Giving orders
Ok bud
Look you’ve had it told to a half dozen ways already. So I’ll really condense it for you.
The shooter shot YT, YT did not force shooter to 1. Shoot 2. Use the platform. It is 100% the shooters doing. YT is not responsible in any capacity. Their actions “”“may have”"" been this persons motivation but it is absolutely unjustified.
Did she have one? The therapy didn’t seem to be working if she did. I assume you can’t get hold of all that equipment overnight, so who knows how long this attack would have been planned. The dark future is here now, in ways.
Certainly doesn’t. But some people can post shitty videos, and be the poster children of the site. So I see how it could be frustrating being a breakout content creator.
So, who is to blame for the attack? The attacker obviously. Having a tough time on YouTube might explain the actions, but it doesn’t excuse them. The idea that getting a bunch of guns and shooting up some place is some kind of solution needs to go away.
Wow this thread blew up overnight, sorry if I am not up to date with it.
The imperialistic tone of this post made me legitimately laugh.
Youtube was the cause of her trigger happy crusade. She did obsess over youtube’s demonetization and exposure of her videos that she uploaded to youtube. It did drive her to want to gun down people at their headquarters.
Youtube’s constant policy changes did set these actions in motion. To me, they are partially to blame here. They have affected a lot of people directly and indirectly with their policy changes. They are pretty reckless with the way they handle a userbase of potentially tens of millions.
But that is exactly what happened in this case.
Is he wrong though? Youtube is only beneficial to all of us for as long as it’s beneficial to Alphabet.
You understand that what you are suggesting is putting the blame for someones actions onto people who didnt do those actions?
Kill your wife? well it was her fault she kept arguing with me
kill your business partner? well he was dumb and kept losing us money
kill your baby? well it wouldn’t stop screaming
kill your bank manager? well he wouldn’t give me a loan for my failing business
There’s not difference to what your suggesting and these. You understand that what you are advocating for is dangerous, and thats why im saying its dangerous, because your suggesting that yes, in fact, others are to blame at least in part for your actions. That makes “you dressed like you wanted it” a legitimate defence.
edit: her bad business practices are not youtubes fault, and her shooting people because of her issues and bad business practices are not youtubes fault.
Don’t countries do this very thing? I’m not saying it’s right because for some people this world IS terrible
“I don’t like the EULA I explicitly and unequivocally agreed to when I installed Windows. I’m going to go shoot up Microsoft’s headquarters now, because the telemetry is making me paranoid and unstable. But it’s okay, it’s partially Microsoft’s fault anyway - they’re the ones who wrote the EULA that caused this problem in the first place. I mean, what other options do I have?”
When a person or a business engages in practices that while distasteful to you, are not in any way illegal at all, you dissociate yourself from that person or organization and seek out an alternative. You don’t just go up and toss lead at them. That’s a gross overreaction by someone devoid of rational thought. People don’t deserve to die simply because the company they happen to work for did some things that made your life a little more complicated. That’s not just illegal or immoral, that’s evil, and the company certainly does not hold responsibility for that. Youtube’s actions did not warrant hers at all.
Just because someone has partial blame. Does not remove your own. That’s why partial is being used.
That’s definetly well put. It didn’t warrant it at all, but it may have encouraged her, which in this circumstance may have been enough
Nope, you can not encourage someone to do something if you are not even aware of what that action would be. Nobody pushed, forced, helped or encouraged her to shoot anyone. She did that alone.
You can’t push a persons buttons? Think its possible… Yes, even by algorithm.
Whether she was/felt pushed to do something is debateable, i think she did.
That clairvoyancy kicking in again? Damn, wish i had that. Encourage her to do something is what i meant by that. Not to shoot anyone…
There is still a level of ignorance present in ignoring the thing that triggered the actions of a person. You can’t just write off the woman in this case for going crazy and shooting up people at youtube. It was not a random act. Youtube’s policy changes did affect her actions greatly in this situation.
Alphabet and Youtube do have a reckless abandonment when it comes to policy changes. They have services that house millions of users, when they disrupt even a small percentage of those those users that could still lead to ten’s of thousands of disgruntled people. some could even lead to violent out lashes like this case here.
I am not putting a complete blame on Youtube, their policy actions did trigger this woman. But then again, she was also a ticking time bomb to begin with. This was the event that drove her to shooting people and killing herself.
Personally I’m tired of the “it’s just business” catch-all defense. Actions have consequences.
She can be a deranged psycho and YouTube can be shit for their complete refusal to even try communicating with their creators.
I’m not buying the American “everything has to be a good/bad dichotomy”. She’s garbage and YouTube is also garbage and it sucks employees got caught up in the crossfire. The people on the ground don’t deserve this.
Screwing over people’s livelihood has had these kinds of consequences for literally forever.
I can’t really fault that logic. How else can a massive infrastructure like youtube survive without a corporate entity like Alphabet paying for the bills to maintain it all? But they still do have a reckless management of youtube as a service.
I think I know your ‘Word of the Week’.
… it’s penis, isn’t it?
Doesn’t matter what you meant, you wrote it like that. Shoot people is what she did. If you talk about Youtube encouraging her without any further explanation then that is the only way to understand that.
Jobs get worse or disappear completely, like you said that has been the case for literally forever.
So what? That’s life. Do something else.
There’s no real polite way to say it, but debating whether this nutbar’s disgusting actions were somehow big bad corporate media’s fault is beyond retarded.
Close but no dice, it’s actually Giuliana Farfalla I’m sure you can make sense of it, with your abilities.
I did, my mistake. I can’t prove anything of course. What i meant was that if all the dandy corporate-nuthuggery had any substance to it. This incident wouldn’t have happened.
Any nutjob capable of shooting multiple people and then self-terminating would have found some other trigger.
Same as anyone capable of raping a woman would have found someone else if Sheila wasn’t at the wrong place at the wrong time lookin’ all hot. Some people are just messed up.
Or anyone looking to rob a house would have found another target if you remembered to lock your door. Doesn’t mean you should leave your door unlocked, but it wasn’t your fault.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a bad focal point to discuss. She is one in tens of millions of users. She’s not the only nutbar on youtube, and this could very well happen again at the drop of a solitary youtube policy change. There is a cause and effect here.
Crazy will always be crazy, but when bigger entities poke at that crazy (in this case, unknowingly) shitty things are going to happen.
you can obviously discuss most things at your own leisure. It’s not the discussion I’m calling stupid, it’s the idea the blame can be pawned off on some big faceless megacorp.
Applies to all scales, not just giant megacorps. If I call your mom a hooker and you track me down and kill me, it’s your fault. On both legal and moral levels.