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 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.
Ironic that you would post that on an ad funded chat site that is mostly used by people to avoid productive work. Have you even looked at at the list of trackers that Slashdot employs lately?
Stop wasting precious energy complaining about other people wasting precious energy! What happens when the renewables run out, huh?
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.
That excess energy isn't actually generated as I understand it, they just pay for it and the money goes towards further investment in renewable sources. Wind and solar are already price competitive, we just need more of them and some battery backup.
Shame because a lot of British people looking to retain EU citizenship would have jumped at that. Maybe that's why they limited it, they don't want waves of British e-refugees flooding them like the Irish have seen.
Except that they were very careful not to make that claim...
"What do we mean by âoematchingâ renewable energy? Over the course of 2017, across the globe, for every kilowatt hour of electricity we consumed, we purchased a kilowatt hour of renewable energy from a wind or solar farm that was built specifically for Google."
Since they built the capacity specifically for this project you can't even claim that it is taking resources away from anyone else. They are just lowering the cost of renewable energy, nothing less.
Yes the law does require them to make like-for-like comparisons, but that's the equal pay gap. We are talking about the gender pay gap which is different.
In any case, even like-for-like there are gaps at many companies. That's one reason they are so worried - being as it is illegal the affected workers can claim back pay and an immediate pay rise.
The gender pay gap is more complex and generally not as legally actionable.
UK companies has to publish their gender pay gap figures by midnight. Most looked pretty bad, some didn't even publish. Given that they had every reason to make the numbers as good as possible but still couldn't avoid revealing the truth, why do you think the claim isn't backed by numbers?
Also what kind of number would convince you that we live in a patriarchal society?
Okay, yes, the left does have conspiracy theories from time to time. Never suggested otherwise. But it's a hallmark of the alt-right. Reddit is full of them. Entire movements are built around them, especially the various "red pill" philosophies. And it's obvious why - when you decide everything you dislike is fake news, create vast amounts of your own fake news, and generally move past concepts like "truth"... You end up believing any old shit.
Also, those feminist "conspiracies" you mention, are all backed up by over a century of research and study.
I have yet to see any evidence of this censorship of "general conservative speech or even centrist speech simply debating the far left" being censored.
Again, if anything it's the other way around, with quite a lot of progressive channels getting hammered by false flagging.
I didn't call it "brigading". Double check, I didn't use that word.
"Brigade" is perhaps used differently in British English I think, because you are the second person to reply with that accusation. All I meant was that there are a group of people here who feel that way, not that they engage in the method of harassment known as "brigading".
In the past I've said that people assume I have said things I have never said. Very occasionally it seems to be a language issue, e.g. the differing meaning of "Asian" in British and US English. I'll always try to give the benefit of the doubt, but maybe I have underestimated it. I am really surprised that so many people took issue with that word, which to me is mostly a meaningless synonym for "group" with a slight Python-esq takes-themselves-too-seriously edge.
As a major gatekeeper of public discourse and controlling the massive amounts of MONEY behind all that advertising, of course they have some control over public discourse.
They certainly have some influence, but not as much as people think... And certainly nowhere near enough to justify nationalization and turning them into a kind of "town square" constitutionally protected zone. It seems like most of the people making this argument are just annoyed that their material is not more popular, or pushing the censorship angle because it generates views.
There are real legitimate concerns about how Youtube censors and promotes content.
Only stuff like those creepy Elsa videos aimed at children, and the over-zealous de-monetization of videos like make-up tips for trans people. The latter is likely illegal anyway, due to equality laws. But not wanting to advertise on political videos... I just can't accept that political views must be protected the same way, because it would be fundamentally incompatible with so many other freedoms and protections, and is ultimately a choice you make and must accept the consequences of.
Don't discount the economic damage done by the cheap knockoff process - it's so common that it's become a meme. It's nigh impossible for anyone to make electronics in China any more, even small hobbyist designers (think Adafruit and Sparkfun) get their products copied and sold for pennies.
So the Chinese are basically IKEA... They clone more expensive furniture, mass produce it out of cheap materials and massively undercut the master craftsmen who built the originals.
Then there's selling steel and aluminum at below-market prices until our domestic producers go out of business
That is indeed a problem, but pissing off your allies who you need to solve that problem by slapping them with tariffs too isn't the way to solve it.
Then there's the lack of IP enforcement, so that lots of Chinese run pirated code and view bootleg media without paying for it.
On the other hand, there's a ridiculous level of IP enforcement in the US. Perpetual copyright, ridiculous patents on rounded corners, even patent trolls whose sole business is suing other people who can't afford to defend themselves. Also, it's not like piracy is rare in the west either.
Then there's keeping their currency artificially low, so that we always have a trade deficit with them
The US is just as bad, with corporate welfare programmes and bailouts. The way to fix it is not to double up and start a trade war, it's to do what the EU does and agree to some rules banning it in exchange for trade.
She seems to have been trying to make it as a social media star, with YouTube being a big part of her income. Maybe her only income... No sign of a Patreon account and other platforms like Instagram and Facebook don't pay.
YouTube de-monetized her videos (or maybe whole channels, it's not clear) due to their content, which seems to have been animals right related. Some of it was quite graphic, so naturally YouTube put age restrictions on it and pushed it down the search results. When people search for "pigs" they generally aren't looking for graphic depictions of them being slaughtered or mistreated, and YouTube was certainly never going to put that on the front page.
So her "career" is in the pan, income cut off, and it's basically a given that she had mental health issues if she thought shooting up YouTube was a good idea. Unlike the sexually frustrated "incels" you refer to, she appears to have done little planning or preparation for this attack, hence the low number of casualties.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks. I'm adding the sinij Seal of Approval (TM) to my resume. Right after Karma: Excellent.
The camera and proximity sensor are the only things that need to be on the front really. Fingerprint sensor on the back. Speakers on the bottom.
I'd prefer a small bezel with camera, proximity sensor, notification LED and earpiece at the top. Functionality over style.
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.
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.
Even if they stop, that capacity has been built and will continue providing cheap electricity for decades to come.
Ironic that you would post that on an ad funded chat site that is mostly used by people to avoid productive work. Have you even looked at at the list of trackers that Slashdot employs lately?
Stop wasting precious energy complaining about other people wasting precious energy! What happens when the renewables run out, huh?
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.
That excess energy isn't actually generated as I understand it, they just pay for it and the money goes towards further investment in renewable sources. Wind and solar are already price competitive, we just need more of them and some battery backup.
rationalist soul
Interesting oxymoron.
California touchie-feeliedom
I don't think they like being touched.
How can the Chinese have stolen it if it was invented in China? Check TFA, Microsoft built it in China. The engineers are Chinese.
Shame because a lot of British people looking to retain EU citizenship would have jumped at that. Maybe that's why they limited it, they don't want waves of British e-refugees flooding them like the Irish have seen.
Except that they were very careful not to make that claim...
"What do we mean by âoematchingâ renewable energy? Over the course of 2017, across the globe, for every kilowatt hour of electricity we consumed, we purchased a kilowatt hour of renewable energy from a wind or solar farm that was built specifically for Google."
Since they built the capacity specifically for this project you can't even claim that it is taking resources away from anyone else. They are just lowering the cost of renewable energy, nothing less.
Yes the law does require them to make like-for-like comparisons, but that's the equal pay gap. We are talking about the gender pay gap which is different.
In any case, even like-for-like there are gaps at many companies. That's one reason they are so worried - being as it is illegal the affected workers can claim back pay and an immediate pay rise.
The gender pay gap is more complex and generally not as legally actionable.
UK companies has to publish their gender pay gap figures by midnight. Most looked pretty bad, some didn't even publish. Given that they had every reason to make the numbers as good as possible but still couldn't avoid revealing the truth, why do you think the claim isn't backed by numbers?
Also what kind of number would convince you that we live in a patriarchal society?
Okay, yes, the left does have conspiracy theories from time to time. Never suggested otherwise. But it's a hallmark of the alt-right. Reddit is full of them. Entire movements are built around them, especially the various "red pill" philosophies. And it's obvious why - when you decide everything you dislike is fake news, create vast amounts of your own fake news, and generally move past concepts like "truth"... You end up believing any old shit.
Also, those feminist "conspiracies" you mention, are all backed up by over a century of research and study.
I have yet to see any evidence of this censorship of "general conservative speech or even centrist speech simply debating the far left" being censored.
Again, if anything it's the other way around, with quite a lot of progressive channels getting hammered by false flagging.
But by all means, present the evidence.
Calling it "brigading"
I didn't call it "brigading". Double check, I didn't use that word.
"Brigade" is perhaps used differently in British English I think, because you are the second person to reply with that accusation. All I meant was that there are a group of people here who feel that way, not that they engage in the method of harassment known as "brigading".
In the past I've said that people assume I have said things I have never said. Very occasionally it seems to be a language issue, e.g. the differing meaning of "Asian" in British and US English. I'll always try to give the benefit of the doubt, but maybe I have underestimated it. I am really surprised that so many people took issue with that word, which to me is mostly a meaningless synonym for "group" with a slight Python-esq takes-themselves-too-seriously edge.
As a major gatekeeper of public discourse and controlling the massive amounts of MONEY behind all that advertising, of course they have some control over public discourse.
They certainly have some influence, but not as much as people think... And certainly nowhere near enough to justify nationalization and turning them into a kind of "town square" constitutionally protected zone. It seems like most of the people making this argument are just annoyed that their material is not more popular, or pushing the censorship angle because it generates views.
There are real legitimate concerns about how Youtube censors and promotes content.
Only stuff like those creepy Elsa videos aimed at children, and the over-zealous de-monetization of videos like make-up tips for trans people. The latter is likely illegal anyway, due to equality laws. But not wanting to advertise on political videos... I just can't accept that political views must be protected the same way, because it would be fundamentally incompatible with so many other freedoms and protections, and is ultimately a choice you make and must accept the consequences of.
Well, we agree on something at least.
Do you support the down mods? Or are you more of a free speech marketplace of ideas kinda person?
The advantage is that Apple has a reason for you to buy an iPhone 11.
We can't shy away from talking about it just because some people will be offended.
Anyway, it's undeniable. Her web site is full of links to the stuff.
I'll take Mueller's word for it, when he finishes investigating... Assuming he isn't fired first.
Don't discount the economic damage done by the cheap knockoff process - it's so common that it's become a meme. It's nigh impossible for anyone to make electronics in China any more, even small hobbyist designers (think Adafruit and Sparkfun) get their products copied and sold for pennies.
So the Chinese are basically IKEA... They clone more expensive furniture, mass produce it out of cheap materials and massively undercut the master craftsmen who built the originals.
Then there's selling steel and aluminum at below-market prices until our domestic producers go out of business
That is indeed a problem, but pissing off your allies who you need to solve that problem by slapping them with tariffs too isn't the way to solve it.
Then there's the lack of IP enforcement, so that lots of Chinese run pirated code and view bootleg media without paying for it.
On the other hand, there's a ridiculous level of IP enforcement in the US. Perpetual copyright, ridiculous patents on rounded corners, even patent trolls whose sole business is suing other people who can't afford to defend themselves. Also, it's not like piracy is rare in the west either.
Then there's keeping their currency artificially low, so that we always have a trade deficit with them
The US is just as bad, with corporate welfare programmes and bailouts. The way to fix it is not to double up and start a trade war, it's to do what the EU does and agree to some rules banning it in exchange for trade.
Why would the police be manipulating that data?
Because then people like you will say "oh it's fine that they stop black people more often, because black people are more often criminals!"
Her website screems "underf*cked & emotionally neglected avergage frustrated chump with a gun"
This BBC article paints a slightly different picture: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...
She seems to have been trying to make it as a social media star, with YouTube being a big part of her income. Maybe her only income... No sign of a Patreon account and other platforms like Instagram and Facebook don't pay.
YouTube de-monetized her videos (or maybe whole channels, it's not clear) due to their content, which seems to have been animals right related. Some of it was quite graphic, so naturally YouTube put age restrictions on it and pushed it down the search results. When people search for "pigs" they generally aren't looking for graphic depictions of them being slaughtered or mistreated, and YouTube was certainly never going to put that on the front page.
So her "career" is in the pan, income cut off, and it's basically a given that she had mental health issues if she thought shooting up YouTube was a good idea. Unlike the sexually frustrated "incels" you refer to, she appears to have done little planning or preparation for this attack, hence the low number of casualties.