Shooting at Youtube HQ

Sounds like it, yeah. Narrative that’s emerging is that she was upset over YouTube demonetizing her videos. That sounds ridiculous at first, but when you think about it some people relied upon that revenue to pay their rent, and people have been killed over less. Surprising part is it was a woman.

The demonetizing issue is proceeding through the courts.

Everything revolves around section 230 of the CDA, and the liability shield it affords.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
“(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph”

Pretty hard to argue “good faith” with project vertas undercover videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qXrXHzThhE

Section 230 has benn controversial in the past
http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/press-release/federal-government-authorizes-facebook-twitter-and-youtube-to-censor-anti-islam-speech-lawsuit-filed/

2 Likes

Not making light of the situation, but an interesting observation.
The latest Unfilter podcast made an interesting point. All the issues perceived by this person from YouTube could have happened without any human input or action. Purely YouTube algorithm automatically demonetizing, not promoting etc…
That is cyberpunk as hell.

2 Likes

This is exactly what I didn’t want. Name and face plastered everywhere.

And she took her anger out on people at youtube instead of a therapist.

2 Likes

Inevitable unfortunately…

It doesn’t need to be though, considering you can discuss everything that happened without naming the person, it should be encouraged and media that does this should be supported more I think.

1 Like

True but now the family has come forward saying they warned the the police about her anger towards YouTube after she was found and taken off the missing persons list. I don’t know how explicit their warning was or if they knew she had a gun.


I’ve been hearing a lot about YouTube’s policies along with the discussion of the shooting like YouTube is to blame for this nutcase and it’s maddening. Posting a bunch of shitty videos to YouTube does not entitle anyone to fame and fortune.

5 Likes

Agreed. Just because you’ve got a few subscribers doesn’t mean you have any right to dictate rules of the platform. If you really have a problem with the platform, leave. There’s no justification for this sort of response, ever.

2 Likes

And that’s how you could report it.

Well, she got her fame.

It’s not clear what information the police had at the time she was initially found, I hope its not another case of the police knowing there was issues and doing nothing about it like last time.

1 Like

Hindsight is not helping here. It is dangerous to take people of the street after some warning. Could lead to a police state rather quickly.

Edit: Felt like it is important to mention: Without any information about the way the police handled the warning, it is hard to judge anyone.

The police was on the street, at her car, having found her asleep. I’m just saying that I hope that they didn’t have the information to suggest there was a further issue with her at the time. Like you said, we don’t know yet.

1 Like

So far it’s very vague what the police where told and at the time they found her they say there wasn’t any cause for concern or grounds to search/ detain

At that point I believe she was only on the missing persons list and it was after the police contacted the family that they were warned and again we don’t know how explicit that warning was, it may not have been enough for police to act on.

Why?

Know thy enemy.

Wtf? The shooter didn’t work at YouTube, she drove up from southern California and accessed the building through the parking garage, I fail to see how any of this is YouTube’s fault.

5 Likes

This is the classic FUD that I’m trying to avoid by not following this story closely right now.

1 Like

YouTube’s fault by algorithm is kind of the point here…

Stating youtube has no fault, is simply stupid. Have no doubt, they are partially to blame for this.

Its not like its only that womans fault and it everything could be fixed easily. Try telling your goddamn therapist about algorithms, coding and whatnot going on in the computing world and see how far that gets ya…

You better be paying with me because this is the most rediculous shit I’ve ever read.

5 Likes

It is that woman’s fault - No reasonable, sane person would shoot up a private company because they disagree with changes in the company policy. Unless it breaks or circumvents laws, Youtube (and Google) are at liberty to produce and enforce any company policy they please. Whether that sits well with people or not is irrelevant. If people don’t like it, they can move to a different platform, produce their own, (i.e. “Voting with your wallets”) or find a different source of income. If not enough people are moving away to influence a change in Youtube’s policy, then they will continue to maintain their dominance in the market.

This is a process that takes time and the exertion of gradual but steady economic pressure, but people can’t take that these days because they are bereft of any patience whatsoever. You get people behaving like petulant children (to the point of actual violence) when they don’t receive the instant gratification that they’re used to.

9 Likes

I can understand being frustrated with Youtube/Google and their policies because they have a virtual monopoly and there aren’t really any viable alternatives. There are lots of people in this boat.

However, that is NO EXCUSE for violence no matter how you look at it.

3 Likes