Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Not much to go on yet, but apparently there's an active shooter near the YouTube HQ in San Bruno, the BBC reports. Stay safe Dakkanauts!

EDIT: Being picked up by more media outlets, so it's not just the BBC anymore.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not much to go on yet, but apparently there's an active shooter near the YouTube HQ in San Bruno, the BBC reports. Stay safe Dakkanauts!

EDIT: Being picked up by more media outlets, so it's not just the BBC anymore.

Dang stay safe folks!
Again :(

Apparently the shooter is a women. That’s unusual.

Via twittah:
#

BREAKING - Sources tell KRON4 that a woman shot her boyfriend at #YouTube HQ https://t.co/mVJwMHXIGU

— KRON4 News (@kron4news) April 3, 2018

Reportedly 4 others wounded before she turned her own gun on herself.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Apparently the shooter is a women. That’s unusual.

A man who was shot and is currently in critical condition is reported to have been the shooters boyfriend. So this seems to be a personal attack rather than a random psycho looking for infamy after death.

Edit: I checked bbc news again this morning and looks like the above is wrong. She didn't know any of the victims.

 Sasquatch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Apparently the shooter is a women. That’s unusual.

A man who was shot and is currently in critical condition is reported to have been the shooters boyfriend. So this seems to be a personal attack rather than a random psycho looking for infamy after death.

Workplace killings are almost always personal in some way. While not a psycho, I have to wonder if there is some sort of bi-polar or chronic depression issue because women doing this type of thing really is unusual.

Apparently it was over youtube demonetizing and censoring her videos (yes really).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasquatch wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Apparently the shooter is a women. That’s unusual.

A man who was shot and is currently in critical condition is reported to have been the shooters boyfriend. So this seems to be a personal attack rather than a random psycho looking for infamy after death.

The shooter's website is still up http://www.nasimesabz.com/

I always thought it was really awesome how Aaron Paul embarrassed Youtube, so they demonitized everyone else. Good job guys.


(Not that I'm glad their job got shot up, though)

I wonder if this will make Youtube back off on demonitization and general mucking about with politically charged video topics in terms of censoring stuff that Youtube disagrees with.

They shouldn't. It's their platform, and it's supported by ads. They know what kind of videos can drive ad sales.

That's only "censorship" if you don't have a basic understanding of what censorship actually is.

 Ouze wrote:
They shouldn't. It's their platform, and it's supported by ads. They know what kind of videos can drive ad sales.

That's only "censorship" if you don't have a basic understanding of what censorship actually is.

Since Youtube has basically become a Public Space on the internet, they would be subject to having to abide by the 1st Amendment. Which means they couldn't legally engage in censorship and favoritism of content that they simply disagree with.

Thats why Youtube will most likely lose all those lawsuits related to all the gun content they're trying to ban from their site that are definitely going to come their way in the next few months.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since Youtube has basically become a Public Space on the internet, they would be subject to having to abide by the 1st Amendment. Which means they couldn't legally engage in censorship and favoritism of content that they simply disagree with.

Thats why Youtube will most likely lose all those lawsuits related to all the gun content they're trying to ban from their site that are definitely going to come their way in the next few months.

So yeah, no understanding of what censorship is.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Since Youtube has basically become a Public Space on the internet, they would be subject to having to abide by the 1st Amendment. Which means they couldn't legally engage in censorship and favoritism of content that they simply disagree with.

Thats why Youtube will most likely lose all those lawsuits related to all the gun content they're trying to ban from their site that are definitely going to come their way in the next few months.

So yeah, no understanding of what censorship is.

You seem under the very erroneous assumption that Censorship can only be conducted by a Government. That is utterly false.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

It is typically used in the context of a government doing it, but private parties can definitely conduct the practice. The ACLU definitely holds that private parties are capable of doing it.

I'm not going to get into this debate with you because my long experience has shown that it's likely any explanation would slide off you like water off a duck.

Suffice it to say, I would expect a summary judgement for any lawsuit filed against Youtube by any of those gun channels, assuming they can even find a lawyer willing to take a case that will almost certainly be laughed out of court.

You have no right to free speech on someone else's platform.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not going to get into this debate with you because my long experience has shown that it's likely any explanation would slide off you like water off a duck.

Suffice it to say, I would expect a summary judgement for any lawsuit filed against Youtube by any of those gun channels, assuming they can even find a lawyer willing to take a case that will almost certainly be laughed out of court.

You have no right to free speech on someone else's platform.

Go ahead with your explanation dude, if you actually have one and aren't just blowing smoke to sound like an internet tough guy. Because I'm seeing a lot of stuff saying otherwise, and no its not all from people who are whining about Youtube cracking down.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
They shouldn't. It's their platform, and it's supported by ads. They know what kind of videos can drive ad sales.

That's only "censorship" if you don't have a basic understanding of what censorship actually is.

Since Youtube has basically become a Public Space on the internet, they would be subject to having to abide by the 1st Amendment. Which means they couldn't legally engage in censorship and favoritism of content that they simply disagree with.

Thats why Youtube will most likely lose all those lawsuits related to all the gun content they're trying to ban from their site that are definitely going to come their way in the next few months.

The 1st Amendment only protects you against the Government. If you come in my house and start telling me how you think Ultramarines are the best SM Chapter in the whole game, I can put a stop to that bullgak real quick by telling you to gtfo and there is nothing you can do about it. In fact, the government will come and remove you from my house for me if you refuse to gtfo. Welcome to being censored!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
They shouldn't. It's their platform, and it's supported by ads. They know what kind of videos can drive ad sales.

That's only "censorship" if you don't have a basic understanding of what censorship actually is.

Since Youtube has basically become a Public Space on the internet, they would be subject to having to abide by the 1st Amendment. Which means they couldn't legally engage in censorship and favoritism of content that they simply disagree with.

Thats why Youtube will most likely lose all those lawsuits related to all the gun content they're trying to ban from their site that are definitely going to come their way in the next few months.

The 1st Amendment only protects you against the Government. If you come in my house and start telling me how you think Ultramarines are the best SM Chapter in the whole game, I can put a stop to that bullgak real quick by telling you to gtfo and there is nothing you can do about it. In fact, the government will come and remove you from my house for me if you refuse to gtfo. Welcome to being censored!

Nope, Civil rights can protect against Private parties too if you are operating within a public space.

Lets take the Christian Bakery cases that went through recently. It was ruled that you couldn't refuse to sell an off the rack cake to a Gay person in your shop, because its a public business. It was ruled in another case however that you could refuse to make custom cake for a gay wedding, but you'd still have to sell a basic off the rack cake without any added specific customization if they asked for it.

This same precedent can easily apply to youtube. Youtube is a public place on the internet for all intents and purposes. Anybody can post videos on there within the normal limits that free speech has in public settings. But Youtube in all likely hood legally cannot censor your speech on their site simply because they disagree with it. Nudity, hate speech, etc... are not protected under free speech, and thats why Youtube can limit those videos, but something like "How to build a gun" absolutely would be protected under free speech.

So its really a question of "Is Youtube a public space?" Maybe it wasn't in the past, but considering the size and pervasiveness of the platform it likely has become one.

Youtube would have to make major changes to the requirements for making accounts to become a private space again. Something as simple as a fee of some kind for having an account, which would make them similar to a Private Club which then squarely puts them as being a non-public platform.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nudity, hate speech, etc... are not protected under free speech

This is exactly why I can't talk to you about this. You have no idea what you are talking about. Hate speech is protected speech. This is a basic textbook example of how free speech works, and this whole thing is going to turn into another example of the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

Here's here YouTube video ranting about being censored.

 Ouze wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Nudity, hate speech, etc... are not protected under free speech

This is exactly why I can't talk to you about this. You have no idea what you are talking about. Hate speech is protected speech. This is a basic textbook example of how free speech works, and this whole thing is going to turn into another example of the Dunning–Kruger effect in action.

You are correct. I was wrong on hate speech. Lets use a better example. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater and other similar things.

Perhaps you could explain your position instead of taking veiled jabs at my intelligence, because that just makes you look bad.

I'm not making veiled jabs at your intelligence. I'm saying that I don't think you understand how free speech works, and this is something we've argued about before. There are a great many things, most things even, that I totally don't understand. Chemistry, for example; is an utter mystery to me. No matter how smart a person is are I think you're destined to not understand some stuff. And that's OK!

My beef is that when we have these kinds of discussions, as we have had many times before, you don't seem to understand the fundamental arguments here (which is fine!) but you also don't realize you don't, so there can't really be a productive conversation. Does that make sense?

Someone went on a shooting spree about their youtube channel being demonetized? Get a real job, maybe?

 Crazyterran wrote:
Someone went on a shooting spree about their youtube channel being demonetized? Get a real job, maybe?

I definitely feel the same way to some extent. These millennials definitely seem to think streaming is a legit profession, though. I don't understand it /shrug.

 Ouze wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Someone went on a shooting spree about their youtube channel being demonetized? Get a real job, maybe?

These millennials definitely seem to think streaming is a legit profession, though. I don't understand it /shrug.

She was 39.

I stand corrected.

Dont get me wrong, if you hit it big, go for it. Its the modern Hollywood to an extent. Have another job while you try to do it, though, and dont rely on it.

You never know who the next Pewdiepie is going to be, after all.

 Ouze wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Someone went on a shooting spree about their youtube channel being demonetized? Get a real job, maybe?

I definitely feel the same way to some extent. These millennials definitely seem to think streaming is a legit profession, though. I don't understand it /shrug.

Streaming has kinda taken a similar position to being an actor, playing sports, a musician, or being an artist in terms of a career. Its something a lot of people would dream of doing, and the barrier to entry is low to actually participate in it. But realistically any individual who attempts it has little to no chance of making it big time.

Sure, PewdePie made bank streaming. But you doing the same is about as likely as you trying to be an actor and dreaming of being as big a movie star as Angelina Jolie. More likely you'd just end up trying out for toothpaste and hemorrhoid cream commercials and get told you really don't have anything to stand out from the ten billion other people trying to be actors too.

Streaming is probably even more attractive because the barrier to entry is so extremely low even relative to something like playing in the minor leagues or trying out in commercial auditions. You literally just need a microphone, webcam, and a computer. And the first two things are often standard equipment on laptops nowdays.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not making veiled jabs at your intelligence. I'm saying that I don't think you understand how free speech works, and this is something we've argued about before. There are a great many things, most things even, that I totally don't understand. Chemistry, for example; is an utter mystery to me. No matter how smart a person is are I think you're destined to not understand some stuff. And that's OK!

My beef is that when we have these kinds of discussions, as we have had many times before, you don't seem to understand the fundamental arguments here (which is fine!) but you also don't realize you don't, so there can't really be a productive conversation. Does that make sense?

Thats why I actually read stuff about these things I don't understand and have conversations about them. I'm trying to learn and use what I do learn in discussions.

Someone like you just showing up and saying "Your conclusion is wrong and you're incapable of understanding this subject" is utterly non-productive.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I wonder if this will make Youtube back off on demonitization and general mucking about with politically charged video topics in terms of censoring stuff that Youtube disagrees with.

This is completely wrong in two ways.

1) There is a big difference between censoring and de-monetizing. De-monetized videos are still available for viewing on youtube, if the creator leaves them up. They are just no longer going to have youtube ads because youtube has a business dependent on advertisers to maintain, and those advertisers have said they don't want their ads connected to or making money for creators of contraversial content. So anyone can still use Youtube to make all the crazy political conspiracy nonsense they want, they just can't use youtube's advertising network to make money out of their crazy nonsense. The actual stuff that is banned on youtube that will be entirely taken down is mundane, long accepted stuff like no nudity and no hate speech.

2) Youtube's policies for which videos are demonetised have nothing to do with what youtube themselves agree with. It's about not creating hassle for youtube or any of their advertisers, because they are a business and protecting advertising is their business.


So that's two ways in which your political stance is totally and completely wrong. And this is not the first time you've waded in to a subject with a completely mistaken understanding of the actual situation. You need to stop doing this. You need to address how you approach subjects and how you try to understand them, and radically change some or all of that process.

Okay, then how about this.

Youtube is not a public space, it is more of a private club. You have to be a member to post things. A private club that you have to sign a ToS agreement for to use. Kinda like this site!

So what happens when one company practically monopolises all the primary social media so that the majority of the space the public occupy is in fact privately owned by one person or corporation? There is no public space online, it’s all privately owned. As it’s a main form of communication, they have all the power.

It’s a shame that people above are refusing to discuss the situation and just saying ‘you’re wrong I’m not discussing it’, because I think there is an argument here for treating the private/public spaces on the internet differently. The internet, and sites like YouTube, is a different beast to going into someone’s living room for a conversation. They traffic the majority of the public and make themselves a public space. They are vast and for a long time largely unregulated. I can see the argument that in assuming that role so long, and because of the large swathe of the ‘public space’ they cover online, they have relinquished their private control. Otherwise total control over speech in the perceived ‘public spaces’ on the internet actually falls under the control of a minority of individuals.

It’s a situation where the internet doesn’t quite reflect normal life for which laws were created. No city is like the internet because all cities have public free spaces. The internet doesn’t, it would be like living in a city where every street, building and park was privately owned, by a few individuals, and despite knowing about free speech and being allowed to walk wheverever you liked, you actually have no freedom to speech anywhere at all. Given that the internet is one of the main forms of communication today, that does seem problematic.