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.
Maybe just stop ripping off small content creators. It would probably work out cheaper than massively ramping up security.
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.
So they're adding more guns for their defense while deplatforming gun videos and advocating that everyone else give up their guns?
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.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
... 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.
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.
Om, nomnomnom...
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.
No sig today...
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!
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.
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.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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...
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.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
...but don't post any videos about guns.
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?
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
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.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
"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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
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.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
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.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.