laci Green "red-pilling" the author writes when Laci Green actually listens and considers what's stated that her agreement on various points "as an instance of a liberal finally acknowledging liberalism’s inherent flaws". Laci Green acknowledges herself as a SJW and while I would potentially agree that SJW does heavily imply supporting demonsteization and censorship, it's not an aspect of liberalism.

I have to admit that people using "liberal" insulting triggers me. I should feel the same way about "right wing" and really alt-right would be the more appropriate statement. Personalize, I don't support any youtube channel being demonetized. What I would like is more people like Laci Green who listen to people whose views they may oppose and decide which points are valid and argue why. That's the conversation we need. We don't need rants about how horrible certain political affiliations are without bothering to listen to other points of view.

PS - If you can't figure it out, I'm not a SJW nor alt-right. Labeling people isn't always appropriate, but mislabeling people or ideas almost always is. I have no problem in principle having my ideas challenged. Pragmatically, of course, I'm not watching hundreds of hours of rants by 20 different people or explaining myself twenty different times. Like most things, there's a middle ground. Not a middle ground in ideas but in a realization that there is a space where people can present their ideas and decide what they believe instead of parroting or self-deluding themselves.

Re: Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah, society is always improved when we crush all counter-culture, and march in lockstep.

It's not "counter-culture" to espouse the prejudices of the dominant culture. That's not how it works.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[sinij]

Actually, advertisers failed to fully realize that digital advertising based on keywords, that imperfectly represent immediate interest, is hugely ineffective. It is only hyper-targeted advertising that personal data aggregators like Facebook could offer that is of any use.

What you are interested in a specific moment has very weak correlation to what you consume. Who you are as a person has very strong correlation to what you consume. So advertising to people looking for X is all but worthless unless it is ultra-specific search term like "where to buy X", but advertising to people who are X is rather effective, especially if you willing to use emotional manipulation and other dirty marketing tricks.

For example. A middle aged male from California with an estimated income of 60K/year is searching for "RubyGem json". So when Google advertising shows large picture of actual rubies with a link to jeweler site they are wasting that advertiser's money. Instead show advertisement for cat litter, hand moisturizer, and mountain dew and you likely will get some sales.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Only strange through a lens of different values. Look at what decisions Alphabet, Google, and YouTube make. That will tell you their values.

They aren't working to optimize profit, engagement, market share, or business partnerships.

A granular tagging system would be a trivial and perfect setup for advertisers, YouTube, and content creators. Yet a manual take down and demonetization process is what they choose to do instead.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[sinij]

Youtube doesn't want their money.

Then they are neglecting their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[cciechad]

I suspect they automate the advertising almost 100% and they don't want to accidentally put an ad from a company with something they feel objectionable about. Its probably easier(more profitable) to just ban or demonitize anything that more than say 40-50% of their ad customers may take issue with. I'm not saying its right but that it was likely a financial decision.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[sinij]

I think, if true, demonetization of Public Broadcasting Service channel should be a bigger story.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Luckyo]

Having watched most of the groups you list as I actually want to know what my political opponents think, your utter lack of even basic understanding of their platforms is baffling. You literally built a massive caricature of what you think these groups are, based on maybe seeing some mentally unstable individual rant somewhere.

All of the platforms you mention have far more complex ideologies then "kill/disappear/etc people we disagree with".

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um obviously Verizon can't do that because they are a common carrier. Facebook isn't and shouldn't be. If you want to send messages that are inciting violence you should probably be using something secure.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[AmiMoJo]

It was before the demonetization problems really started. The video was temporarily hidden and a strike issued, but later restored.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally, an eight year old will not understand generational concepts as applied to theoretical underpinnings in society, which is because it is clearly stupid, has no basis for any rational thought, and is designed to distract you from problems by creating a boogeyman that is both constant, and unbeatable. Time.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who is trying to quash Free Speech when it doesn't conform to their ideology?

Who is agitating for the firing of people who express opinions they don't agree with?

Who seeking criminal charges for expressing opinions?

Who is attacking others in public that aren't part of their tribe?

Who covers their faces and operates in mobs?

Re: Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

The right and left?

What do I win?

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny because she was what you could consider the radical left (animal rights activist) and they did do just about everything to squash her channel that they've been doing to right wingers across the site. Most likely because of the videos she posted of animals being tortured in meat farms in china, that probably got her whole channel flagged at the highest mature audiences rating.

Re: Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

A Dunce cap.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the FUCK are you to say who should be advertising anywhere?

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[sycodon]

I call Bullshit.

Youtube is deliberately demonetizing some channels. It has nothing to do with advertisers.

In the previous Channel I mentioned (DeerMEatForDinner) there were many ads for firearm related products on his hunting videos.

Not anymore. You can't tell me that the firearm and hunting industry decided not to advertise on a hunting channel.

Complete and utter Bullshit.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[DigiShaman]

Not me. First two sentences were supposed to be quoted from the parent AC, but I messed up in the code. Sentences 3 and 4 are mine.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[citizenr]

Obviously you havent seen any of her videos. She was into weird performance art, and harmless until she got demonetized and snapped.
She wasnt demonetized for harmful content, it actually looks like they did it because she also uploaded in Farsi = Iran = might be terrurists.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you find this info?

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

They also hit progressive news outlet The Young Turks.

#tytnetwork
#justicedemocrats

Re: Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Protip: When every last mainstream celebrity and corporate media outlet is spewing the same garbage you are, you're not "Counter-Culture".

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[another_twilight]

I'm tired of hearing "if you don't like it, don't use Facebook/android/twitter/etc"

Then perhaps you should stop making the same argument to which this is the answer.

Just because first amendment says you can't go to jail for speech does not mean private companies are allowed to censor indiscriminately

Actually, that's precisely what it means. There's no constitutional protection for forcing someone to support your speech. You can say what you like but can't compel someone to assist you. Get a soap box, go stand on a corner. Knock yourself out.

If I sent a racist text to my friend, should google be allowed to censor it or delete it?

Yes. You ask this as though the answer is obvious. This might be why you keep having the problem you describe in your first sentence.

Should Verizon be allowed to read my text and kick me off Verizon?

No. Common carrier.

Should Facebook remove private messages that "incite violence"?

Slightly different to the Google question - you ask 'should' not 'should they be allowed'. Facebook should be allowed to do what they like to your statement.

You seem to think that Google, Facebook (and perhaps, by implication, Youtube) should be treated as utilities and regulated as such. It's an interesting position. Would you like to expand on it, or are you just going to continue to argue as though it were obvious?

Re: Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Suddenly PETA activist vegan Iranian women are the dominant culture?

You are such a fucking moron. Literally everything you say is hilariously easy to obliterate. It's like debating a 9 year old.

Re: Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[PopeRatzo]

Suddenly PETA activist vegan Iranian women are the dominant culture?

You're referring to Nasim Najafi Aghdam, who was the shooter at the YouTube campus who killed herself. Below is the list of people we were discussing. You will notice her name is not on the list.

Whether it's Chris Raygun, Pat Condell, MundaneMatt, Sargon of Akkad, Laci Green, Shoe0nhead, Undoomed, Top Hat's and Champagne, h3h3, Phil Defranco and on and on and on and on.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[tehcyder]

Youtube doesn't want their money.

Then they are neglecting their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders.

Nonsense. YouTube or any other business are perfectly entitled to reject money from, and not do business with people promoting Nazism or Paedophilia (or whatever unequivocably bad thing you choose). There is no moral or legal obligation for businesses to take every possible money-making opportunity.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[tehcyder]

If free market principles are to take their natural course then all this crap going on with Youtube should be a temporary disruption.

YouTube are perfectly following market principles. They have reacted to their advertisers not wanting to be associated with particular topics. It's a financial decision, not a moral one.

You appear to be falling for the right wing fallacy that free market=free speech.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube are perfectly following market principles. They have reacted to their advertisers not wanting to be associated with particular topics.

No. Reacting to advertisers does not mean they're following market principles. It depends on the actual reaction.

Is youtube's reaction following market principles? I would say no. For example, between pro-gun advertisers and anti-gun advertisers, they choose the anti-gun ones

But why? The pro-gun people have, supposedly, the backs of the NRA and other evil rich people and corporations (though I repeat myself because corporations are people). They're where the money's at. Those poor students protesting may be more vocal, but poor students are... poor. So if youtube was acting on market principles, they should have chosen to keep the pro-gun side happy (if they had to choose... best solution would be to keep both sides happy)

And yes, it is ironic that youtube, after snuffing the pro-gun side, are now looking to get some guns/guards with guns themselves. It would be awfully amusing if conservatives make a fuss, leading to various gun companies or security firms refusing to sell guns/guards with guns to youtube, because they are "perfectly following market principles"

You appear to be falling for the right wing fallacy that free market=free speech.

You appear to be falling for partisan foolishness of assigning political leanings to a logical fallacy. A fallacy is just a fallacy. Trying to pin it to one side or another, or arguing who does it more, says more about your own politician bias than it does anything productive. Accusing the other side being less than capable of rational dialogue does not help encourage rational dialogue.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this approach is that you shine a light on exactly how unpopular right wing opinions are. The free market cannot sustain an echo chamber that small, deep pockets can only sustain it at a loss; just like existing think tanks and astroturf movements.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you grossly overestimate the userbase for a right wing youtube. Even if you can manage to keep the Hitler worship videos off your platform, excluding that segment from your platform would mean effectively cutting your userbase into 1/3 of what it could be.

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Mashiki]

I encourage readers to google those names and discover for themselves how much of cultural importance has been lost by those people not being able to make money on YouTube.

Considering that as little as 2 years ago, many of them were leftists, or self-proclaimed leftists. It's very special individuals like yourself(among others), who've driven the left so far to the left that you're unable to see it from your echo chamber. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad that you repeatedly prove their point, by turning around and then attacking them.

Re: Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Mashiki]

You're referring to Nasim Najafi Aghdam, who was the shooter at the YouTube campus who killed herself. Below is the list of people we were discussing. You will notice her name is not on the list.

Strange, it appears you weren't discussing anything. Rather you were whinging and unable to explain why you had problems with various people who are mainly self-described leftists. Until the left decided to attack them directly and "the left, left them."

Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Mashiki]

You mean their 'video game' show that screeched that all gamers were chalk full of misogyny, and gamers have a violence and sexism problem? Gee I wonder why that didn't last.

Re: Toxic people are damaging to the brand.

[Mashiki]

It's not "counter-culture" to espouse the prejudices of the dominant culture. That's not how it works.

The 'left' have held control of education and entertainment for the better part of 35 years, and in north america have held news media for the better part of 25 years. They are the mainstream culture. The fact that this eludes you is rather telling, along with your belief that "the right" is the dominant culture. If it was, you wouldn't see all of this progressive garbage being pushed and supported by all those same groups now would you.

Private businesses have the right to associate

[CraigCruden]

This is a private business (Youtube) and they have every right to downrank or remove content that they feel is damaging to their brand. If you feel hard done by -- create your own content portal or find another one that feels you are a good fit. They are not entitled to serve as a platform for anyone that they don't feel fits their brand (with the exception of equality laws like discrimination based on gender or race).

Re: Private businesses have the right to associate

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really a private business. It's owned by a publically floating company. Not being censored is kind of the big one for communications companies. Ford are forced to equip cars with good steering wheels. Enjoy the next shooting !!

Re:Private businesses have the right to associate

[Max_W]

... create your own content portal or find another one that feels you are a good fit ...

It's impossible to create your own content portal like YouTube, because creating an organization like this requires thousands of qualified specialists, billions of investment into infrastructure and promotion, governmental support on external markets, and so on and so forth.

So it does have certain responsibility towards its content creators, society in general, including international community.

Re:Private businesses have the right to associate

[CraigCruden]

BS! You only need that type of organization if you are supporting a large company. Many small video podcasters hosters host their own shows (some dual host with youtube). All a portal is a website on a hosted machine with video. Of course, you have to go out and get your own sponsors (TWiT.tv does this - it is growing). If you are small you don't need all that. If you go through another organization or individual's marketplace then you have to abide by their rules (and some of those could be arbitrary). Youtube just makes it easy to do because you can do it with nothing. You could probably do a cutdown version even in something like Wordpress. There are some much smaller than TWiT who do the same thing so that they have content control and can get their own advertisers.

Re: Private businesses have the right to associate

[Anonymous Coward]

good argument makes you think thanks for the reminder.

Re: Private businesses have the right to associate

[Anonymous Coward]

This needs to be said more.

Regardless of the caterwauling, we are not slaves to Google unless we choose to be. Hosting services are trivially inexpensive (I've hosted all my own content for over 10 years, at a total cost of less than $1000), and html5 video is trivially simple to implement. There are open source video sharing website templates available free of charge.

Claiming you must have a staff of thousands to host videos is absurd.

Given their business model

[LordHighExecutioner]

It is quite likely that they will add live cameras in their offices, to broadcast next shooting live worldwide.

Re:Given their business model

[Anonymous Coward]

That won't be necessary; all news media do nowadays is broadcast security camera footage -- which have probably been installed, just not yet monetized for clickbait material

Re:Given their business model

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up please, don't give them any ideas. Some people here on Slashdot are so desperate to grab attention that they would go for it!

For example, a friend of mine, who is a profiler for a three letter agency, told me yesterday that they have creimer on high surveillance because of this incident and profiling data data they have available on him due to his Internet footprint.

See what he just posted here on this article and please keep a low profile:
https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

Re:Given their business model

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop trolling creimer. He left Slashdot for YouTube. Be happy with that.

Re:Given their business model

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha really funny +5

I watched Casey Neistat videos for the first time in my life yesterday and it's really funny how the delusional creimer tries to copy his style in his own creimy digi-feces videos and how he always give Neistat as an example!

Neistat even has one video where he says "to believe" and to "build your own brand" with your "own ideas"

CROFLOL! The delusional creimer really belives in that shit! You don't have to search really far to find where it's coming from! creimer thinks for real that he will be the next Casey Neistat ;-)

CROFLOL! CROFLOL! CROFLOL!
--
Balena!

Re:Given their business model

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly,

It seems like Chris is a victim here. He keeps on reading those SEO, youtube algorithm, basically get rich quick sites. He doesn't realize that he is the fish for them since they make money off him with their own schemes. Then, he wastes his time trying to implement what those sites suggest and he ends up disturbing people.

I mean, those crooks tell Chris that he has to build personal brands and he goes on the Internet and makes everything about himself public!

I believe we should bring this up at our next meeting. He might not be our only patient victim of such on-line abuse.

--
Silvia Bunge
Psychology Department
University of California, Berkeley

everywhere?

[Vranitzky]

There is no need to do it everywhere in the world. These things only happen in backward places like the US. No other country thinks that the way to solve mass shootings is by increasing weapons use (arming school officials?). The US is increasingly looking like an African dictatorship. Forward thinking states like California should just declare independence. The US army is useless anyhow, they haven't won a war for decades.

Re:everywhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you're right. I mean, its only bad places like the US with their Wild West mentality and lack of gun laws that have this horrific gun violence *cough*jesuischarlie*cough*. And in all the other paradyllic countries, no violence at all happens. No knife wielding psychopaths ever attack crowds of people, right? Certainly no one drives a truck 400 yards through a parade crowd in other countries!

I could go on but I hope you get the point. The problem is not guns, though they do make it easier. The problem is crazy people and/or people willing to do horrific things in the name of (insert cause here).

Also, this happened in California. She bought the gun in California. She practiced at a shooting range in California. She took the firearm and used it to murder people in California. California has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the US, yes. What they don't have is free mental health care. What the US doesn't have is a mentality that needing help is acceptable and normal. We're all cowboys and rock stars and action heroes and we'll deal with our mental issues with drugs and alcohol and violence (and sex, can't forget the sex!) because 'Murica! And that needs to change too.

But you're not wrong. They don't need to add armed staff at all their buildings worldwide. Just the ones located in countries with people they are screwing over who might want to drive a car inside and say hello. Oh wait, guns won't stop that either. Guess this is probably just security theater to pacify their employees then and show they are "Taking this potential threat seriously" so everyone can get back to being properly productive!

Re:everywhere?

[BronsCon]

Indeed. Guns are the least scary of the mass-assault options. A knife is silent, you might not know someone is stabbing people in a crowd until they stab you. A bomb is instant, you don't get to hear the first shot fired and take cover, nor can you kill, incapacitate, or restrain the bomber to prevent detonation. Vehicles are so commonplace, nobody thinks twice about one approaching a cordoned-off area (they may just be parking, or looking for room to turn around) and by the time you realize they're gonna plow through the crowd you're part of, well, it's too late to get out of the way... because you're in a crowd and, well, you can't run through people (like the vehicle can); further, even if someone does realize the vehicle is gonna drive through that crowd, what can they do? Shoot the driver? The vehicle doesn't magically stop when the driver becomes incapacitated and there's a fair chance they'll mash the gas pedal as they seize.

At least with a gun, if the first shot doesn't hit you (and there's a good chance it won't if you're in a crowd), you can take cover and protect yourself. If you're also armed, you can even stop the shooter, because you know they're there and they're making enough noise to easily locate them.

Re:everywhere?

[blindseer]

A knife is silent, you might not know someone is stabbing people in a crowd until they stab you.

Also, no one stops to reload a knife.

Re:everywhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least with a gun, if the first shot doesn't hit you (and there's a good chance it won't if you're in a crowd), you can take cover and protect yourself. If you're also armed, you can even stop the shooter, because you know they're there and they're making enough noise to easily locate them.

You can take cover to protect yourself without being armed. Most people have no realistic chance of stopping a mass/rampage shooter even if well armed.

I hear this bravado often from people that have not taken concealed carry training. Just curious, have you?

So you find yourself in a crowd, armed, and you hear a shot.
-Can you identify where the shot came from? You can't effectively take cover without knowing this.
-Are you out with friends or family? You aren't suggesting running off and playing Rambo while leaving your kids to fend for themselves I hope.
-Have you been identifying suitable conceal and cover positions and calculating fields of fire while strolling the outlet mall? Don't forget to recalculate which positions are good based on where that shot was.
-Are you in any sort of uniform? You know that if you pull out your weapon in plain clothes, you stand a very good chance of being misidentified as the "bad guy" by other Rambo wannabes, or did you think they all saw what happened during the first shot and are all as well trained as you?
-In the event the shooter comes around the corner to attack you and your family/friends, are you prepared to kill? Hope you have a good lawyer, you are signing up for life in prison at best unless you are cleared. Even then, can you handle the guilt for the rest of your life?

When you make the decision to use a weapon, it should be without hesitation. It is not like a movie, there is no Dirty Harry speech, there is no pleading with an attacker. There is no gray area in my state. You are either threatened with deadly force or you are not. You do not ask the attacker politely put down their gun. Pulling your weapon to make a threat is called brandishing and will land you in jail. These are all simple rules that you learn when you get a concealed carry license in my state.

As far as I can tell the anti-gun people are mostly just reacting to fear. Irrational fear based on what they see on TV or movies, not based on reality. I highly recommend they go to a range, sign up for a beginner's safety class, and after learning the basics of safety, never go back. They have no respect for what they do no understand, and they fear what they have not experienced.

Re:everywhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit

Finally, following one best practice.

[Maxo-Texas]

When a large corporation fires/lays off hundreds to thousands of employees, it's a best practice to have armed police on business campuses for a period of time (months to even years).

Giving severance pay is another best practice..

So is giving advance notice that the change is coming (actually that's a legal requirement too).

So is having a meeting and giving some kind of explanation which shows respect for the employees and a reason why the change needs to take place and isn't arbitrary.

When youtube demonetizes content without warning, what they are doing is akin to a layoff.

Youtube could have reduced the likelihood of a shooting if they had:

Given 30, 60, or even 90 days notice that demonetization was coming.
Given "severance" pay based on the content creators historical income.
* To high income earners because they've done a lot for youtube in the past and they are less likely to get angry if youtube shows respect by giving severance.
* To low income earners because *it's very cheap* and generates a lot of good will.
* Distributed a video or -better- had a live conference where they explained why demonetization was necessary (advertisers refusing to pay for content, legal exposure to risk, etc.)
* Let everyone know that there would be armed uniformed police on campus starting immediately and continuing for for an unspecified period of time.

Instead, Youtub did it in a really roughshod way, with little explanation, no to almost no advance warning, and then expected, in a country full of gun owners and regular mass shootings, that nothing bad would happen.

I've been seeing youtube content creators posting upset videos for a while now.

I don't blame Youtube for demonetizing content. I just think they ignored best practices because they didn't see it as a layoff/firing of thousands of employees. And that is part of the reason their employees were shot.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dom Portwood: So um, Milton has been let go?
Bob Slydell: Well just a second there, professor. We uh, we fixed the *glitch*. So he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it will just work itself out naturally.
Bob Porter: We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem solved from your end.

...

Milton Waddams: I could set the building on fire...

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[AmiMoJo]

When youtube demonetizes content without warning, what they are doing is akin to a layoff.

You hit the nail on the head. People started treating YouTube like their job, and I think there is actually a good argument that they should get some employment rights and protections.

The gig economy was largely about screwing works out of job security and benefits, and it has taken the law time to catch up and give people like Uber drivers some of the rights they deserve as effective employees.

YouTube is big enough to handle this. Initially when you suggested notice periods for demonetization I thought that advertisers would never go for that, but actually it doesn't matter. YouTube can afford to keep paying the ad revenue without showing the ads for a few months, the same severance pay.

Of course if you do something really bad you might get fired with no severance, and video removals / channel bans are still going to happen. Again, long established employment law exists to deal with this.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't understand is why it's all or nothing. Why isn't there a quality scale of content where the highest quality merits the highest-paying advertisers? You can't convince me that there aren't some advertisers that don't care what the content is as long as their ads are show - but possibly at a super cheap rate.

YouTube consistently makes bad policy decisions and I'm getting most of my content elsewhere.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a flipside to this, which is Youtube's Executive management believes they are contracting with other business partners on an at-whim contract, and they believe if they did demonetization slowly there'd be push-back which would displease advertisers. To an extent, that is also true. From my perspective, the culpability here is not just the failure to inform, it's specifically the action of saying they might demonetize you, they really don't know what the algorithm will do, you and your income are now a science experiment, but please keep spending money and time on making videos. It's the "We might pay you but please keep working" that can run people to ruin. If they had merely said "we're stopping payments today" then at least people have some cash in the bank to transition into something else.

Their platform has grown too large and too offensive to certain special groups to manage, so much so that many of the demonetized channels are now bringing their own advertising to their platform to make money, and using youtube to host their videos. They represent a pure cost to youtube to keep around. Millions of video hits, zero ad revenue. They've created a situation where a new, better platform can enter.

Also, you can bet you have foreign managers coming from foreign countries into the US with zero understanding that some of the reason the US has these labor laws is that these new cool total-dickwad moves these managers are playing are not in any way shape or form new. Historically, many of those moves have lead to starvation, homelessness, or screwed over a generation of people, and ultimately have resulted with people ending up 6 feet in the ground for doing it. The only observation I can make here is Americans have gotten into the bad habitation of shooting up eachother instead of what they did during the Civil war, which is shoot for the top. Exacting justice on your own terms by popping a board of directors is, in my opinion, a cargo-cult behaivour. Like the french revolution, the act of marching royalty's heads down the streets on pikes thinking this act will bring prosperity is more the indication of a generation so abused it has lost the concept of unconditional love and dignity rather than any kind of act that might bring actual prosperity. If your design for improving society requires un-reformable criminals be dealt with, then quick, mute, dignified executions, even if they don't deserve it, are probably best. Hence the tradition of the last meal.

Ultimately, the solution to all of this is to cap executive incomes with income taxes like we did in the 1950's\60's, and give business owners an option. If they run a public corp, and want those awesome protections, current and former employee's are the ones who hold stock, and any company debt that gets taken on is strictly managed like a bank loan rather than some usurous stock market game. If the public grants you protections, you primarily operate for the interest of your employee's or for a public purpose such as a utility. If they run a private business, anything goes but you had better have your druthers together because someone dies on your watch, it's a fine and jail cell for you.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[thegarbz]

When a large corporation fires/lays off hundreds to thousands of employees, it's a best practice to have armed police on business campuses for a period of time (months to even years).

WTF is that a thing in America? Hell last time we laid off 700 people we didn't even increase the number of security staff (from 1 to 2*).

*Side note we did have a security incident caused by the fact the only security guard we had went to the toilet, and some random person let themselves in and stole the shower heads from the men's showers. You can't make this shit up. At least after that incident they considered having 2 security guards. .. They still didn't though.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Maxo-Texas]

Well, the way our system is set up, job loss can be very close to killing people and their children. People spend too much and carry too much debt. The entire system is built to encourage this behavior.

Now add guns to people who feel they are being killed and their life is being destroyed by the company that may have asked them to work nights, weekends, and holidays.

Then add a history of work violence after layoffs going back for decades so people consider it an option.

It's a volatile mixture.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting up videos on YouTube seems to be a classic case of being self-employed. Better access to information on the issues of being self-ployed on YouTube might make sense. People are hostage to a fickle public too, after all.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[PolygamousRanchKid]

People started treating YouTube like their job,

This sounds like extreme stalking to me . . . where folks in disillusion convince themselves that they are the "true love" of some Hollywood celebrity.

The YouTube film producers are no different from other artists . . . you create a painting . . . hang it in a gallery . . . and then someone buys it . . . or they don't.

and I think there is actually a good argument that they should get some employment rights and protections.

Did YouTube ever insinuate that they would have a job for life with YouTube? No, they are just like any other contractors . . . you make big bucks when you are needed . . . but have no long term commitments.

The gig economy was largely about screwing works out of job security and benefits, and it has taken the law time to catch up and give people like Uber drivers some of the rights they deserve as effective employees.

A lot of folks like doing contract work . . . if you are young and single, and understand the risks and can financially plan for them . . . it can be a great deal.

If you are married, with two kids to feed and a house to finance . . . well, maybe a steady job is better for you.

But at any rate, contributors to YouTube who think that they have a lifetime employment commitment at YouTube are idiots.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

"regular mass shootings"

Sure thing soy boy!

Re: Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Monetization is not employment, so demonetization is not being fired.

As a content creator, you work for yourself. If one of your paying customers isn't paying as much, it's on you to find alternatives. If you can't find anyone else to pay, then maybe you should just be happy you got this unparalleled sweetheart deal while you could?

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[sinij]

you create a painting . . . hang it in a gallery . . . and then someone buys it . . . or they don't.

When you apply to the Youtube content creators, "then someone buys it" is building a following. When Youtube demonetizes it is equivalent of arts gallery forcing return and refund of all paintings sold through it, without refunding commissions.

Ideological commitment to freedom speech aside, you should care about Yutube demonetizing because it chills all similar speech. This will result in more shallow and pointless content and less critical commentary. This will make Youtube less valuable as a source of knowledge.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[AmiMoJo]

Most people who making a living off YouTube (or Twitch or any other social media platform) started out casually and grew in popularity.

YouTube benefits greatly from them producing content full time. It encourages them to do so, with awards and promotion. Yet, it offers no security if they do make it their job.

Sounds a lot like Uber, doesn't it? They want all the benefits and encourage people to generate revenue for them, but don't want to take on the responsibility of employing them.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[sinij]

Spot on, AmiMoJo.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Kohath]

When youtube demonetizes content without warning, what they are doing is akin to a layoff.

It's actually worse than this because there are no other viable platforms. It's like firing people when you're the only business of that type, so those people can never work again in that business.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like you've been showing your work in a gallery and getting sales for years and then one day the gallery says they have changed the policy to only give away your art for free instead of selling it.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

In America there is no public health care. You stop getting income and go off insurance, responsible spender or not, you risk total finnancial ruin and death. When people have nothing to lose and are faced with the end this is the result all too often.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[DogDude]

People who make/made money off of making videos should consider themselves lucky for the money they got, and get themselves a real job. It's not Youtube's fault that some really, truly, profoundly stupid people thought they were somehow *entitled* to be paid money for making stupid videos.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[squiggleslash]

It's probably a thing with some companies. I've been laid off three times. The third time involved a hundred or so fellow employees. We were all given several weeks notice, all told we were going to get a severance (not a great severance, but one nonetheless), and were going to be given help finding employment elsewhere.

No armed security present or needed. I think you have to be a pretty shitty company both to need armed security in a layoff situation, and to feel the need to deploy it.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[ElizabethGreene]

>>A lot of folks like doing contract work . . . if you are young and single, and understand the risks and can financially plan for them .

There is a subtle difference between contracting and producing youtube content.

In the former you do work and get paid. In the latter you do work, post a video, and an AI clicks a switch and you don't get paid. It's roulette, with no meaningful appeal system, no way to recapture your lost revenue, and no humans you can complain to.

In addition to reconsidering their security, YouTube also needs to create a much better system to manage issues with content producers.

See also: "Cody'sLab"

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[AmiMoJo]

Thanks. I'm adding the sinij Seal of Approval (TM) to my resume. Right after Karma: Excellent.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[AmiMoJo]

This is a bad joke by the way, I'm not mocking sinij. I have a feeling some people will assume I am.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[AmiMoJo]

Employment rights won't get Nazi videos re-monetized though. Nothing will do that, and that's fine because the messages are still there, YouTube just isn't paying anyone to make them.

What employment rights would help with are people like this woman who have multiple channels to separate out different types of content, and who wouldn't get so frustrated and angry if the system was more transparent. The kafkaesque strike and appeal system, and the inability to contact a human being, and the lack of any support in terms of understanding why content is de-monetized is the problem.

In the worst possible situation YouTube would notice that a previously monetized channel was actually full of content that advertisers were refusing. Rather than an instant cut-off they would de-monetize, pay some form of "redundancy" money based on what the channel was previously earning, and offer support for producing more acceptable content in future.

Obviously her graphic animal welfare videos would never have been acceptable to most advertisers, but if someone explained that and showed her how she could make less graphic videos that still help get her message out, and how that reaches a wider audience, she might have been okay with that.

It's actually something that the far right on YouTube has learned and made good use of. The understand that while YouTube will tolerate their supremacist views, their defence is Nazism and the like, but that it won't be popular. So they have "alt-light" channels, producing more moderate videos that draw people in, that can get millions of views and front page exposure.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[sinij]

AmiMoJo, you triggered me with your insensitive comment and your abusive and violent conduct pushed me toward spiral of self-harm and criminality. So the entirety of my bad decisions from this point on rest on your shoulders.

:)

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[sinij]

Employment rights won't get Nazi videos re-monetized though.

While the rest of your reply is reasonable, you started with poisoning the well by implying that monetization of Nazi videos is the key issue and that demonetized videos are likely Nazi.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, people on YouTube are *not* employees.
At best, they are contractors. More like freelancers
If a freelancer is let go, they don't have much recourse unless they had a contract.
The problem, as someone else mentioned, is people think of YouTube as a job, and put everything in one basket.
It's not.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[AmiMoJo]

I didn't imply that at all, I was just using an extreme but not uncommon example of the type of political video that advertisers won't touch.

I feel like I can't win. If I say "far right" or "alt right" people just say it's "everyone you hate". If I enumerate several examples we get bogged down in their relative merits and if they are real Nazis/nationalists/supremacists or not, and it distracts from the point I'm making. If I just give one, clear and straightforward example this happens.

I'll try some other form of words next time, but if you really want to have a serious debate about this then you have to assume good faith and look at the point being made. I used the word "brigade" yesterday and people misunderstood that, likely due to cultural differences between the UK and US, and it just degrades the discussion to infer bad faith like that.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[sinij]

I am interested in a conversation with you, because we happen to disagree on many things. It is boring to talk to people you always agree with. I am willing to extend charitable interpretation to what you say, but not when it goes against preconceived notions I have about you. That is, in this specific example I decided, perhaps mistakenly, that it is something that AmiMoJo would intentionally say.

Could you really fault me for this apparent mistake, considering how easily accusations of Nazism is getting thrown from your side?

If you didn't intended it that way, than I will take your word for it. However, personally I am convinced that some moderator at YouTube is right now demonetizing a conservative channel believing that doing so fights fascism.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

People who make/made money off of making videos should consider themselves lucky for the money they got, and get themselves a real job.

Like actors, sports stars, or musicians. What sort of a real job is to paid thousands to millions of dollars for selling a product people are willing to buy?

It's not Youtube's fault that some really, truly, profoundly stupid people thought they were somehow *entitled* to be paid money for making stupid videos.

It is Youtube's fault because as the middle-man, they're the gatekeeper on deciding on who gets ads (and money) and who doesn't. The comparison is a TV network who doesn't threaten to pull ads but just one day decides a show is unacceptable and then still shows the shows but doesn't insert any ads. Yes, the maker of the show should get the hint that they need to find a new venue, but the capricious and arbitrary nature of it should be pointed out as Youtube's fault.

Now, if people still keep posting on Youtube and not using other venues or "get a real job", then it's their fault. They've learned the lesson at this point that Youtube isn't using well-defined standards. There's no way to "appease the advertisers" because it's not clear the advertisers are deciding what gets ads. There's clearly no way to appease Youtube because they're apparently using "AI" to auto-tag stuff and while it's possible to repeatedly appeal, that's in the long term a losing battle.

It's not stupid to think that they could and should be paid for the videos they make when they have a large audience and many advertisers willing to support them. It's just stupid to think Youtube is the place to show them.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[AmiMoJo]

Could you really fault me for this apparent mistake, considering how easily accusations of Nazism is getting thrown from your side?

Well... Yeah, I mean, I don't really regard people who throw such accusations around as "my side". I can't be held accountable for their actions and it's frankly quite annoying when people assume I'm some kind of "SJW" or "leftist" or whatever.

Mashiki does this all the time, listing endless things he thinks I believe but which anyone who had actually read my posts seriously would know are absurd. That's why I've given up with him, it's just impossible to have any kind of conversation at all with the guy.

Sorry for the rant but it really annoys me, far more than the censorship.

Thanks for having a good debate here. It's getting kinda rare on Slashdot.

I think that given the number of progressive/socialist channels on YouTube already affected, at most you could say that multiple people are YouTube are pushing an agenda but even that would be pure speculation. I think this comes back to the basic problem, that the whole system is opaque. Employers have to explain these decisions.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Pfhorrest]

People spend too much and carry too much debt. The entire system is built to encourage this behavior.

Plus, you know, those who own all the land demand most of what most people can make for the right to continue living on it, so if you suddenly aren't making any money, someone else who you've been bribing into allowing you to continue existing on their land will force you off of it, and nobody else is going to take you in unless you can bribe them too...

Don't act like irresponsible spending is at fault here. Mandatory, unavoidable expenses like housing are just barely within most people's reach these days.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[russotto]

Well, she was a Persian vegan bodybuilder, and Persians once considered themselves Aryans, so same as Hitler, right?

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[djinn6]

Sounds like the solution is for YouTube not to pay anyone at all and keep all the ad revenue.

Unlike Uber, YouTube had plenty of content on it before they started paying people.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[CanHasDIY]

The YouTube film producers are no different from other artists . . . you create a painting . . . hang it in a gallery . . . and then someone buys it . . . or they don't.

Spoken like a true non-artist.

Ever heard of Graphic Designers? Most of the ones I know are on payroll, bud. Not everybody is a freelance chump (and even if they are, that's no excuse to abuse them).

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[CanHasDIY]

I'll try some other form of words next time, but if you really want to have a serious debate about this then you have to assume good faith and look at the point being made.

Yea. It's everyone else's fault for not understanding you.

Nothing to do with you Godwinning the conversation. Nope.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[CanHasDIY]

People who make/made money off of [working for a company] should consider themselves lucky for the money they got, and get themselves a real job. It's not [the company's] fault that some really, truly, profoundly stupid people thought they were somehow *entitled* to be paid money for [laboring to provide the company with profitable material]

FTFY.

Try that attitude with any other labor-for-pay scenario and see how long it takes to get sued.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[david_thornley]

In the US, don't forget health insurance. If your health care depends on keeping your job, getting fired or laid off is a real danger.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually an artists signs a deal with a gallery. They give the gallery first dibs on their best artwork and in return the gallery puts it in a prominent position. They might sign a production deal to produce one new painting a month for a year. The gallery gets a guaranteed supply of quality new art, and the artist gets an increased profile and guaranteed sales.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Maxo-Texas]

Oh and I forgot to mention that losing your job also means you lose your health care. In some cases, that literally means you or your child will die.

There are very patchwork systems for the poor, but they systematically slow down use of the health care system so much that some people die as a result. I had a board gaming friend who lost her job at Exxon, lost her health care, then was found to have bone cancer. When I had insurance and got cancer, I was in surgery the same day and in chemo therapy three weeks later. She fought her way thru the system to finally receive chemotherapy after 9 months. By that time, it was too late and she died a painful, terrible death.

If you are poor and break a leg or have a serious illness, you go to the emergency room- sit for many hours- receive minimal substandard treatment- and are rushed out the door. And then are billed thousands of dollars in medical fees.

The U.S. medical system is bad horrible for about 40% of the population and horrible for about 30% of the population. It's the best in the world for certain diseases and if you are in the top 30%-- especially if you are in the top 10%-- and even more so if you are in the top .5% (lookin at you Steven Jobs- who got a liver by flying on his private jet which could have gone to someone else with less money who might have lived longer with it).

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do so many people like to pretend that the internet is a closed ecosystem where only the ultra wealthy can create websites? I run several websites for pennies a year, including videos. If someone who really wants to make internet videos wants to continue doing so, all they have to do is update their skills and make their own website.

I think what they are truly afraid of is not having a general platform anymore, and that's tough shit. Nobody is entitled to a platform for their speech except the one they create themselves.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Kohath]

The point is about getting paid for making content people watch. It's not about doing it for free.

No one is entitled to a specific job either, but some people understandably freak out when they get fired.

Re:Finally, following one best practice.

[Mashiki]

Well... Yeah, I mean, I don't really regard people who throw such accusations around as "my side". I can't be held accountable for their actions and it's frankly quite annoying when people assume I'm some kind of "SJW" or "leftist" or whatever.

Mashiki does this all the time, listing endless things he thinks I believe but which anyone who had actually read my posts seriously would know are absurd. That's why I've given up with him, it's just impossible to have any kind of conversation at all with the guy.

Yes, because in the reasonable world when you involve yourself in politics. You work to help "moderate" and "deal with" the extremist elements of the people who's views you espouse. Something you have no interest in doing, round that out that in many cases you're supportive of a variety of those view points like censorship. And have come out saying that "you want to bring those same ideas" those same failed ideas to the country that you're wanting to flee to. No, no...the real problem is that you're incapable of seeing that your grand socialist experiment has already been done in the country you're living in and it's failed. The censorship you want has already been done, and you want to get out. You're just like the ardent communist supporter who screeches that "real communism has never been tried."

Yes, I'm the problem. Not the intellectual coward who will drag me into a conversation, but is too afraid to reply.

Wrong answer YouTube

[Anonymous Coward]

Or should I say Alphabet? Very wrong answer.

Typical

[AlienManOfGod]

Yeah, let's arm everyone with guns instead of changing the business model.

Broadcast the fall of a Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite likely they will lose their monopoly.

Re: Broadcast the fall of a Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

YouTube does not have a monopoly.

Re: Broadcast the fall of a Monopoly

[Narcocide]

The filter wouldn't let me reply with just "HAHAHAHAHAHA."

Re: Broadcast the fall of a Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Html5 video is trivially easy to use and hosting is trivially inexpensive.

Sorry you don't have all YouTube's user base, you've got to build that yourself.

Re: Broadcast the fall of a Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Re: Broadcast the fall of a Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Laugh all you want. It won't make you factually correct.

Maybe you don't have a website with video, I do.

Theirtube

[Anonymous Coward]

They should be forced to change their name. Hi welcome to Statist tube. With new and enhanced censorship and military security.

Buy guns people!! Lots of guns

Re: Theirtube

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese have a saying.....usually said as a joke.....

æ-äèèæoeå¦æäçæ

Destroying a personâ(TM)s path to riches is akin to murdering their parents.

Re:Theirtube

[ArtemaOne]

You realized they just banned videos that have anything to do with guns, right?

Re:Theirtube

[JudgeFurious]

Indeed and when I first heard there was a shooting there my first thought was "Please don't let this be one of the gun channel people". It wasn't of course. Just a peaceful California vegan/animal rights activist nut bar angry over not enough people getting to see her homemade music and bunny rabbit videos.

Re:Theirtube

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the point. Youtube is pissing people off in all sorts of ways, and there are bound to be more people out there that will respond violently. It's human nature, especially among the less intelligent people.

Re:Theirtube

[Anonymous Coward]

You're half right.

Vegan nut bar yes. But her videos were of the "violence/harm towards animals" , basically the same kind of shit PETA does. So it would be more accurate to call her a PETA-inspired domestic terrorist.

Re:Theirtube

[lgw]

"Please don't let this be one of the gun channel people". It wasn't of course. Just a peaceful California vegan/animal rights activist nut bar angry over not enough people getting to see her homemade music and bunny rabbit videos.

A vegan trans immigrant SJW, in fact. Actually, I think I'll change my sig, as the irony is humorous.

Re:Theirtube

[lgw]

She has a biographical page which claims trans, but I don't know if it's legit. According to the FBI report she was a "grievance collector", i.e., SJW.

What does any of it have to do with any shooting? Yes, that's the real question. We ignore the shooters politics and religion when it's left or muslim, and focus on it when it's not?

Re: Theirtube

[Anonymous Coward]

You're always happy to apply labels when the agenda suits you, dipshit.

I love seeing you twist and contort into knots over this. It so beautifully exposes the hypocrisy, stupidity, and blatant wrongness of everything that you stand for.

Re: Theirtube

[Anonymous Coward]

We can focus on their politics if they're on the left. It feels like an unearned victory lap for people with childish objections to common sense gun laws, but by all means, feel free.

We just don't when they're Muslim. The reason for that should be obvious: people have the misconception that Muslims are more likely to kill than other people, which is statistically untrue, and it's dishonest to implicitly support that by pointing it out every time.

Re: Theirtube

[Anonymous Coward]

The left definitely is the party of knowledge. The left is also the party of idiots. Turns out you can't gather 50 million people in a room and assume they all have identical traits.

Stop screaming into the internet void and go meet a lefty. They're mostly good people.

Re: Theirtube

[lgw]

We just don't when they're Muslim. The reason for that should be obvious: people have the misconception that Muslims are more likely to kill than other people, which is statistically untrue, and it's dishonest to implicitly support that by pointing it out every time.

Bayesian reasoning fail (if the reverse of the usual sort). Muslims are statistically much more likely to kill multiple strangers (outside of a formal war). Even so, it's still a very low risk here, because the base rate of terrorism in the US is very low. Still, hiding facts is bad practice.

This week's shooter was also Muslim, or at least raised that way, though I'd bet she was very secular. That's not the funny part of the story though, so I didn't mention it above.

Re:Theirtube

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the horrible violent gun channel people did the reasonable and peaceful thing by moving to full30.com. Savages! ;)

Re:Theirtube

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, the bunny rabbit was really cute. He went to the big carrot patch in the sky last year. Rest in peace bundo.

Re:Theirtube

[Mike Van Pelt]

Shooting spree score:

PETA: 1
NRA: 0

Re: Theirtube

[Mike Van Pelt]

Somebody on another online forum asserted that she was Bahai. Which would be surprising; I thought Bahais were pacifist? (I'm not sure about that; it was a plot point in a story I read years ago. But the story was written by a Bahai.)

But spoilt brain-meats know no ideological/religious/political boundaries.

Re:Theirtube

[citizenr]

No, people DID see her videos(300K views per month for small independent channel is quite ok), but she wasnt being paid for views($0.10 is an insult).

Re:Theirtube

[Anonymous Coward]

why is this scored at -1 and marked as a troll?
she's wasn't transgendered. People saying she was are simply repeating misinformation. She was a vegan animal rights activist, but didn't really have anything to do with modern SJW's.

Re:Theirtube

[Anonymous Coward]

find me one mass shooting carried out by a NRA member

Re:Theirtube

[Citizen of Earth]

Now PETA has more mass shooters than the NRA.

Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

So give in to a nut with a gun? Why not take away her her gun? Gun control in Australia slashed gun crimes. Trump might be shit scared on the NRA, but the kids in the schools aren't.

What's needed is gun control.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Or instead get the root cause of people that flip out or are prone to commiting crimes rather than infringe on law abiding citizens? A gun is a tool just as a car, knife, pressure cooker, or any other standard object in the wrong hands. Close main street and others get crowded.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving. This, US citizens are fine with.

But needing to show that you know the laws pertaining to gun ownership, that you understand gun safety both in usage and in storage before being allowed to own a gun, that they balk at. It boggles the mind.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP indicated that those with mental health issues shouldn't have guns, not banning guns as a whole. The USA (collectively) already has laws that are intended to reduce or remove the access of those with mental health issues to firearms, so it shouldn't be that controversial.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving. This, US citizens are fine with.

But needing to show that you know the laws pertaining to gun ownership, that you understand gun safety both in usage and in storage before being allowed to own a gun, that they balk at. It boggles the mind.

If any major act should be licensed because of the profound effect it will have on the rest of society, it would be: having a child.

Imagine if all of these would-be single-mom black "families" didn't have children. Crime would go drastically down and you know it would.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

The huge problem with your logic is you forget that the constitution argumentatively doesn't guarantee the right to drive (or travel). Gun control may seem like a good idea, and perhaps it is, but no one is going to go about it in the right way. If they are not going to go about it the right way (which they haven't and never will), that is the main example and justification as to why it was a constitutional right to begin with.

The government has already assaulted nearly every right already and people seem to support or otherwise condone it. This appears to be a pattern that perhaps it is not the people that are the problem, but the government itself.

Re:Or take away her gun

[ArtemaOne]

It did. I mean, it took years before gun crime reached pre-ban levels again.

Re:Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

What's needed is gun control.

That's working so well for Europe. Except the murder rate in London has recently surpassed that of New York, and somehow terrorists still get their hands on guns that would AFAIK even be banned in the US.

Re: Or take away her gun

[h33t l4x0r]

You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving

Yes because somehow car accidents can't be solved by more car accidents they same way gun violence can.

Re:Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

You need a license to drive a car.
Let me clear this up for you.
You need a license to drive one on the public roads. You don't need a license to own one, or buy one, or sell one, or make one. You don't need a license to make or sell kits to convert one from manual to automatic. You don't need a special license to own one which can carry more than four people. It's not illegal to own a "military style" or "tactical" car.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Talderas]

You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving.

You need a license to operate a vehicle on public roadways. It's a small but significant difference.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Most single parent families weren't single parent families at the time the children were born. They are largely the result of marital or relationship breakdown. Better supporting poor families, and families in general, to stay together would be valuable, although I'm not sure what support would work, as one of the significant pressures on relationships is being poor. But single parent families are more likely to be in poverty.

Re:Or take away her gun

[Kohath]

We don't bully innocent Muslims because of terrorism. Gun owners are just as innocent of murder as Muslims are innocent of terrorism. Why do you want to scapegoat and bully the innocent?

Re: Or take away her gun

[Kohath]

You don't need a license to publish a newsletter. Because one of the first 2 Amendments in the Bill of Rights protects the freedom of speech and of the press. The other one protects firearms possession.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

You need a license to drive a car.

This is a common misconception. You don't need a license to drive a car, not in most (maybe even all) states in the US. You need a license to drive a car *on a public road*. You do not need a license to drive a car on private land, you don't even need insurance or state inspections or license plates. Farm vehicles are an example of this.

You want a license to shoot a firearm on public roads or parks, or in public buildings? Knock yourself out. That's almost certainly constitutional. Keep in mind that using the automotive licensing laws as a model, transporting a firearm on a public road would not need a firearms license, any more than transporting a car on a flatbed trailer requires any sort of license or insurance for the vehicle on the flatbed.

Your argument, if implemented, would substantially liberalize gun laws in the US. Two Thumbs Up!

Re: Or take away her gun

[BronsCon]

Why limit it to black families? After all, it isn't just black families who do a shit job of raising their kids; and, in fact, many black families do a better job raising their kids than white families of the same class, despite what the stereotypes say. The issue is one of responsibility, not race, just as with guns, cars, knives, pressure cookers, or any other standard object.

When we're discussing responsibility, can we please not muddy the waters by making it about race, gender, or any other factor other than responsibility? In this country, when you are irresponsible with your rights, you have them restricted; when you are irresponsible with your privileges, you have them removed. At least, that what we're told, but all this making it about race, gender, sexual orientation, and what the fuck ever else, makes it near impossible to properly deal with certain classes of bad actors without massive public backlash.

And that's why it seems like things are getting worse.

Re: Or take away her gun

[BronsCon]

Nobody's proposing ending gun violence with more gun violence. Care to try again?

Here, I'll do it for you, then I'll respond to that as well; it'll save us both a post.

Yes because somehow car accidents can't be solved by more cars they same way gun violence can.

The problem isn't gun violence, it's violence and you don't solve it by taking away guns, because there are plenty of other ways to enact violence and the violent types will use them. Similarly, you don't solve humans being inattentive, or irresponsible, or simply being human and making mistakes, by taking away cars, because there are plenty of other ways in which humans are inattentive, irresponsible, or simply human and make mistakes.

I haven't heard a single person advocate for more guns, that's just a strawman your kind put up because you know nobody will defend it, because you're the one who said it in the first place. Go argue with yourself elsewhere, you're the reason we can't have reasonable gun laws in the first place and, as long as you keep at it, we'll never have gun laws that actually work.

Re:Or take away her gun

[BronsCon]

Prove it, the statistics are available. And I mean to say this to both you and the poster to whom you are replying.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun control has exactly one driving reason. Scary black people have guns, and that's bad. Of course, you can't say that, because it's wrong to distrust black people. However, it's good to hate rural white people, and they have guns too, so we have an excuse to hate guns. Once we admit that gun control stems from an institutional racism, then it's blatantly obvious that it's not about "gun control", it's about disarming the scary black people.

Re: Or take away her gun

[blindseer]

You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving. This, US citizens are fine with.

I'm not fine with it, and I'm an American citizen.

Licenses to drive are, in my opinion, a waste of money. We have traffic cops to make sure people know how to drive, so I don't know how having a piece of paper in the driver's pocket is supposed to improve things. What if a person doesn't have a license? How would anyone even know unless they broke the law? I don't care if people have licenses, I care that they follow traffic laws.

I know people would ask, how we would know people know the traffic laws before they drive? Well, we don't now. There's nothing that prevents an unlicensed driver from driving. We hear about unlicensed drivers all the time. These tend to be people that lost their license because they had a history of drunken driving, which just proves that taking a class which tells people not to drink and drive has questionable effectiveness. Another problem of unlicensed drivers are illegal aliens that want to minimize interactions with the government as that might mean they get deported. That's just a symptom of a greater problem. We saw states that tried to issue licenses to illegal aliens but that's just states giving implicit permission for people to break federal law. If the state KNOWS this person is in the country illegally and allows them to drive then the state government is aiding foreign invaders, and that sounds real close to treason to me.

We don't need licenses to drive. People should have to learn on their own how to not kill themselves while driving. I took a driver safety course in high school. That wasn't because it was required by law but because it was required by my parents. Maybe instead of licenses to drive we need parents that act like adults.

Oh, and we need states that find illegal aliens to notify the federal government. If you want safer streets then pick up all the illegal aliens that drive while having minimal knowledge of the traffic laws, or even minimal knowledge of the language spoken here. I don't care if they have a license to drive, that just tells me that the state that issued them doesn't enforce the law. If they are willing to give licenses to criminals (because entering the country without permission is a crime) then I have to wonder just how well the state enforced traffic laws.

Re: Or take away her gun

[MyDogHasFleas]

You need a license to operate a vehicle on public roadways. It's a small but significant difference.

Just to add, it's considered a privilege to drive on the roads, as opposed to what is a natural right.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

The huge problem with your logic is you forget that the constitution argumentatively doesn't guarantee the right to drive (or travel).

Yes it does, Aside from being a common right under "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" it's covered under Amendment #10

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, I can buy a car, and drive it all I want (without plates) on my own land, but there are laws that take effect when I put them on public land (including roads).

Re: Or take away her gun

[dwillden]

Pit maneuver, or just ramming are used to prevent accidents. Police use their cars to intentionally crash into fleeing vehicles to stop them. Usually they resort to this technique to avoid accidents that would involve innocents.

Re:Or take away her gun

[dwillden]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/london-murder-rate-higher-new-york-city-first-time-surging-knife-gun-crime/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/01/south-london-stabbing-death-brings-capitals-tally-to-31-this-year
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/teenage-girls-killed-as-london-murder-rate-outstrips-new-york-for-first-time/news-story/e36a80d11985b3d72d0f9f00887f3c69
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5566689/London-murder-rate-overtakes-New-York-time-including-11-killings-just-16-days.html

All those and several more articles found on first page of search results. All these articles published in the last few days.

Re:Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for Australian style gun control, but let's be clear that it does not mean no guns. Australian style gun control would not have stopped this from happening. What it would have stopped is her walking in to youtube with an assault rifle and killing 20 people instead of wounding 3.

Re:Or take away her gun

[BronsCon]

And that's how you destroy an AC troll. Good show!

Re:Or take away her gun

[Larry_Dillon]

No because she could have just as easily have ran over people in the parking lot with her car. Gun control will not stop violent people from finding a way to act out. It's treating a symptom and not the cause.

Re:Or take away her gun

[blindseer]

So give in to a nut with a gun? Why not take away her her gun?

Did anyone even know she had a gun? Did she show criminal tendencies in the past? Or have a history of poor mental health? I'll admit to ignorance here but I saw nothing on how she got the gun. As far as I know nobody knows yet how she got the gun and therefore nobody can claim any kind of gun control would have been effective.

Gun control in Australia slashed gun crimes.

And banning bridges would prevent people from jumping from them. I see your argument but I think it's a very stupid one.

How about instead of focusing on guns and "gun crime" we look at ALL CRIME? I've seen the argument before on how banning guns would prevent people from shooting themselves in suicides. That did happen in every nation in which it was tried, but total suicides didn't go down, people just found different ways to kill themselves. The problem here was a bat guano crazy lady that wanted to inflict physical harm on people at YouTube. If we find out how she go the gun and put in place a law against it then we'll just see some other kind of violence take its place. I see in Europe it has become popular to run people over with vehicles and slash people with knives, a gun ban didn't stop that. I don't see people calling for bans on vehicles. We did see some crazy laws on the buying of knives in some nations, where now people have to show ID and sign a log to buy a pizza cutter.

Trump might be shit scared on the NRA, but the kids in the schools aren't.

I don't believe Trump is scared of the NRA, he spoke at NRA conventions before. Trump and NRA leadership don't agree on everything but they seem to get along just fine. Seems to me that the school kids are scared of the NRA. They'll talk about how the NRA will get them killed. Well the NRA runs the most popular child gun safety programs and few people even know about it. They don't emblazon the NRA logo on the gun safety program because it's not about getting members, it's about keeping kids safe in school. The Brady Campaign likes to call themselves a "gun safety" organization but where are their animated cartoons telling kids to not touch a gun?

What's needed is gun control.

That's presuming an outcome not supported by the evidence. Alaska and New York have similar murder rates. We know why the murder rate in Alaska is so high, depression is a serious problem. That kind of happens in a place where the sun might shine for only three hours per day in the winter, and it's brutally cold. The state also attracts a lot of young men with not much better to do than turn a wrench on a far off oil well, or spend days at sea fishing. They get in fights, they get drunk, and they tend to kill each other. What's New York's excuse? Or London? London just passed New York City in the number of murders for the first time in a long time.

http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

What's London's excuse for such high rates of crime? They already banned all the guns? Are they going to ban them again? Maybe we need crime control to control the crime. Seems sensible to me.

Re: Or take away her gun

[apoc.famine]

Luckily bullets drop out of the air at property lines, so there's no worry about them straying onto public or private property.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Archangel Michael]

But needing to show that you know the laws pertaining to gun ownership, that you understand gun safety both in usage and in storage before being allowed to own a gun

One, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms is a right, like voting is a right. Change "gun ownership" to "Voting" and "gun safety" to "Constitutional law" and you'll start to see where the problem is in your logic.

BTW, I consider VOTING to be far more dangerous than owning a fire arm. People voting to take away my liberty and property is a huge problem that most liberals have no problem with. The passions of the people stirred is why democracies are inherently dangerous to liberty, and why we need constraining documents to control the powers of the collective.

Not that any socialist would understand.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Archangel Michael]

The GP post made a simpe (racist) mistake, by saying "black". The problem is single parent families, destroyed by government welfare programs and a nice feedback loop of shitty ass parenting from the generation before.

Kids need two parents. One male, one female. That is not to say that a single mom/dad can't raise kids, it just means it is much more likely that they can't. There are somethings a man can teach a son and daughter that a mom simply can't. Likewise, there are some things a mom can teach sons and daughters that a man cannot.

This isn't to say that we should dismiss single parents, but rather, we ought to be encouraging men and women to form permanent pairs for the purposes of raising kids. Everything else is less than ideal, and should be rare.

Re: Or take away her gun

[CanHasDIY]

You need a license to drive a car. You need to show that you know the rules to abide by when driving, and that you have sufficient skill and knowledge to minimize the danger you pose to others when driving. This, US citizens are fine with.

But needing to show that you know the laws pertaining to gun ownership, that you understand gun safety both in usage and in storage before being allowed to own a gun, that they balk at. It boggles the mind.

It doesn't if you bother to understand the language used.

Nowhere does the Constitution state "the right of the people to own and drive automobiles shall not be infringed."

Conversely, there are a number of places where that documents states that other "rights of the people" can't be taken away - one of those rights is the right to personal armament.

So unless you're arguing that the phrase "the right of the people" does not imply an individual right (like in the case of the 4th Amendment), you have no legitimate basis for your stance.

Re: Or take away her gun

[CanHasDIY]

Do you need a license to be free from unlawful search and seizure? Both the 2nd and 4th contain the phrase, "the right of the people" in identical context, but no one ever argues that there isn't an individual right to be free from unlawful search...

Re: Or take away her gun

[BronsCon]

Somebody mod this man up.

Re: Or take away her gun

[bugs2squash]

OK, so imagine a scenario where the guy at pulse nightclub showed up with a knife instead, or the shooter at parkland only had a baseball bat, or this woman showed up with a machete or the guy in Las vegas had a crossbow. Sure some people would die, but nowhere near as many. It's not just the violence, it's the tools too.

Re: Or take away her gun

[BronsCon]

Imagine a scenario where Pulse had plainclothes armed security. Same deal. The issue here is that gun free zones are soft targets for people with guns, coupled with the fact that we have people who want to kill. As long as guns exist, that will be a fact.

Re:Or take away her gun

[F.Ultra]

From one of your links (The Guardian):

A claim over the weekend that London’s murder rate in February and March exceeded New York’s has been dismissed by police chiefs because it was based on too short a period. New York had 292 murders in 2017 and has had 50 so far this year.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's incorrect. The reasons for driver licenses is three fold. One, it presents new streams of income to the government. You have to pay to be tested, you have to pay for traffic school if you are sent to one, you have to pay to renew your license on a regular basis, etc. In addition, licenses open the door to an entire array of traffic fines which brings even more money to the government.

Second, the DMV is another layer of bureaucracy for the government. This is a great thing for them because they get to spend lots of money building and maintaining offices and testing centers, and they get to spend huge amounts of money staffing them. That is also a great thing for government because it's well known and well documented that the vast majority of people who are government employees vote liberal left to maintain job security with their posh, comfortable government jobs with excellent benefits and luxurious retirement pay. Maintaining the liberal electorate is the very best way to systematically keep liberal Democrats in office.

Finally, a license is something the government can take away from you, which means your license is a means the government may use to control you. Driving is not a luxury in this day and age, it is a necessity given the dismal failures of public transit and government policy over the last century and a half. It is also the only way most people have left to express their freedom. Given the fact that the government can take your driver's license away whenever they please proves that although we label ourselves in the USA a "free country", none of us are actually free.

Anyone who thinks the government is really all about protecting the citizens and keeping us safe is living in a fantasy world. It is all about collecting as many taxes and fees and fines as they can get away with, and controlling us in every possible way at every possible turn. Please wake up and smell what the politicians are shoveling.

LOL captcha = "awesome" Thank you!

Re: Or take away her gun

[h33t l4x0r]

Sure, but we all know that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
My point was that if the only thing that could stop a bad homicidal driver were a good homicidal driver I think we would see les driving regulation.

Re: Or take away her gun

[BronsCon]

Funny, "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" doesn't mean we need more guns. It means we need to take care in restricting gun rights so that we're restricting the rights of those who are unfit to handle a weapon without abridging the rights of those who can do so safely. It's not the fault of responsible gun owners who support common sense regulations that actually work that you choose to misinterpret it to mean "we need more guns".

Just because Arnie Grape might not be fit to handle a firearm doesn't mean I should be denied my constitutional right to do so if I've demonstrated that I am. If you want to argue that it shouldn't be a right, you're barking up the wrong tree seeking regulation and should, rather, seek to repeal the 2nd. Good luck with that, by the way.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

Why limit it to black families? After all, it isn't just black families who do a shit job of raising their kids; and, in fact, many black families do a better job raising their kids than white families of the same class, despite what the stereotypes say. The issue is one of responsibility, not race, just as with guns, cars, knives, pressure cookers, or any other standard object.

When we're discussing responsibility, can we please not muddy the waters by making it about race, gender, or any other factor other than responsibility? In this country, when you are irresponsible with your rights, you have them restricted; when you are irresponsible with your privileges, you have them removed. At least, that what we're told, but all this making it about race, gender, sexual orientation, and what the fuck ever else, makes it near impossible to properly deal with certain classes of bad actors without massive public backlash.

And that's why it seems like things are getting worse.

The simple fact is, blacks account for a (drastically) disproportionate rate of things like violent crime, single mothers, welfare receipts, teen pregnancies, criminal records, drug abuse, obesity (and in the US that's really something) and gang activity. The stat that says it all is that black males alone are about 6.5% of the US population yet perpetrate over 50% of all solved murders. This is from publically available FBI crime stats. Whether you will openly admit it or not, you know that you can accurately judge the quality of life (i.e. would you like to raise a family there?) of a neighborhood based on how many blacks inhabit it. "White flight" is definitely a thing, and it's not because moving is so very convenient, and it's not because melanin alone is a big deal, it's because of black violent crime.

From the book called "The Color of Crime, 2016 Revised Edition": "In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non-black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race." Another quote: "If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent." You want to deny facts? Try it.

Considering other groups like the Jews, the Native Americans, and the Asians (who were exploited in slave-like conditions to build things like railroads) have also faced extreme systematic racism, isn't it something that you don't see this kind of disproportionate violent crime rate from any of them? Not one.

Another fact is, any measure to prevent things like irresponsible parenting will affect blacks at a rate far higher than anyone else. So it's best to start with that and get past it, that way such measures applied to anyone else will be much easier from there.

Re:Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

"And banning bridges would prevent people from jumping from them. I see your argument but I think it's a very stupid one."

the only reason I can think of for someone to think that is that they are stupid.

"What's London's excuse for such high rates of crime?"

It's a big city with a criminal underground that was there before the US was settled by Europeans?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-murder-rate-new-york-compare-worse-stabbings-knife-crime-teenagers-statistics-figures-a8286866.html

Re:Or take away her gun

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-murder-rate-new-york-compare-worse-stabbings-knife-crime-teenagers-statistics-figures-a8286866.html

Re: Or take away her gun

[another_twilight]

Nobody's proposing ending gun violence with more gun violence. Care to try again?

Call to arm teachers. It got political. You may have heard about it. I think that Trump guy mentioned it.
(not from the US; think both Democrats and Republicans are politicians and therefore lying weasels without the charm; trying for a little levity; pleasepleaseplease can this not get political?)

I haven't heard a single person advocate for more guns, that's just a strawman your kind put up

Take a deep breath.
Some people are characterising the call for arming teachers or increasing police on campus/schools or hiring more security guards as adding more guns. It's cheap rhetoric, but it only works because on some level it's true.

Re: Or take away her gun

[BronsCon]

Call to arm teachers. It got political. You may have heard about it. I think that Trump guy mentioned it.

Your joke aside, owning a gun is not a violent act. Neither is carrying one.

Some people are characterising the call for arming teachers or increasing police on campus/schools or hiring more security guards as adding more guns. It's cheap rhetoric, but it only works because on some level it's true.

Firing back at your humor with some of my own: You mean like YouTube piling on the armed guards in the wake of their crackdown on gun content on their platform?

Re: Or take away her gun

[another_twilight]

Your joke aside, owning a gun is not a violent act. Neither is carrying one

No, but I assume the purpose of arming teachers is not so that they can simply own nor just carry a gun. The implication is that in the face of a potential shooter, that teachers would use their guns to defend themselves and their students. This is violence.

Please don't be this disingenuous.

Re: Or take away her gun

[BronsCon]

Ever stop to think it might be a deterrent? After all, these mass shootings always seem to happen in "gun free zones". Nothing disingenuous about my remark at all.

Re: Or take away her gun

[another_twilight]

Ever stop to think it might be a deterrent?

Yes. And I consider the threat of violence to be violence. But that's beside the point.

You claimed that no one was calling for more gun violence. I have provided examples where people have called for teachers to be armed, and others have explicitly talked about said teachers being able to stop a shooter - not deter. Your attempt to not admit you were wrong was to try to quibble over carrying/owning and you've compounded it with arguing that deterrence isn't violence.

It doesn't matter. People have called for teachers to be armed to be able to stop, not deter, potential shooters. Not carry. Not own. Not deter.

You were wrong. Can you admit that?

Re: Or take away her gun

[BronsCon]

Yes. And I consider the threat of violence to be violence. But that's beside the point.

So you consider the fact that, if you punch me in the face, I can and will punch you right back to be violence? Simply having a gun on my person is not a threat of violence. If you are not a threat to me, I am not a threat to you; if you are a threat to me, you damned well better believe I am a threat to you as well, with or without a gun. I don't carry, by the way.

others have explicitly talked about said teachers being able to stop a shooter

Yes, being able to is the deterrent. Mass shooters always choose soft targets, which aren't able to stop them. Change that and they either choose another target or the violence is avoided altogether. In either case, the goal of those people (with whom I don't necessarily agree, mind you) is to make our schools safer and they'll have done so without additional violence if they get their way. That, of course, assumes the teachers are able to maintain control of their weapons and don't, themselves, flip out -- which is why I don't necessarily agree with the idea.

But there is nothing violent in possessing and carrying your own means of self defense. If there was, we would all be in a constant state of violence, as we all have hands and permanently attached to our bodies. Well, not "all" of us, quadriplegics might well be the only people in the world you consider nonviolent.

Re: Or take away her gun

[BronsCon]

I meant to say "hands and feet", I guess I deleted too much when I was rewording that statement.

Re: Or take away her gun

[Talderas]

And luckily we all believe the bullets drop out of the air at property lines and never crafted ordinances to punish people for discharging firearms in ways that contradict that belief!

Re:Or take away her gun

[ProzacPatient]

Trump might be shit scared on the NRA, but the kids in the schools aren't.

The NRA is a civil rights organization; so if the politicians are scared of the NRA then that is a good thing. I don't ever hear anyone complaining about politicians not being opposed, for example, to the ACLU or the EFF. And before someone accuses the NRA of being a gun lobby I would like to remind them that the gun manufacturer industry literally has its own lobby group unassociated with the NRA whose members consist solely of manufacturers, whereas the NRA's member base consists of individuals.

Why not take away her her gun? Gun control in Australia slashed gun crimes.

I have not heard anyone mention if she legally prohibited from having the gun or not but even with gun control laws in place, in California which has the strictest gun control laws rivaled only by that of New York, the police failed to follow up on warnings given by her father to the authorities. But getting down to business, ultimately here is the huge difference: Australia does not have the right to bear arms codified into its constitution, and neither does the UK. It would be literally impossible to do this without amending the constitution which requires either; getting a 2/3rd's majority vote in both the house and senate, or an Article V convention initiated by 2/3rd's the state legislatures, and then said amendment would need to be ratified by 3/4th's of the state legislatures.

What's needed is gun control.

However, despite this, we do have several gun control laws already on the books; the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act and the 1986 Hughes Amendment to name a few. If anyone thinks buying a gun is all that easy then they've clearly never tried to buy a gun before.

That being said such amendment would require a massive political shift in order to gain the necessary support. It would probably be more plausible for every supporter to move to Australia instead.

Even if this did happen it might reduce crimes committed with a gun, but it will be unlikely to reduce violent crimes overall.

Cat videos

[Vinegar Joe]

We need more cat videos.

Re:Cat videos

[antdude]

Cats with guns! ;)

Youtube censorship is Toxic

[Anonymous Coward]

Toxic people are destroying it and ditching kitty memes for cybernetic saber tooth tigers.

It's not ok to sit around in the sun on a nice picnic table and pretend that everything is ok. A security presence is more reflective of reality to remind these bone heads of the world they are creating themselves.

You guys are both holding it wrong.

[Narcocide]

Remember when the worst thing about Youtube was just the rampant music piracy?

Re: You guys are both holding it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no diff now... itâ(TM)s just legal now since MVs are now ad monetised :)

No diff the the consumer of the content... proving itâ(TM)s a business model problem not a piracy one.

Re:You guys are both holding it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they told us that was the worst thing, but actually the worst thing was the measures they put in place to "combat piracy" that ripped off small content creators.

People who created original works of music, would get monetized and the money sent to third parties misrepresenting themselves as the rights holder, without recourse.

Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

And can non Americans please stop telling Americans what they should and shouldn't have.
If this picnic area around Youtube HQ was in Europe, there wouldn't be shootings because they have no guns. Censorship would be in full steam ahead without American oversight, without the existence of people with guns. And it's not like they could do anything about it anyway with no guns.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps when the Americans stop pretending what they are doing is smart, and cease to make utter idiots of themselves by putting the blame for all the people getting killed with guns absolutely everywhere except where it belongs.

There basically is no place in the world where is as easy to get a gun as in the US, and there is no place else considered civilised on this planet where so many people gets killed with guns. And yet, according to the loudmouths, there is no connection, because there can't be, because they say so, and damn the facts. Amazing.

Re: Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

There basically is no place in the world where is as easy to get a gun as in the US

Pure, absolute bullshit.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

you asked for it yanky

you should not have wealth

you should not have pancakes

you should not have a home

you should not have guns

you should not have hookers

you should not have drugs

you should not have pizza

you should not have nafta

you should not have trade with anyone

you should not have internet

you should not have children

you next will be asking me for the reasons above and while i can and have valid ones for each fuck you, im busy making money, eating my pancakes,in my home , without a gun , living near all knds a hookers , taking my heroin from street dealer cause doc cut my pan meds back ( chronic pain sufferer) , then i'll eat a pizza from the local mobster, and laugh at how canada don't need nafta as we have extended trade wth dozens of nations since 2000 , and wait for my increase in net speed , while the kids of friends run about without fear a being shot at.

Re:Nope

[BronsCon]

There basically is no place in the world where is as easy to legally get a gun as in the US

Fixed that for you. Due to smuggling, it's basically equally easy to get a gun in illegally in any industrialized nation. If it weren't, we should expect there to be literally zero gun crime in countries where it is difficult or impossible to legally obtain a gun, but there is no place in the world with zero gun crime. Funny how that works out.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

There basically is no place in the world where is as easy to get a gun as in the US

Smuggling means there is no place in the world where it is actually difficult to get a gun. For that matter, there is no place in the world where it is difficult to *make* a gun. In one of the world's great ironies, it is *much* easier to make a machinegun than to make a semiautomatic gun.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

I stand corrected. I didn't take that into consideration, but that wasn't really the point either, because the issue is the correlation between the volume of firearms in circulation and ease of access compared to the volume of gun-related crime or accidents.

Less guns available, less people shot - intentionally or not. Funny how that works out.

Re:Nope

[BronsCon]

Less people shot, of course, doesn't correlate to less people killed. Knives, vehicles, and bombs still account for some pretty large numbers in mass-killing attacks, especially in places where guns are less prevalent. See here for my take on why that might not necessarily be a good thing.

Re:Nope

[CanHasDIY]

I stand corrected. I didn't take that into consideration, but that wasn't really the point either

Never is, with you anti-civil-liberties types. All you care about is your agenda, facts and reality be damned.

Re:Nope

[blindseer]

and there is no place else considered civilised on this planet where so many people gets killed with guns

Why limit this to "civilized" nations? That's just cherry picking the data. We can excuse crime in "uncivilized" nations because that's just something that "uncivilized" nations have a problem with, is that it? Here's an idea, let's consider America an "uncivilized" nation. That way we can compare the USA on equal footing with all those other "uncivilized" nations with higher gun death rates like Mexico and Brazil. I'm pretty sure the people in Mexico and Brazil might be a bit offended on being considered "uncivilized" nations. Venezuela was pretty "civilized" until the communists took over and took everyone's guns away, or at least tried. Now it's a hell hole where murders and suicides by firearms are six times that of the USA.

What makes America a "civilized" nation? Maybe it's just a nation and being "civilized" or not is irrelevant. Seems to me that even though there's enough guns in America to arm every man, woman, child, and household pet that violent crime is pretty average among all nations. America is actually quite safe, especially if people avoid crime ridden places like DC, New York, and Chicago, which by the way has very restrictive gun laws even by international standards.

Also, why limit the death count to just those with guns? I don't care if London is seeing such high murder rates recently because of people being shot, run over by a truck, or stabbed with a knife. They banned all the "assault weapons" in London and banned most every other kind of firearm too. Now what? Ban them again? Start restricting the purchase of knives and make all drivers get a license? I believe they've already done that and for quite some time too. I'm guessing that the UK is going to look as "uncivilized" as the USA pretty soon. They got problems over there and it's not because of the guns. We got problems in the USA too, but that's not because of the guns either.

Re:Nope

[bugs2squash]

I have not tried it. But I suspect it is way easier to get a gun illegally in the US than it is in europe, if only for the fact that there are so many people from which one could be stolen.

Re:Nope

[BronsCon]

If that is indeed true (and I've seen no evidence that it is; if it were, I would assume smuggling guns into the country would be much less profitable and almost never done, which is not the case), that speaks to a need for laws regarding the storage and safe keeping of guns, not the removal thereof. We have such laws for firearms dealers and, as a result, guns are stolen from law enforcement more frequently than they're stolen from gun shops.

Re:Nope

[F.Ultra]

That there is no country with zero gun crime does not mean that it's as easy to get an illegal gun in that country. It just means that at least one person managed to get their hands on one. If it where easy then every criminal would get one but still a place like Chicago have more shootings per day than what we have per year in out entire country and then from what I can gather Chicago is far from the worst place in the US when it comes to shootings.

Re: Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia its pretty well impossible to get something like an AK or AR , even illegally. They just are not around to obtain anymore.

So when the crims shoot each other over drug turf squabbles, or try to rob a bank they do it with six shooters or a single shot shotgun or similar.

So 50 people don't get mown down by some nutcase with an AR-15.

See how it works in the real world ? Not the retarded US gun nut fantasy land ?

Re:Nope

[BronsCon]

I read elsewhere in this discussion (and the poster did provide a reference to back it up, i just can't find the post at the moment) that something like 60% of the guns used in Chicago shootings come from out of state and the other 40% come from neighboring cities, which accounts for 100% of guns used in Chicago shootings, which seems plausible given that there are 0 gun shops in Chicago. That leaves one asking why those guns are entering Chicago before being used in criminal activity. That is, why Chicago and not the neighboring cities? Why Illinois and not the neighboring states?

What is it about Chicago that makes guns magically migrate there and shoot people?

Might there be some other factor? Hmmmm???? Maybe? Just maybe? Is it possible? Would guns, possibly, be replaced with something else in Chicago if they weren't available?

That the neighboring cities and states from where the guns "migrate" don't have the same issues Chicago -- and that there are no guns "native" to Chicago, as there are no gun shops in Chicago -- does seem to indicate that the problem is something other than guns.

One might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives because a knife wound or a fist to the face (to ignore vehicular attacks and bombings, of course) is less likely to be fatal (and that's not even true of a knife wound, mind you). To those people, I will say this: Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place? If we can do that and retain our gun rights, well, why shouldn't we?

After all, guns only account for about 1/4 of the weapons used in violent crimes. Clearly, something other than a gun is making 3/4 of criminals choose to harm others. Hell, something other than a gun is making 27% of murderers choose to kill. You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill; guns simply aren't that powerful. I mean, unless mine is going out at night when I'm asleep and killing people I don't know about, all it's ever shot at is paper targets.

There were 1,248,185 violent crimes reported in the US in 2016 (the most recent data available). Of those, 11,004 homicides (that includes 435 justifiable homicides -- self defense shootings -- by police officers and 331 by citizens), 125,271 robberies, and 190,781 assaults involved guns. That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185, or roughly 26%. Mind you, only in the 11,004 homicides (just under 0.9%) did someone actually die, and there were 15,070 homicides that year -- 73% involving guns. That is, getting rid of guns would save the lives of 3% of victims of gun-related crimes, or 0.9% of victims of violent crimes assuming the perpetrators wouldn't fall back on another weapon. In reality, the number of lives saved would be much smaller.

When you subtract the 766 self defense shootings (about 7%), there were 10,288 homicides that year involving guns. Mind you, that's also 766 innocent people who would have been killed had they not pulled the trigger first -- probably more, had the criminal who was killed in each of those incidents been allowed to live, as they would have likely gone

Re: Nope

[BronsCon]

In Australia its pretty well impossible to get something like an AK or AR , even illegally. They just are not around to obtain anymore.

When you think AK and AR, do you think full-auto? Because the ones we can get here are just rifles, semi-auto, same as any other repeating rifle. We haven't been able to buy new-stock automatics since 1986. While we can still technically buy automatic weapons, they are heavily regulated, must be registered, must have been made and privately owned prior to the 1986 ban and, due to their relative rarity, sell for $10k or more. Nobody uses their $10k gun that's registered with the federal government to mow down 50 people.

See how it works in the real USA? Not the retarded fantasy USA the rest of the world seems to think exists?

Now, as for how it works in Australia...

You can buy this which, with a 16 round capacity (15 round magazine + one in the chamber) sure ain't no six-shooter. I can buy a version of the same gun but, in California, I can on'y get it with a 10 round magazine. Who can kill more people, and quicker?

Have you even looked at the guns available in Australia?

That is not a single-shot shotgun, either. In fact, here is a 10 round semi-automatic 308 winmag rifle comparable to what I can buy here in the states.

Funny, I thought you said you couldn't get shit like that Down Under.

Perhaps you should learn your own country's gun laws before judging mine?

Re:Nope

[another_twilight]

Wouldn't you rather save more lives by addressing the underlying issues which are causing people to want to kill each other in the first place?

Yes. Agreed 100%. Guns and their availability may be a confounding factor, a force multiplier may or may not exacerbate an existing situation, but banning them without addressing the fundamental problems that give rise to violent crime is unlikely to be effective, let alone workable. At best it's damage mitigation (if you can get it to work), at worse it's sop that draws effort away from change that might actually do something.

You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill

Straw man. No-one is saying guns make people kill. The closest arguments are that they make it easier to kill, and so may make someone intent on harm _choose_ to escalate because it's easy and/or that they change what would have been an injury (with another weapon, or none) into a fatality.

That's 327,056 violent crimes involving guns, out of 1,248,185,

Bad math.
- The total for violent crime that you report "include the offenses of murder, rape (legacy definition), robbery, and aggravated assault" (emphasis mine). You then list totals for homicide, robbery and assault. You omit rape and any other crimes included in the original that are not covered by those categories (I don't know if any exist, but as the statement uses 'include' and not, for example 'comprises' I don't think you can assume).
- You further state that it is only in the category of homicide that someone died. Is that the case? If someone is dies during a robbery, is that counted as homicide (not from the US and couldn't see a definition from your links).
- You claim that each defensive killing would be another person killed had they not killed in turn. You assume 100% death in whatever they were defending against. Even if every defensive shooting that resulted in a killing were against an intention to kill, from your own figures not all attempts succeed.

Your premise may be correct, but this is sloppy. Crime happens. Violent crime happens. People are killed by violent crime - sometimes deliberately. You contend that removing guns would have little effect on the numbers killed. I agree with your assertion, earlier, that focussing on the cause of violent crime is more useful and more likely to succeed than concentrating on guns alone, but I don't think your (use of) figures support your contention that guns do not have much of an impact on people killed in and by violent crime.

You go on to assume that crime is static and without easy access to a firearm (this may be true, but you simply assert it) violent crime would use another weapon.

With respect to the argument 'when it's a crime to own a gun, only criminals will own one' - this is scaremongering. It would be extraordinarily difficult to remove guns from the US. It would take a lot of effort, involve years (possibly generations) and would have a host of serious consequences, but claiming that crime would increase is an unproven assertion. In countries where it is mostly only criminals that have guns, they are mostly used among and on criminals. When you don't _need_ a gun to rob a store why make it easy for the police to identify you as a criminal when you can get away with a knife or bat? As you say, a host of violent criminals do just fine with these already.

Removing the pool of available weapons reduces the pool of weapons available illegally. No, the criminals who already have one probably won't give it up, but over time those that are held by criminals will be lost, destroyed and seized. In time there will be fewer guns to steal from legal owners and fewer in the hands of criminals. Maybe the influx of smuggled and illegally manufactured guns will meet or exceed the rate that they are removed. Maybe not. Different argument.

Whether that's feasible or the best use of resources is another matter, but I disagree with the conclusions you draw.

Re: Nope

[another_twilight]

While we can still technically buy automatic weapons, they are heavily regulated, must be registered, ... due to their relative rarity, sell for $10k or more. Nobody uses their $10k gun that's registered with the federal government to mow down 50 people.

and

Have you even looked at the guns available in Australia [gunworld.com.au]?

Yeah. They are heavily regulated, must be registered, are relatively rare and consequently cost more than $10k and no-one uses them to mow down 50 people.

Without a pool of legal weapons to steal from, most criminals using guns are using single/low-capacity shotguns and older handguns.

The GP said it's 'pretty well impossible'. You even quote them.
Then you find a link to where you can buy semi automatic rifles. That aren't in stock. And will only be ordered for you when you provide a letter from the Attorney General. Also, you link to a .308 you identify as a semi-auto. It's a bolt action. You'll look less like a tool if your examples show what you think they show.

You're arguing 'impossible'. That's not what the GP said.

Perhaps you should learn your own country's gun laws [wikipedia.org] before judging mine?

Have you? Because nothing in there disproves the GP.

Re:Nope

[BronsCon]

Straw man. No-one is saying guns make people kill.

I neither built up, nor tore down, any argument there, ergo not a straw man. I was making a point; one which you, in your previous paragraph, claimed to agree with, but apparently completely missed.

You omit rape and any other crimes included in the original that are not covered by those categories

I tallied up the numbers in the statistics provided. If I didn't list a number for the category, there was no number provided by the FBI's statistics for that category. Blame the source, not my math.

You go on to assume that crime is static and without easy access to a firearm (this may be true, but you simply assert it) violent crime would use another weapon.

There's really only one way to study it and, well, if I'm right I sure don't want that study conducted. In short, I'd love to be proven wrong, but the chance of being proven right makes me really not want to see that study done. If you follow what I'm saying.

With respect to the argument 'when it's a crime to own a gun, only criminals will own one' - this is scaremongering.

Hardly. Criminals already don't care that their guns are illegal. Why would they suddenly start caring when our guns are also illegal? The simple answer is: they wouldn't. And how do I know the criminals' guns aren't legally purchased? Virtually nobody uses a legally purchased firearm in the commission of a violent crime. From the linked PDF:

Most perpetrators (79%) were carrying a gun that did not belong to them. More than 30% of the guns recovered were reported stolen by owners when the FTU contacted them. For 44% of the guns, whether the gun was stolen was either unknown or not able to be determined.

It would be extraordinarily difficult to remove guns from the US

Indeed it would, a point that I made myself when I said "one might argue that getting rid of guns (a pipe dream, mind you, to say nothing of whether I would support it if it were possible) would save lives".

When you don't _need_ a gun to rob a store why make it easy for the police to identify you as a criminal when you can get away with a knife or bat? As you say, a host of violent criminals do just fine with these already.

When you've already got the gun... I'd suggest you think about that for a moment, but maybe it's better if you put yourself in the mindset of the average criminal and don't think. We're not talking about masterminds, here; we're talking about junkies and low-level scum who wouldn't already be in possession of an illegal firearm if they were thinking that far ahead. Yes, those people would use their guns unnecessarily; they already do, that's partly why we have this problem with guns in the first place. What more proof do you need than the current situation? But, again, there's only one way to know for sure and that's a study you really don't want to see conducted.

Removing the pool of available weapons reduces the pool of weapons available illegally.

You have no idea how many weapons enter this country illegally and I can't credibly speak to that number without naming my source, which may have repercussions for him. That said, Customs stops only about 10% (at their own estimate) of the guns coming into the country. That's on average a trunk full each day and a shipping container or two each month. Removing my legally purchased and owned, well looked after and unlikely to be stolen gun from my possession won't make a dent in that.

No, the criminals who already have one probably won't give it up, but over time those that are held by criminals will be lost, destroyed and seized.

That also won't make

Re: Nope

[BronsCon]

Well it seems like he and I both got our facts wrong, then. The only mass shooting in recent history in the US with nearly 50 dead was Pulse (49 dead and 53 wounded) and it was not an AR-15 that was used. In fact, the fire rate averaged roughly one shot every 2 minutes, it just went on for a very long time. That could just as well have been accomplished with the bolt action I linked to. Hell, the same number of shots could have been made in a handful of minutes with that rifle, while the Pulse shooter took nearly 4 hours.

Could the SigSauer MCX that was used have fired off the ~110 rounds that were fired that night much more quickly? Sure. Does that mean a bold action rifle couldn't have fired off the same ~110 rounds in 4 hours? No. It sure as hell could have.

Re: Nope

[BronsCon]

*bolt action

Note to self: proofread BEFORE posting.

Re: Nope

[another_twilight]

Just stop.

The original poster said that in Australia it's nearly impossible to get an AK or AR so you can't mow down 50 people. The implication is that this is possible in the US. A weaker implication is that it has happened. It's clearly an exaggeration.

But even if they stated it plainly, it still doesn't make your argument any more correct.

You were wrong. You misread or attacked a straw man, drew conclusions from skimming or not understanding the law and provided links that were inaccurate or didn't support the argument you were making.

Then you wander off talking about bolt action fire rates. I assume you mean this to be an argument that because a bolt action rifle is more readily available in Australia that it would be possible to have a shooting like the Pulse shooting. That still doesn't contradict anything the original poster said.

Please stop. You're wrong and just digging deeper.
Firearms are heavily restricted in Australia. Even bolt action rifles. It's almost impossible to obtain a semi-auto rifle. Your link to a website where you can order one with a letter from the AG doesn't disprove that. Your link to the wiki on Australian firearm law confirms what the original poster said, not what you said.

Re:Nope

[another_twilight]

neither built up, nor tore down, any argument there, ergo not a straw man. I was making a point; one which you, in your previous paragraph, claimed to agree with, but apparently completely missed.

I was careful to express the part I agreed with, then highlighted a sentence from the paragraph where you expressed

You can probably assume the gun isn't what's making 1/4 of criminals choose to harm or 73% of killers choose to kill

Why would I need or want to make this assumption unless it is to answer the implied question. Which is a straw man.

I tallied up the numbers in the statistics provided. If I didn't list a number for the category, there was no number provided by the FBI's statistics for that category. Blame the source, not my math

[X] is a total that includes totals from [a,b,c and d]. You've summed [a], [b] and [c] and consider the lack of [d] or being able to show that [a,b,c and d] are the only elements is a problem with the source and that you can use the numbers the way you have? I repeat my claim. Your math is bad.

There's really only one way to study it and, well, if I'm right I sure don't want that study conducted. In short, I'd love to be proven wrong, but the chance of being proven right makes me really not want to see that study done. If you follow what I'm saying

No. You could look at places where guns have been removed or restricted and looking at the stats for violent crime. In Australia, for eg, there was a brief spike immediately following the buy-back/ban and then a steady decline. It's not conclusive as there are known to be confounding factors, but if you were to take similar statistics from other cases you may be able to back your claim. Your inability to provide proof of your assertion doesn't make your assertion any more true. If you know what I'm saying.

WRT scaremongering.

You claimed an increase in gun crime will occur when/if guns are criminalised. It may seem simple to you; it may seem obvious. It's not. It's an assertion you haven't backed up with anything like evidence. For eg, show somewhere where guns were made illegal and where the use of guns by criminals increased. I've no idea what you think showing that most criminals use illegal guns shows. You need to show that removing guns from legal owners will _increase_ gun use by criminals. That was your assertion and I'm calling it scaremongering. And until you can show an argument or evidence and not simply your assertion, then that's all it is.

Removing the pool of available weapons reduces the pool of weapons available illegally.

Nothing you say about how hard that might be to implement contradicts this

There is no argument to be had

Clearly.

but you go on and believe whatever you want

Thank you for your condescension.

Re:Nope

[BronsCon]

[X] is a total that includes totals from [a,b,c and d]. You've summed [a], [b] and [c] and consider the lack of [d] or being able to show that [a,b,c and d] are the only elements is a problem with the source and that you can use the numbers the way you have? I repeat my claim. Your math is bad.

Okay, fine, subtract [d] for yourself and see how little the result changes. That link was in the post you're complaining about, the numbers are right there for you.

Hell, don't do it yourself (unless you really care to check my work, in which case please do), the new total is 1,152,455. That doesn't affect the murder rate percentage at all, as that whole number is still part of the new total, and you can see that the total has reduced by less than 100,000. The percentage of, well call them "qualified", violent crimes involving guns, then, is just a hair over 28%, well within the margin of error for most studies and, given that the statistics available only pertain to crimes reported, which will be a subset of crimes committed the margin of error here should be expected to be a bit higher; the statistical difference between 1,248,185 and 1,152,455 (or 26% and 28%) in this scenario is meaningless. The percentage of gun deaths (murders) relative to "qualified" violent crimes, since I know that's the number you probably really wanted, jumps way up, from 0.9% to 1%. I hope you could feel the sarcasm dripping from my words there. The ratio of homicides to total gun-related violent crime (3%) does not change because all of those are still in the new total.

What a big difference that made, right? If you still think my math is wrong, please correct it for the sake of not spreading misinformation. This is an important subject and it deserves to be discussed openly and honestly. I provided my sources for a reason.

No. You could look at places where guns have been removed or restricted and looking at the stats for violent crime.

You mean like Oakland? I keep mentioning Oakland and nobody wants to respond.

In Australia, for eg, there was a brief spike immediately following the buy-back/ban and then a steady decline.

I did look at Australia. They had many fewer guns than we do and an entirely different social structure. The spike they had there should worry you for the US; ours would be much larger and, given our heritage with guns, would likely not decline. Even if it would eventually decline, it wouldn't really get a chance to as the regulations would be pulled so quickly your head would spin, we'd all get our guns back, and the subject of regulation would never be revisited; that initial spike would be all that was needed to shut up the "get rid of guns for the children" crowd and bolster the argument of the "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" crowd.

In short, what worked in Australia worked only due to the relatively small number of guns they had in the first place and the relative obscurity of gun culture in the country to begin with. There wasn't a whole lot of debate before the regulations were enacted and the regulations weren't restricting or removing a constitutional right.

Your inability to provide proof of your assertion doesn't make your assertion any more true. If you know what I'm saying.

Again, there is only one way to prove it and it's not the kind of thing I actually want to be right about if that proof comes.

You claimed an increase in gun crime will occur when/if guns are criminalised. It may seem simple to you; it may seem obvious. It's not. It's an assertion you haven't backed up with anything like evidence. For eg, show somewhere where guns were made illegal and where the use of guns by criminals increased.

Note that I never said the

Re: Nope

[BronsCon]

I assume you mean this to be an argument that because a bolt action rifle is more readily available in Australia that it would be possible to have a shooting like the Pulse shooting.

Indeed that's what I mean, and it's 100% factually correct. People are allowed to get facts wrong, you know, and the better of us admit when we do and issue a correction. I did that in my prior post.

So, an incident like Pulse is possible in Australia, yet it doesn't happen. Why? What's different about Australia, other than gun laws which wouldn't prevent Pulse from happening, that prevents an Australian rendition of Pulse?

You'll point out that the bolt action rifle in question is heavily restricted and only available to a subset of the population and I'll point out that a 6-shooter (specifically named in OP's post) could maintain that fire rate as well, so let's just skip it, okay?

No mass shooting in recent US history has relied on a high rate of fire. I'm limiting to the US because I'm admittedly ignorant of mass shootings elsewhere in the world, give the number of them we deal with over here making it somewhat hard to keep up if you have any interest in collecting all the facts -- coupled with the fact that I have other things going on in my life because I'm not exactly a gun nut. Every single mass shooting in recent US history could have been carried out with the guns available to anyone with a "genuine reason", which includes hunting.

And my whole point in bringing up Pulse was to point out that you can mow down 50 people without an AK or AR; a bolt action could do it at the same rate as the Pulse shooter. Okay, so that was only 49, but the 53 wounded have to count for something, as well.

So, what else changed in Australia that is preventing these mass shootings? I'ts certainly not the fact that guns are registered to their owners, as mass shooters typically die during the commission of their crime and, thus, don't give two shits if their gun is registered to them or not.

Re:Nope

[Mashiki]

I have not tried it. But I suspect it is way easier to get a gun illegally in the US than it is in europe, if only for the fact that there are so many people from which one could be stolen.

Nope, it's trivial in just about every country to get an illegal gun because there's so many unstable countries right next door. That includes things like grenades, and fully-automatic weapons. In Canada, illegal guns are more likely to come from China then from the US. Why? Because the most common route when people try to smuggle weapons in is via either Windsor/Detroit or Port Huron. And border agents on both sides are generally pretty good at catching that in transit, and it helps that nearly all trucks either have pre-inspection and sealed or have a secondary inspection during the crossing. On the other hand, there's so much cargo entering/leaving out of Vancouver that only a fraction is ever inspected even if it has suspect labeling.

In the US? Getting your hands on an actual illegal gun(i.e. machine gun) is nearly impossible. Getting your hands on a stolen gun though? It's more difficult then 20 years to get one, but not impossible.

should have said - it is private property

[CraigCruden]

I may have used the wrong words. It is not a government organization, it is not a public space ... it is private property... you do not have the right of free speech. There are a few non-discriminatory laws that you must abide by, but other than that YouTube has no obligation to be open to anyone saying anything.

Re: should have said - it is private property

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right to it does.

Re:should have said - it is private property

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, kinda. If someone is protesting at the courthouse, it is a public space and even if I don't like it, there may not be anything I can do about it. If someone is protesting in my living room, I can make them leave.

Re: should have said - it is private property

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 2 things at work: the legal construct of free speech, and the ideological concept of free speech.

In terms of the legal construct, only the government can't tell you what to say or what not to say under the law. The recent case Google won showed that -- the case was dismissed because Google is not a state actor so the first amendment does not apply.

In terms of the ideology, it's a paradox: you can't have pure freedom of speech on a platform like YouTube because for that to happen you'd have to force YouTube to potentially say something they don't want to say. Your freedom of speech, therefore, must be limited on YouTube or YouTube's freedom to say only what they want to say will be limited. Certainly in terms of monetization, the idea that Google ought to be forced not just allow you to speak, but to actively pay you to speak regardless of what you're saying is absurd.

Re:should have said - it is private property

[Mashiki]

it is not a public space ... it is private property... you do not have the right of free speech.

This is the part where you've got it wrong. In most of the west, if a place "becomes a regular meeting area" for the public, or an active venue of communication then regardless of whether or not it's private property free speech laws apply. In the US, there's multiple court cases on this already.

YouTube has no obligation to be open to anyone saying anything.

Except that it holds dominant marketshare, uses it's platform to crush competition right? Maybe anti-trust laws would be a better answer to this.

Re:should have said - it is private property

[Anonymous Coward]

"Shut up and bake my cake"

Re:should have said - it is private property

[thegarbz]

Private property turning into public space is a US irregularity and had nothing to do with "most of the west"

Re:should have said - it is private property

[CanHasDIY]

I may have used the wrong words. It is not a government organization, it is not a public space ... it is private property... you do not have the right of free speech. There are a few non-discriminatory laws that you must abide by, but other than that YouTube has no obligation to be open to anyone saying anything.

It's a "place of public accommodation," which means it has to honor your civil liberties.

Same shit they pull to ban smoking in bars.

Re:should have said - it is private property

[CanHasDIY]

The term you're looking for is Place of Public Accommodation

Re: should have said - it is private property

[Anonymous Coward]

The last case I read on this topic was dismissed because that argument is not valid as applied to YouTube.

Frankly, I'm glad it isn't valid. The idea that the court can step in and arbitrarily nationalize your website (the first amendment applies to the state, not private individuals or properties) because it's popular is offensive.

Particularly on the Internet. YouTube is not the only way to put videos on the internet.

Re: should have said - it is private property

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not.

Nobody is physically at YouTube besides YouTube employees.

Re: should have said - it is private property

[CanHasDIY]

The website, wanker. Don't be obtuse.

Re:should have said - it is private property

[Mashiki]

Private property turning into public space is a US irregularity and had nothing to do with "most of the west"

Nearly every western country has something similar. Whether it be speakers corner in the UK, where speakers are protected under "parliamentary privilege" aka even if they're spewing complete fabrications they're protected. To Canada where similar places exist. To the same in Asian countries like Japan and Singapore where similar rights are guaranteed again under protected privilege.

Re:should have said - it is private property

[thegarbz]

Nearly every western country has something similar

They most definitely do not.

speakers corner in the UK

Is not private land. In fact it is specially designated land for that purpose and most of the examples of Speakers Corners are actually on Crown land.

To Canada where similar places exist.

Again, you said similar places. Completely at odds with your original comment which I will quote for you here: if a place "becomes a regular meeting area" for the public, or an active venue of communication then regardless of whether or not it's private property free speech laws apply Which is a load of crap and just because a bunch of people regularly gather on my front lawn or a shopping centre lobby, or a private park etc doesn't automatically make it public.

Again that "access" based system is a US irregularity and elsewhere if private land is to be protected by free speech it actively has to be designated as such, as is the case with the examples you gave.

Re:should have said - it is private property

[Mashiki]

They most definitely do not.

They most definitely do.

Is not private land. In fact it is specially designated land for that purpose and most of the examples of Speakers Corners are actually on Crown land.

This is the part where you don't understand how it came to be.

Which is a load of crap and just because a bunch of people regularly gather on my front lawn or a shopping centre lobby, or a private park etc doesn't automatically make it public.

All of those places mentioned are defined as "semi-public" in law. And even at that, private property can fall under the protections and be required to hold and grant the same rights to individuals as those would be under lands held by government.

Again that "access" based system is a US irregularity and elsewhere if private land is to be protected by free speech it actively has to be designated as such, as is the case with the examples you gave.

And yet, I can find plenty of case law from other countries that state otherwise. Maybe you should try the same?

Re:should have said - it is private property

[thegarbz]

They most definitely do.

They most definitely do not.

...snip... a bunch of irrelevant stuff because ...snip... All of those places mentioned are defined as "semi-public" in law.

And there it is. Goal posts moved.

And even at that, private property can fall under the protections

Can. In a small subset of cases and a small subset of countries of the west.

And yet, I can find plenty of case law from other countries that state otherwise. Maybe you should try the same?

And you're doing a cracking job of it so far. You can start by finding a single example. But really I'm done with this pointless game. You'll find an example because I know of them. But you're still wwwaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy away from ... and I quote: "Most of the west" which is just a load of garbage.

Re:Non Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet mysteriously the US is somewhat of a police state where average cops are heavily armed and prone to shooting people. Then there's the whole gigantic spying apparatus thing in bed with private business. Plus the world's biggest military. Oh and strangely inconsistent laws - walk down the street with gun showing - no worries. Walk down the street smoking weed - off to jail with you young man.

So yeah, enjoy your 'freedom', peasant. The rich guys will certainly enjoy theirs even if it means killing or throwing lots of you in jail.

Guns me for me, but not for thee.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocrites.

Hilarious

[Kokuyo]

The amount of karmic justice happening right now is just great.

I'm very sorry for the employees who really bear the least of the responibility for what Google has been doing lately... but from a commercial PoV, it' could only have happened to a handful of more deserving companies.

Re:Hilarious

[drinkypoo]

I'm very sorry for the employees who really bear the least of the responibility for what Google has been doing lately...

Google is the employees. A corporation is a legal fiction, and until hard AI is invented, what makes it work is humans. It's the humans that bear all of the responsibility. Now, which of the employees are are at fault, and to what degree, is another issue. But if your employer gives you an instruction that is inhuman, and you follow it, you're both inhuman.

Re:Hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of karmic justice happening right now is just great.

I'm very sorry for the employees who really bear the least of the responibility for what Google has been doing lately... but from a commercial PoV, it' could only have happened to a handful of more deserving companies.

For sure. They will probably hire some armed security guards. :-)

Re:Hilarious

[Kokuyo]

The Germans have a saying loosely translated: The fish stinks from the head.

I don't consider management to be employees anymore. I know it's not fair and sure as hell it isn't objective but in my opinion, a lot of upper management types are either greedy or try to push a personal agenda.

Companies with management that is not like that usually don't have these issues...

Re:Hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

no

there is NEVER a reason that would be acceptable, and the fact you think it is in this case highlight a serious mental condition just above your shoulders

What? Gun control and "gunfree zone" not working?

[Anonymous Coward]

MSM is quiet because it was a Iranian "refugee" women - not a white male (actually, they are usually jewish but this is never mentioned)
She was vegan
She was PETA activist

Guess what, PETA members have killed more people than NRA members. LOL.

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine that an Iranian Ba'hai animal rights activist was pretty unique, and no longer exists.

Plus given one of the victims was her boyfriend, I suspect there is more to the story.

partisan and toxic behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

My GOD - she was a PETA, Vegan, Yoga instructor who shot up your office because you refused to pay her for the content she provided to your platform and you blame "partisan and toxic online" behavior?!

Sure you didn't misspell Persian?

Or they could quit pissing off users...

[gestalt_n_pepper]

The shhoter was a whack job, but had YouTube not "demonetized" her content, she would have probably lived out her life in well deserved obscurity.

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

The shhoter was a whack job, but had YouTube not "demonetized" her content,

YouTube decided that her content was worthless . . . why should they continue to give her any more money for it? She could have taken her content to anyone who thought that it was worth any money.

she would have probably lived out her life in well deserved obscurity.

I doubt it. She was a ticking time bomb, and if it wasn't YouTube, something else later would have set her off.

She needed serious mental health care. But mental heath still has this heavy stigma in the US . . . pumping your children full with Ritalin is OK . . . committing your daughter to a mental health institution is not socially acceptable.

Calling the cops is no answer . . . they are not able to legally do anything, and are not trained mental health professionals.

Ideally, this woman would have been evaluated as to her threat to herself and others, and would have received treatment.

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[Mashiki]

YouTube decided that her content was worthless . . . why should they continue to give her any more money for it? She could have taken her content to anyone who thought that it was worth any money.

That's not really what's happened though. Youtube decided to cave to old guard media and advertisers fled(remember the adpocolypse?). I'll bet 2 years ago she was making $10k/year or more, and then she was making $0.10/mo with 50k+ views. Big shock that someone who loses a major source of income suddenly starts going off the deep end.

Calling the cops is no answer . . . they are not able to legally do anything, and are not trained mental health professionals.

Not true. Legally they can detain you and remand to the hospital if you're a threat to yourself or others. Police and EMS are the frontline in mental health care all across the western world after the gutting of them back in the 1980's and 1990's. You know, the part where activists pushed hard to get MH facilities shut down, and the courts followed suit? Remember that? At least here in Canada, 40k people who were in long-term mental health facilities were basically dumped right onto the streets. It wouldn't surprise me if it was 1m or more in the US.

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, the part where activists pushed hard to get MH facilities shut down, and the courts followed suit? Remember that?

You mean the time when the abusive, exploitative, and ineffectual facilities were exposed for their incompetence and malignancy, and when revealed in court, the right-wing partisans decided the easiest fix was to throw them out and pretend they were forced to do it because really, that's the only way to treat mental illness.

This is what conservatives still think, afterall:

I join the outrage that we are assuming responsibility for homeless people, taking care of their basic needs and elongating their agony by removing the necessity to make fundamental decisions about the way they live their lives.

That's the ethos responsible for it. But you can't take responsibility, so you have to blame your enemies when it fails. Always and forever.

The amusing thing is that you're on record mocking other people who got laid off by corporate downsizing and relocations to foreign sites. Funny, isn't it how you change your tune when your perceived enemies are involved?

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[Mashiki]

You mean the time when the abusive, exploitative, and ineffectual facilities were exposed for their incompetence and malignancy, and when revealed in court, the right-wing partisans decided the easiest fix was to throw them out and pretend they were forced to do it because really, that's the only way to treat mental illness.

Which is why it happened under left-wing governments, and those 'right-wing partisans' had to follow through because the courts made it so with no actual recourse to amend the law, or rewrite the law because the rulings were repeatedly overly-broad.

This is what conservatives still think, afterall:

I can't figure out how you've got through life thinking like that, especially after that really good bit of hypocrisy.

That's the ethos responsible for it. But you can't take responsibility, so you have to blame your enemies when it fails. Always and forever.

You should really go read the court cases, and the causal effects.

The amusing thing is that you're on record mocking other people who got laid off by corporate downsizing and relocations to foreign sites. Funny, isn't it how you change your tune when your perceived enemies are involved?

Funny how you come across as a bit of a stalker isn't it? Yep, you really do need someone to pity your life.

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[ElizabethGreene]

>> YouTube decided that her content was worthless.

Incorrect, that's not how this works.

It works like this: n number of people didn't like her content and clicked the report button, creating a strike. One strike is a warning. You can appeal, but it takes weeks to clear an appeal. If your appeal is denied you can't appeal again for 60 days.

If it happens again, you can't upload videos for two weeks.

If it happens again, your account is terminated.

This _automated_ process means that one person with a small number (n 100) of bots or useful idiots can take down a YouTube channel at will for days, weeks, or permanently. For people that have invested many thousands of dollars in building an income stream from YouTube and depend on that income to pay rent and buy groceries it is terrifying.

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[ElizabethGreene]

I should add to this that the reports and strikes can be filed for content you've had uploaded for years. e.g. Some people objected to Cody'sLab use of gunpowder for mine blasting from 2015/2016 and he's been fighting report/strike/appeals for months now.

He's on strike 2, and has made >50% of his videos private so he doesn't get thrown off the platform. This is/was legitimate and interesting content, not just "cat videos", and now it's gone.

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[blindseer]

She needed serious mental health care. But mental heath still has this heavy stigma in the US . . . pumping your children full with Ritalin is OK . . . committing your daughter to a mental health institution is not socially acceptable.

It probably doesn't help that the government (state, federal, and local) has been taking guns from people that sought out mental health care. Just because someone is being treated for depression does not make a person homicidal or suicidal. There's still means to take guns from people that pose a high risk to themselves or others without making a blanket determination that anyone seeking care for a temporary bout of depression needs to have their guns taken from them. Just because someone files for powers of attorney for help with their taxes and finances, due to a case of dyslexia or other mental condition, should not make them "mentally deficient" to own a gun.

It's just an idea but perhaps it would help, maybe the government should stop taking people's guns because they sought out some mental health care. That way the people won't be so afraid the government will take their guns if they seek treatment for a mental health condition. It's not paranoia if it's true.

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why it happened under left-wing governments, and those 'right-wing partisans' had to follow through because the courts made it so with no actual recourse to amend the law, or rewrite the law because the rulings were repeatedly overly-broad.

Reagan was a Republican, you half-wit. He's not only a Republican, he's one that right wingers pretty much worship, so you can't get away with the "Well, actually, Reagan was a leftist RINO pinko-commie" BS I just know you're going to come up with.

I can't figure out how you've got through life thinking like that, especially after that really good bit of hypocrisy.

I'm guessing he or she thinks that because that's how conservatives act. Can you point at any conservatives who have made serious proposals to improve mental health care? I don't mean said "Oh, we need to improve mental health care #thoughtsandprayers" after yet another school shooting, but actually proposed concrete measures that will result in abuse free institutions, proper identifying of psychiatric conditions, adequate funding, something to prevent families of the mentally ill from going bankrupt, etc?

No? Well, of course not, because it's not what you fuckers care about. You use mental illness as a convenient scapegoat in an attempt to stop people talking about restrictions on the ownership of some types of gun, in the same way you talk about arming teachers, which you know is a dead end but you talk about it anyway, or armed veterans at schools, which you also know is a stupendously shitty idea, and have the audicity to spout bullshit about Hollywood being responsible for gun violence while simultaneously spouting cheap slogans straight from the script of a poorly written Clint Eastwood or John Wayne movie like "The only way to deal with a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun".

You don't care. You really don't. You never did. You only care about "triggering liberals". You never propose real policies. You just bash anyone who does.

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[Anonymous Coward]

When was this left wing government?

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[blind biker]

YouTube decided that her content was worthless . . . why should they continue to give her any more money for it? She could have taken her content to anyone who thought that it was worth any money.

Based on the number of views her channels were getting, it is obvious her content wasn't "worthless". And her content wasn't the only one that YouTube decided to demonetize and/or hide for unknown and capricious reasons: there is a LOT of content creators, some with millions of subscribers, who have been targeted. Is their content "worthless" too?

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[painandgreed]

. . . committing your daughter to a mental health institution is not socially acceptable.

Bit more complex than that I think. Due to various legislation through the 60's and 70's, it was decided that most of those committed people could not be held against their will. Combine with reduced funding on both federal and state levels, and the sanitariums all got emptied. Now, people just end up on the street or in prison. Parents of an adult who can speak in functional sentences with no criminal charge have pretty much no ability to commit them without that persons cooperation.

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Ideally, she would have never have gotten to the point she was such a threat at all. Mental health also needs preventative care. We have so many things stressing us today its incredibly difficult to escape it at times.

We need to turn the mentality towards mental health around and realize that when we can take care of all the body's needs so easily in the first world, leaving the mind behind is just silly.

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[CanHasDIY]

Calling the cops is no answer . . . they are not able to legally do anything, and are not trained mental health professionals.

I take it you've never heard the term 72-hour hold

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[Mashiki]

When was this left wing government?

Take your pick. Unless you're the typical self-centered person that thinks it only happened in one country.

Re:Or they could quit pissing off users...

[Mashiki]

You realize that in most countries, and even US states that MH coverage at that point is covered by medicade/medicare. No I guess you didn't. I guess that shows just how ignorant you really are. So far you haven't proposed any "real policies" either, you've only turned around and come out stating that you're in favor of revoking a guaranteed right. Nice little fascist, good little fascist. What freedom are you going after next?

Re:Non Americans

[drinkypoo]

And yet mysteriously the US is somewhat of a police state where average cops are heavily armed and prone to shooting people.

This is not an argument for citizen disarmament. This is an argument for police disarmament. What do you think happens in this scenario where police are already murdering us in record numbers if we disarm the populace?

So yeah, enjoy your 'freedom', peasant. The rich guys will certainly enjoy theirs even if it means killing or throwing lots of you in jail.

Again, please explain how giving up the freedom to bear arms will improve that situation.

Bake me a cake

[Anonymous Coward]

We already had a court case in this. The SWJs won, and now you want to pretend that didn't happen?

YouTube does NOT have a right to do this, there has already been a case. In addition it is ILLEGAL in California specifically to discriminate against people for political views. YouTube demonetizing/censoring people because of their political opinions actually IS NOT allowed, and we have court precedent.

Re: Bake me a cake

[Anonymous Coward]

Monetization is not employment, being demonetized is not being fired.

Multiple court cases have proven recently that viewpoint discrimination by Google is allowed. You can see all about one of them in the zombiegoboom case covered by Leonard French, that Google won.

Re: Bake me a cake

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a cake baked for you is not employment, refusing to bake a cake is not being fired. I'm missing your point.

Discrimination based on political views, which YouTube did, is ILLEGAL in California. I put up an anti-NRA YouTube channel and then put up a pro-gun channel and get treated differently, that is discrimination based on political views, and is ILLEGAL.

I understand leftists think laws don't apply to them, and this is how Trump got elected and why he will win reelection easily. The government isn't your personal toy to punish people you don't like without repercussions. It is REALLY becoming easy to understand why leftists want people unarmed, they want to oppress people who don't think like them and it would make it safer for them.

Re: Bake me a cake

[Anonymous Coward]

Employment discrimination based on political viewpoint may be illegal, but I find it highly unlikely that there's some blanket "no discrimination ever" law that would magically invalidate an agreement that says YouTube may stop monetizing you for any reason whatsoever.

If that's all it took, one of the cases that these people lost would have been won. Protip: they didn't win. They lost.

Re: Bake me a cake

[Anonymous Coward]

Moreover, it's great that you want to tell me what political alignment I am. Typical partisan loser.

Really pathetic. You talk so big, but you obviously don't know the difference between state employment law (that prohibits firing people based on viewpoint discrimination), federal civil rights law (that prohibits barring sales to people based on being part of a protected class) and contract law (that actually gives YouTube the right to demonetize for any reason)

It just gets slammed into a big blob called "the law" so you can take a sentence from here and a sentence from there and pretend you've made a good point, when in reality you've misspoken the shibboleth, and everyone who knows anything knows you know nothing.

Re: Bake me a cake

[Anonymous Coward]

when in reality you've misspoken the shibboleth, and everyone who knows anything knows you know nothing.

modpoints alone are insufficient ...

I need a moment.
*wipes away a tear*

Become A Target

[Bing Tsher E]

Yes, Youtube. Engage in toxic partisan behavior, and you become a target.

This is not to excuse any violence or attacks that occur. Just stating fact.

She wasn't a very good vegan.

[sabbede]

If you believe that "meat is murder", that doesn't change the fact that murder is still also murder.

There's nothing like the hypocrisy of madness.

Re:She wasn't a very good vegan.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an essential difference and you know it.
The pig that gets slaughtered hasn't done anything to you, whereas YouTube regularly does its users injustice without giving them any sort of recourse.

Re:She wasn't a very good vegan.

[Anonymous Coward]

so killing plants isnt murder then right and links ot cancer abound in plants as much as meat....

google is ....(your friend) look up asparagus....

Re:She wasn't a very good vegan.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did she try to eat her victims? No? Good Vegan.
Shame about that wasted meat though. They didn't have antlers, but she could have at least taken their scalps as trophies.

Re:She wasn't a very good vegan.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you believe that "meat is murder", that doesn't change the fact that murder is still also murder.

We will never know if she intended to consume the entire carcass at the time of shooting.

Re:She wasn't a very good vegan.

[sabbede]

Veganism isn't about not eating meat, it's about not harming animals. That's why they don't consume animal products. Humans are technically animals, no?

Re:She wasn't a very good vegan.

[sabbede]

I enjoyed the way you put that, but vegans don't eat anything from animals because they are against animals coming to harm. Not because they don't like eating meat. That's why they're so much more annoying than vanilla vegetarians.

Re:She wasn't a very good vegan.

[sabbede]

Did you just suggest that what she did was justifiable?

OR... they could treat people better

[Anonymous Coward]

They had thousands of people relying on being paid to publish videos. Then for pulled the carpet out from under the very people who made the platform a huge hit (search for "Demonitization"). And now they are wondering why anybody would be angry... If they SPOKE to their content creators, and treated them like human beings, I'm betting we wouldn't be reading about this.

Re:OR... they could treat people better

[BronsCon]

And the irony is that this was done by an SJW type and not a "gun nut".

Re:OR... they could treat people better

[CanHasDIY]

And the irony is that this was done by an SJW type and not a "gun nut".

It's not really all that ironic if you've been paying attention to SJW culture the last couple years. Those fuckers are violent.

Re:OR... they could treat people better

[BronsCon]

But they're (outwardly, at least) anti-gun...

Re: Private businesses have the right to associat

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a private business that's publicly traded.

This is strongly distinct from the idea of something being "public" as in government owned and operated. It's still very much privately owned. Buy 51% of Google voting stock and you can tell them to do whatever you wish, because you own it. The fact that you can easily buy or sell those shares does not make the company public in any sense that changes "they can operate their website how they wish".

Websites are cheap. Don't like YouTube? Make your own. Html5 video is trivial, there's no reason you can't host your own content, and if you can convince someone to pay for it, then you can monetize all you want.

Security

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think the easiest way to increase their security would be to not piss so many people off.

Youtube: Protected by men with guns...

[Eldragon]

...but don't post any videos about guns.

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus given one of the victims was her boyfriend

Citation on that? The last I'd heard that was an early rumor that was quickly disproved.

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Kohath]

The world needs 2 or 3 viable YouTube competitors, so when YouTube abuses their position, content creators have recourse.

Governments should find a way to offer Microsoft and Amazon incentives to expand Mixer and Twitch to become true YouTube competitors.

So let me get this straight.

[shm]

An anti-gun company is going to add security, ie guns.

While demonetising the NRA which didn't shoot them up.

Because a vegan leftist nut job shot them up?

Payback's a bitch?

[argStyopa]

Youtube profits a great deal from triggering outrage. Is it karma that they suffer the boomerang of someone 'triggered' by their policies/choices?

I would have expected better video of the event, honestly.

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[CrimsonAvenger]

The world needs 2 or 3 viable YouTube competitors, so when YouTube abuses their position, content creators have recourse.

Governments should find a way to offer Microsoft and Amazon incentives to expand Mixer and Twitch to become true YouTube competitors.

Quite so. Note that there is absolutely nothing stopping YOU from doing a YouTube competitor. Come up with a business plan, buy (or rent) hardware, hire programmers, go to town....

Naturally

[Anonymous Coward]

Naturally YouTube wouldn't imagine looking at their own behavior. The Valley and its companies are sick, very sick, plain and simple. It's tragic, it really did used to be a bastion of innovation and empowerment. A lot of us saw this coming a long time ago, the Valley is corrupt as corrupt can be, and have redefined indifference.

um

[cascadingstylesheet]

The move reflects a growing concern in Silicon Valley that the effects of increasingly toxic and partisan online behavior may translate into violent offline actions.

Er, her politics appear to align nicely with Google and YouTube's.

Re:um

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-corporation and against "sexual degeneracy"? Doesn't sound very Googlish to be honest.

It is not about SJW but solely about advertising

[aepervius]

Advertiser do not care much for fish gut, but neither do they think it will damage them - fish are not considered cute by most. On the other hand animals which people see as "cute" could damage the brand if seen associated. So no it isn't about SJW or whatever , it is most probably in this case solely about not putting advertiser in a bind. That is why most of the content is getting sanitized and demonetized : it is too extreme for advertiser. And unfortunately for the right, the advertiser see the writing on the wall, and see many of such view as not advertising friendly. That is why something about feminism or similar left "wingish" issues (even a bit extreme) has faaaaar more chance to stay monetized than something right wing thema with the same fanatism.

Youtube Shooting Related to Adsense Revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

The shooting yesterday was related to Adsense Revenue. Still think Google Adsense isn't guikty of stealing revenue from publishers?

You must be living under a rock!

All one has to do is do a quick search on, "Adsense Stealing" to find hundreds of thousands of affected publisher.

Why do you allow these corporations to steal from people without any accountablility? Google wins every lawsuit with 20+ attorneys, but they will never win against a disgruntled user with a gun and a vendetta. It was just a matter of time really....

Re:It is not about SJW but solely about advertisin

[Anon-Admin]

On the other hand animals which people see as "cute" could damage the brand if seen associated. So no it isn't about SJW or whatever , it is most probably in this case solely about not putting advertiser in a bind.

Right, it is not like there would be say sporting goods suppliers as advertisers, or knife manufacturers, the NRA, Gun Sellers, sellers of meat processing items, etc, etc.

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Kohath]

Quite so. Note that there is absolutely nothing stopping YOU from doing a YouTube competitor. Come up with a business plan, buy (or rent) hardware, hire programmers, go to town....

Will you loan me $3 Billion to fund it until it is cash flow positive?

Or just get their act together

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow the upload of any content legal in the upload source and destination jurisdiction.
Allow showing any uploaded content in any place it is legal.
Legal includes ok after the effects of DMCA takedown and a reasonable appeals process.

Monetize all displays of content.
The micro-cents go into the user's YouTube account.
There is a percent annual carrying charge for holding a balance in the account.
There is a $5 charge for moving money from the account to outside.

The works for all content providers big and small.
If they get something for showing the content, then the provider should get their part of a penny.
If they don't get something for hosting the content, then they would not be doing it.

Completely stay out of the content elimination for some political agenda.
If the content is legal, permit it.
They might tag content and permit users to choose filters?
Otherwise, they will become a big enough monopoly to start having 1st amendment problems.

The problem with not doing this is they have a wide variance of folks obtaining income from this.
When they got their first check, it was cool.
On the second one, they saw how the system worked.
When the third one was a day late, they said 'where's my check'?
So it goes with an entitlement.
You take the gift away and it feels like something was stolen.
There is no logic, but human nature makes it so.

Building walls to keep out the nuts is not the answer.
Embracing the nuts and being more fair and open is.
Such is the business model they chose.
They just don't seem to know it?

They are messing with peoples lives

[zippo01]

This seems like a no brainier but, people make money and live off of YouTube, (I would also argue this could happen with any overly involved social media, i'm addicted/reliant to social media and you take that from me) They are learning if you mess with peoples lives (perceived or real) people react. And no all people react in the best or rational way. YouTube and Facebook are beginning the slow (self imposed) spiral down, it will be interesting to see how people deal with it.

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead, make your own Youtube competitor.

Nobody but Amazon, Google, Facebook and Microsoft have the deep pockets to build such a platforms, and all of them swing left.

If you want a platform for right-wing rubbish speech, maybe ask the Koch Bros to build one. But I assure you that the scrooges on the rightwing will not do it because these platforms are a money pit and not profitable.

Finally, following one best practice-making money.

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument isn't just a Youtube one. It's for the IP economy. Unreal has an asset store where people can create digital goods and make money.

Look, there goes the horse...

[judoguy]

...lock the barn door.

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop being entitled would be a better statement. Youtube owes you nothing

Re: GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE - NEED 2 FELCH!

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly a sight to behold.

They are messing with peoples lives:Piratebay.

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is "messing with people's lives" then I suspect the pirate-bay people might want to increase their security.

So now they want to protect themselves

[Anonymous Coward]

So now they want to protect themselves. Shocking.

But since we know how they feel about guns, are they going to be putting up more "Gun free zone" signs, or are they going to eat their words?

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly that. Treat your users like humans, and they might be less inclined to kill you.

Shooting was on the patio

[russotto]

So basically YouTubers aren't going to be allowed to eat outside any more? Or they'll put a Lexan cage around the patio?

The shills are in full force today

[Anonymous Coward]

And the right YET AGAIN is co-opting an issue that affects more groups than them, to only affecting them and only about them and their pet issues. It's so damned dishonest, for shame slashdot users

How odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

Students call for all guns to be removed from people. Google goes with more people to have guns to keep employees safe.

Funny that google would support the students to end the second amendment, but when a shooting affect them, they will take the advice of Republicans and hire armed guards.

Google should be glad that no Republican would go on a shooting rampage. Censor a liberal, and they go on a shooting rampage.

"root of the problem"

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF. A failed video blogger (or whatever that fuckstain was) went apeshit with apparent intent to mass murder, and you're calling Youtube's general unattractiveness to video makers the "root of the problem?"

Because if that is the root of the problem, there's basically no problem at all. In the words of Nancy Reagan, Just Say No. Anyone who doesn't like the deal offered by Youtube can trivially go elsewhere or run their own server. I am pretty sure that for $20/month I can easily host a few boring/incoherent videos that nobody wants to watch (so there's virtually no barrier to entry) and then also set my own advertising rates.

OTOH, random psychos are now so bored with their lives that they'd rather go out in a blaze of "glory" where the people they'll kill aren't even related to their problems. They don't even get the satisfaction of actual vengeance but somehow the joy of arbitrary murder is enough to make it attractive.

AFAICT the worst thing you can say about youtube's algorithms, is that they've stopped giving out free money for nothin'.

Re: "root of the problem"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mass murder"

2 people died. And one of them was the shooter. I don't think mass murder is quite the right word.

Re: "root of the problem"

[another_twilight]

apparent intent to mass murder

You've selectively quoted just 'mass murder', the GP is careful to note that this appeared to be an intention to mass murder (and the FBI define same as four or more murders without 'cooling off'). The GP is accurate and correct.

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[quanminoan]

A common retort on Slashdot these days is "X is a private company, they can do whatever they want" and "free speech doesn't extend to privately owned companies". While true, it doesn't address an increasingly pervasive problem. These online forums owned by private companies are often the only way to share information and communicate online. At what point does a private company's policy equate to government level censorship, and what does that mean for free society?

Missing the Point

[MoralCharacter]

This is the danger behind Youtube and Googles decision to not interact with anyone using it's service at any level beyond automated messages - the toxicity and politics that drove this are entirely of their own manufacture. People were left to interpret their actions by these automated messages and vague press statements, their bots inscrutable actions which can have significant financial impact on it's users. These users are left to draw their own conclusions about Youtubes intent. Nasim seems to have drawn the conclusion that Youtube was out to get her (from her latest videos mentioning the demonetization of her exercise videos), and she went on the offensive.

I can't help but wonder that if Youtube offered any form of direct, non-automated user support - a hotline, a chat room, a ticket system - this person might have been able to work things out with them and taken a more peaceful route. But we'll never know.

Let's get some guns!

[slashmydots]

I have a feeling they'll hire some armed guards. You know, the ones with guns. You know, because that's how presidents, armored cars, the military, and everyone everywhere all the time protects important things from someone else with a gun. I hope they learned a lesson here. Maybe some of their employees should have had guns on them.

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Dailymotion or Vimeo?

Gun sales break records

[blindseer]

https://www.nationalreview.com...

Sounds like a lot of Americans are taking steps to increase their security.

Go ahead, keep talking about banning guns. All that does is increase profits at Smith & Wesson.

Background checks are a rather poor indication of real gun sales because not every check means a gun sold (either because of a denial or police running a check before issuing a permit to purchase a firearm) and a single background check can be run for multiple guns sold (people with a permit to purchase could buy several guns with no additional check). With nearly 3 million background checks run that could mean something like 2 million or 4 million new guns being sold.

You think every gun sold should be registered so we can track gun sales better? Go ahead, propose that in your state or federally, that will just mean more people buy guns before the law goes into effect. You want people to register guns they already own? Well, that would violate ex post facto laws. Then there's another problem with that, the government can't force people to register guns they don't know about.

It's too late to do any kind of gun ban or registration now. Not only are people generally not pleased with government telling them they can't own guns but it's now possible to "print" a gun at home with a computer. Go look up "ghost gun". There cannot be any effective gun laws any more, technology made any kind of gun laws obsolete. I guess legislators will have to think of something else to scare people with. They can try to scare people with gun bans, and then people buy more CNC mills to make their own guns at home.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/l...

A 50-year-old gun law makes homemade guns legal to own, and the only way to regulate the firearms is for Congress to take legislative action.

Yeah, good luck with that. What kind of law would stop this? I mean you can ban the making of guns at home but there's no way to enforce it. The government can confiscate the ones they find but someone will just make another just like it.

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Kohath]

Do those platforms provide a way for content creators to monetize their content?

No, YouTube stole her content

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be clear. YouTube didn't "decide her content was worthless". YouTube decided to steal it. There was an argeeement, and then the corporate behemoth unilaterally chose to steal the content instead of paying for that. It may be legal, but it's still stealing.

Will they

[Anonymous Coward]

Have guns?

Re:Non Americans

[david_thornley]

Police often shoot innocents because they're afraid of getting shot. Philandro Castile was likely shot because he had a legal gun. I'm not condoning these police actions, but if there were many fewer armed people out there they wouldn't be as trigger-happy.

Re:It is not about SJW but solely about advertisin

[david_thornley]

Now, is it in YouTube's financial interest to chop advertisers up that way? I don't know, and I don't think you do either.

Re:Non Americans

[drinkypoo]

Police often shoot innocents because they're afraid of getting shot

Or so they claim. It happens, but a lot less than they say.

That's great but..

[JThundley]

That's great, but how translucent will their bags be?

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Cajun Hell]

These online forums owned by private companies are often the only way to share information and communicate online.

This argument is just totally baffling to me. You're here on Slashdot successfully communicating instead of being forced to do it on Youtube. And there are many thousands of other websites. And if you don't like any of those websites, you can do it yourself. Holy crap, what a time to be alive! The DIY approach is actually easy and viable! It's not like you have to go buy up controlling interest in a newspaper anymore. Anyone can make a website. Assuming they're alive/exist, your grandmother can do it. Your granddaughter can do it.

Jesus H Christ, get onto the dark web and you can even pretty safely make criminal speech without any repercussions. They'd like to restrict your right to free speech, but they're unable do.

You can even use The Enemy's own resources to get started on subverting their dominance: I'm sure Google Search can lead you right to plenty of Apache HOWTOs.

What am I wrong about here? I feel like what you're saying and what I know, have us on completely different planets. I don't get it.

Unrealistic entitlement.

[pikine]

Patreon.

It's important to understand this: it is unrealistic to expect that you can milk the monetization cash cow just by uploading a video on YouTube. No, it's not that simple. You have to build your own audience and followers. It is hard work. And if you have a good relationship with your fans, then you could ask them to support you on Patreon. It's easier to make subsistence that way. You won't get rich, but hopefully it will allow you to keep doing what you already enjoy.

Advertisement money only comes to those who are already successful, pretty much like any commercial media. It's that way on YouTube as well. You should be glad that YouTube and others have built nice video hosting platforms that you can use for free. At least you have the tool. Don't blame YouTube for your failure to build your own fan base. What makes you think you're entitled?

Most of these people should stop complaining

[ayesnymous]

and get a real job instead of just sitting in front of a camera all day making stupid videos.

YouTube Will Increase Security...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ostensibly this will include, as a component, security guards.....with guns.

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, they just spent millions on guards so they can continue to lord of the the "creator class."

And, they finally sent out their long-promised email of "support" to creators:

CHANNEL NAME, some inspiration to keep you in the fast lane!

Thank you to everyone who made videos, tweeted, and reached out to YouTube during this difficult time. Your support means more than you realize. All of us working here at YouTube are very grateful for this amazing community.
Support [Image of logo with white heart instead of triangle/play button. Doesn't link anywhere.]

Hi CHANNEL NAME,
Ever heard the expression “less is more”? Well, there’s a trend on the rise: creators living on the road. Get inspired by how they’re uploading while downsizing. Plus, check out how you can go live quicker than ever—zoom, zoom!

TRENDING
Just the essentials
There’s a rise of creators that are embracing the minimalist lifestyle and living the #VanLife. Take a trip with them, and get inspired by how they’re uploading while downsizing.
EXPLORE
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%23vanlife

WHAT’S NEW
Going live, like, now
Webcam live stream makes going live as easy as 3, 2, 1! Go live directly from your desktop Chrome browser – no plugins needed.
Going live, like, now
SEE MORE
https://www.youtube.com/live_dashboard_splash?next_url=%2Fwebcam

Tune in, get jammin’
Ever wonder what music is ok to use in videos? Tune in to our latest video about music copyright, so you won’t get into anytreble. ;)
WATCH THE VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYurafmTwcw

#CREATORSPOTLIGHT
Sidney’s beautifully shot photography gear reviews and DIY tips are breathtaking and informative. Check out his channel and marvel at the documentation of his journey to grow his production company.
TAKE ME THERE
https://www.youtube.com/user/sidneydiongzonTV/featured

Stay inspired,
Team YouTube

P.S.
We’ve got a special treat that’s meant to celebrate the accomplishments of creators from around the world, and give you one final bit of inspiration for the month. Take a look!
Creator Awards
CHECK IT OUT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Ma4Kw3kCQ&feature=youtu.be

Was this email helpful?

Security Measure

[Anonymous Coward]

They just need to introduce mandatory 1 minute ads before entering the building. Not sure what they'll call the premium ad-skipping feature, though.

Re:It is not about SJW but solely about advertisin

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, frozen game would probably sell really well. Amazon drone delivers your meat while you armchair qb the hunt. (NB: the royal you, not you personally; also, if I had to kill my own meat, I'd eat very little meat, but I have benefitted from tutorials on quartering birds and rabbits)

Re:Maybe just stop ripping off small content creat

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's SO un-Republican. Why give your suppliers a fair shake when you can screw them over and spend twice as much on security.