Slashdot Mirror


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.

7 of 495 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe just stop ripping off small content creators by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  2. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

  3. Re:All Offices? Worldwide? by bursch-X · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    --
    There are two rules for success:
    1. Never tell everything you know.
  4. Re:Or they could quit pissing off users... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  5. Re:Toxic people are damaging to the brand. by sinij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:should have said - it is private property by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  7. Re:Finally, following one best practice. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC