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

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: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.

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.

[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: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: 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.