YouTube Tragedy and a lesson in changing society.

[Epic Beard Man]

Dr. Martin Luther King once said:

"We haven't learned to disagree, without being violently disagreeable."

I think it is a sad time not just because of human history, but because a lot of disagreements that are "newsworthy" come in the form of violence. A massive group of people get killed either from the tower of a hotel or a school we're ready to discuss mental disorders or school bullying. Someone sends packages to various homes blowing up the individual killing them, we're ready to discuss the dark past and mental anguish of the devious manufacturer of these bombs. Now in the recent news regarding the tragic shooting at YouTube headquarters, we are now discussing censorship, something I've noticed content creators have been complaining about.

According to Nasim Aghdam the female responsible for wounding four people in the shooting, she blames YouTube for censoring her and filtering her content, keeping her from getting views. Apparently she was enraged that YouTube stopped paying her for her video content. From what was initially reported, Aghdam was involved with PETA and animal rights issues, but despite all that I wonder if her mental status will be questioned. More importantly what does that say about our society that is reactive instead of proactive when it comes to change?

YouTube shooter told family members she 'hated' the company

 

[Curious George]

Dr. Martin Luther King once said:

"We haven't learned to disagree, without being violently disagreeable."

I think it is a sad time not just because of human history, but because a lot of disagreements that are "newsworthy" come in the form of violence. A massive group of people get killed either from the tower of a hotel or a school we're ready to discuss mental disorders or school bullying. Someone sends packages to various homes blowing up the individual killing them, we're ready to discuss the dark past and mental anguish of the devious manufacturer of these bombs. Now in the recent news regarding the tragic shooting at YouTube headquarters, we are not discussing censorship, something I've noticed content creators have been complaining about.

According to Nasim Aghdam the female responsible for wounding four people in the shooting, she blames YouTube for censoring her and filtering her content, keeping her from getting views. Apparently she was enraged that YouTube stopped paying her for her video content. From what was initially reported, Aghdam was involved with PETA and animal rights issues, but despite all that I wonder if her mental status will be questioned. More importantly what does that say about our society that is reactive instead of proactive when it comes to change?

YouTube shooter told family members she 'hated' the company

The need to be heard is very powerful. Children who cannot communicate will often act out violently. Are we really that much different? Perhaps we tell ourselves that we are because we have different outlets by which we fulfill our needs. We can see different routes available. What if we could not? Would we remain so peaceful. Few and far in between are zen among us who can take oppression, real or perceived, and calmly abide.

 

[HonestJoe]

Dr. Martin Luther King once said:

"We haven't learned to disagree, without being violently disagreeable."

He presumably said that in the 1960s and was clearly referring to a long established problem that humans continued (and continue) to fail to address. I don’t how that reflects your implication that what we’re seeing today is something new, a symptom of some kind of change.

More importantly what does that say about our society that is reactive instead of proactive when it comes to change?

Why didn’t you ask this question yesterday?

 

[Stevicus]

Dr. Martin Luther King once said:

"We haven't learned to disagree, without being violently disagreeable."

I think it is a sad time not just because of human history, but because a lot of disagreements that are "newsworthy" come in the form of violence. A massive group of people get killed either from the tower of a hotel or a school we're ready to discuss mental disorders or school bullying. Someone sends packages to various homes blowing up the individual killing them, we're ready to discuss the dark past and mental anguish of the devious manufacturer of these bombs. Now in the recent news regarding the tragic shooting at YouTube headquarters, we are now discussing censorship, something I've noticed content creators have been complaining about.

According to Nasim Aghdam the female responsible for wounding four people in the shooting, she blames YouTube for censoring her and filtering her content, keeping her from getting views. Apparently she was enraged that YouTube stopped paying her for her video content. From what was initially reported, Aghdam was involved with PETA and animal rights issues, but despite all that I wonder if her mental status will be questioned. More importantly what does that say about our society that is reactive instead of proactive when it comes to change?

YouTube shooter told family members she 'hated' the company

I didn't know this. Yesterday, they were saying it was a domestic situation, an angry ex-girlfriend or something like that. I guess that wasn't the case.

I honestly don't know that much about YouTube, how they pay people for content, or how they manage to censor/filter content. In the article it said "She posted about veganism, animal cruelty along with glamor shots of herself and exercise videos." Is that the kind of stuff that YouTube would actually censor, and why?

Did she see YouTube as her livelihood and felt like she was suddenly cut off? If that's the case, it might be more analogous to a disgruntled employee situation.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The need to be heard is very powerful. Children who cannot communicate will often act out violently. Are we really that much different? Perhaps we tell ourselves that we are because we have different outlets by which we fulfill our needs. We can see different routes available. What if we could not? Would we remain so peaceful. Few and far in between are zen among us who can take oppression, real or perceived, and calmly abide.

Well “acting out” can actually be attributed to one of the theory’s of cognitive development. The difference is as we get older we tend to learn social order and tend to form ideas and express those ideas through a constructive medium (whether that is talking to someone or complaining via chain of command).

The aspect of disruptive/destructive expression of ideas is a reversion back to a child like manner because we have conceptualized the idea that being destructive just as a child who throws a temper tantrum such as a toy across the kitchen hitting a sizzling pan, brings attention.

Just as murdering people by blowing them up or shooting them brings attention. Being destructive in my view brings the most shocking and immediate response because it puts that issue at that moment ahead of the line.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

He presumably said that in the 1960s and was clearly referring to a long established problem that humans continued (and continue) to fail to address. I don’t how that reflects your implication that what we’re seeing today is something new, a symptom of some kind of change.

Why didn’t you ask this question yesterday?

You guys on these boards (some) are so anal, Who cares? If I am stating something that is not new the main point is it’s relevant.

 

[HonestJoe]

You guys on these boards (some) are so anal, Who cares? If I am stating something that is not new the main point is it’s relevant.

I think it’s very relevant to determine whether the problem is something relatively new as a result of changes in society or something fundamental to human nature. Trying to fix the problem by changing society if that isn’t the cause will only do more harm than good.

 

[Jumi]

From what I read, youtube stopped paying her for the vids in 2017. This isn't the first time I heard about this, it happened maybe a year ago, that they stopped giving money to certain youtubers in ways that seemed arbitrary. I saw a couple of videos complaining about it actually, recommending moving to other video sharing sites. They probably ruined a few people's livelihoods during that period. It now seems that she was one of the victims of the policy changes. Not that it justifies attacking people working at the company.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I didn't know this. Yesterday, they were saying it was a domestic situation, an angry ex-girlfriend or something like that. I guess that wasn't the case.

I honestly don't know that much about YouTube, how they pay people for content, or how they manage to censor/filter content. In the article it said "She posted about veganism, animal cruelty along with glamor shots of herself and exercise videos." Is that the kind of stuff that YouTube would actually censor, and why?

Did she see YouTube as her livelihood and felt like she was suddenly cut off? If that's the case, it might be more analogous to a disgruntled employee situation.

Many YouTubers who do these videos are making a livelihood from doing videos

 

[Nakosis]

Dr. Martin Luther King once said:

"We haven't learned to disagree, without being violently disagreeable."

I think it is a sad time not just because of human history, but because a lot of disagreements that are "newsworthy" come in the form of violence. A massive group of people get killed either from the tower of a hotel or a school we're ready to discuss mental disorders or school bullying. Someone sends packages to various homes blowing up the individual killing them, we're ready to discuss the dark past and mental anguish of the devious manufacturer of these bombs. Now in the recent news regarding the tragic shooting at YouTube headquarters, we are now discussing censorship, something I've noticed content creators have been complaining about.

According to Nasim Aghdam the female responsible for wounding four people in the shooting, she blames YouTube for censoring her and filtering her content, keeping her from getting views. Apparently she was enraged that YouTube stopped paying her for her video content. From what was initially reported, Aghdam was involved with PETA and animal rights issues, but despite all that I wonder if her mental status will be questioned. More importantly what does that say about our society that is reactive instead of proactive when it comes to change?

YouTube shooter told family members she 'hated' the company

I suspect genetics had some role. At least partially.

A Gene For Violence?

Yes, I know I'm in a minority right now, but I didn't choose my personality. I just always recall feeling the same ways towards events in my life.

What makes me angry has always made me angry. I've just modified the ways I deal with that anger.

I don't know if they really would find a genetic trait for violence, but what if they did. Would we try to help the violently inclined or lock them away?

Heard on the radio she was a vegan, never violent to anyone. So what set her off? Perhaps some genetic propensity towards violence triggered by her anger.

 

[suncowiam]

Many YouTubers who do these videos are making a livelihood from doing videos

I watched one of her videos where she complained about YouTube censoring her videos but not censoring Nicki Minaj's video. She definitely had a valid point concerning the hypocritical nature of YouTubes' policies. Still that does not give her the right to use violence as a tool to solve her issues.

Even if her livelihood was threatened, she should have realized that her business was completely dependent on YouTube. Her product would not have been possible without YouTube in the first place. To fight YouTube, everyone still has the ability of open dialog and the justice system if they feel their contracts have been breached.

This is not new to society. It is like being fired from a job and becoming disgruntled.

 

[YmirGF]

From what I can gather is that the media is buzzing about her mental state as the relevant sub-topics are a result of her mental state. This will probably tick some folks off, but for me, her simply taking part in PETA protests indicates that she is definitely an extremist with views she felt demanded hearing. When you have already crossed that bridge who can say where things will lead?

As per her loss of income. From what I understand is you have to be receiving millions of hits on YouTube before it adds up to anything substantial. Most of the people I frequent use Patrion to generate real donations as the dribble from YouTube doesn't add up to a hill of beans. Her paranoia may have confused her over the public's general lack of interest in her "work" with that of YouTube limiting her exposure. It could have been a bit of both. The thing is, if you are worried that YouTube might be filtering your content away from the general YouTube audience one should take that as a sign that they are perhaps hovering on the fringe of acceptability. Plus, YouTube is under no compulsion to allow content they find objectionable and there is nothing anyone can do about that.

She must have been an experience to have a conversation with especially if you ideas diverged from her narrow focus.

Likewise, I've read that her family contacted the police when she went missing for a few days and they found her in her car not far from the YouTube headquarters. To use a medical term, if she "presented" well enough to the police who stopped her they may not have any ability to intervene. As you know @Epic Beard Man just because someone has mental challenges does not mean that they are a drooling and raving obvious nutcase. (Though if you listen closely you might begin to hear the theme from Jaws.)

 

[Stevicus]

Well “acting out” can actually be attributed to one of the theory’s of cognitive development. The difference is as we get older we tend to learn social order and tend to form ideas and express those ideas through a constructive medium (whether that is talking to someone or complaining via chain of command).

The aspect of disruptive/destructive expression of ideas is a reversion back to a child like manner because we have conceptualized the idea that being destructive just as a child who throws a temper tantrum such as a toy across the kitchen hitting a sizzling pan, brings attention.

Just as murdering people by blowing them up or shooting them brings attention. Being destructive in my view brings the most shocking and immediate response because it puts that issue at that moment ahead of the line.

I agree with everything you're saying here.

One thing I would also add as a contributory factor is in how often society reacts to people who express their pain, loneliness, sadness, or anger - but aren't actually violent, not threatening violence, or anything like that. Oftentimes the responses can be just as juvenile, such as people accusing others of "whining" or "crying," or they might say things like "cry me a river." It's like people reverting back to 6th grade. The same cruelty of children ("oh look, he/she is about to cry!") can still be retained by adults with a certain degree of malice and disdain towards their fellow man.

Our culture really, really hates "crybabies," "whiners," or anything deemed "weak." There's a kind of macho attitude where people are told that "s--- happens - deal with it," "life is hard," "no pain, no gain," or "he who dies with the most toys wins." No sympathy, no human compassion, no charity, no generosity - just a cold, dog-eat-dog world where all anyone hears is "f--- you, pay me."

These shooters seem to have a common thread where there's this extreme desire to lash out at society and make everyone aware just how angry and upset they are. They somehow feel that they're not being heard or listened to, so they're as much as sending the message "Fine, if that's the way you want it, then here ya go!" But at least they're not whining anymore. Our culture also respects doers and people who take action, not those who sit at home crying about their problems.

As Al Capone put it "You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

 

[Jumi]

I suspect genetics had some role. At least partially.

A Gene For Violence?

Yes, I know I'm in a minority right now, but I didn't choose my personality. I just always recall feeling the same ways towards events in my life.

What makes me angry has always made me angry. I've just modified the ways I deal with that anger.

I find that most people have breaking points. What caused you to be angry might be on a different level from someone else's. I can say that there are quite deep levels of hurt that can be delivered.

I don't know if they really would find a genetic trait for violence, but what if they did. Would we try to help the violently inclined or lock them away?

Heard on the radio she was a vegan, never violent to anyone. So what set her off? Perhaps some genetic propensity towards violence triggered by her anger.

Like many minority belief groups, people humiliate vegans and their beliefs routinely. So they would probably have some pent-up anger there.

 

[Nakosis]

I find that most people have breaking points. What caused you to be angry might be on a different level from someone else's. I can say that there are quite deep levels of hurt that can be delivered.


Like many minority belief groups, people humiliate vegans and their beliefs routinely. So they would probably have some pent-up anger there.

Sure, and the way I would react was to covertly defeat the object of my anger. The thought of physically harming a person never crossed my mind.

Something like hacking their computer, something sneaky.

Not something I chose, just the way I am. Just curious how much genetics has to do with our personalities.

 

[Jumi]

As per her loss of income. From what I understand is you have to be receiving millions of hits on YouTube before it adds up to anything substantial. Most of the people I frequent use Patrion to generate real donations as the dribble from YouTube doesn't add up to a hill of beans.

People started using patreon more widely, because of these policy changes. Before that, many of them were making their livelihoods straight off youtube. It's probable that she didn't adapt to the changes and because much of her views came (I assume based on what was on the news) from the middle-east they probably couldn't support her based on wealth and other difficulties.

 

[YmirGF]

People started using patreon more widely, because of these policy changes. Before that, many of them were making their livelihoods straight off youtube. It's probable that she didn't adapt to the changes and because much of her views came (I assume based on what was on the news) from the middle-east they probably couldn't support her based on wealth and other difficulties.

I understand, but stand by my point. Unless she was getting millions of hits or several hundred thousand hits consistently, her take home wouldn't have been very much at all.

 

[Stevicus]

As per her loss of income. From what I understand is you have to be receiving millions of hits on YouTube before it adds up to anything substantial. Most of the people I frequent use Patrion to generate real donations as the dribble from YouTube doesn't add up to a hill of beans. Her paranoia may have confused her over the public's general lack of interest in her "work" with that of YouTube limiting her exposure. It could have been a bit of both. The thing is, if you are worried that YouTube might be filtering your content away from the general YouTube audience one should take that as a sign that they are perhaps hovering on the fringe of acceptability. Plus, YouTube is under no compulsion to allow content they find objectionable and there is nothing anyone can do about that.

I can somewhat see their side of it. Whenever I look at YouTube, I find that a lot of what they remove seems to be for copyright reasons. I would imagine they probably get a lot of feedback and pressure whenever anything is on there which could lead to legal repercussions for YouTube. But if it was just veganism or exercise videos, I don't know. Personally, I don't think I would be interested in watching any of those videos, but I can't see any reason why YouTube would try to censor them.

But then again, it seems somewhat tenuous, to try to earn a living by making YouTube videos. If people wanted to do that, why wouldn't they just have their own website and their own videos, and just leave YouTube out of it? YouTube is free, and you get what you pay for.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Dr. Martin Luther King once said:

"We haven't learned to disagree, without being violently disagreeable."

I think it is a sad time not just because of human history, but because a lot of disagreements that are "newsworthy" come in the form of violence. A massive group of people get killed either from the tower of a hotel or a school we're ready to discuss mental disorders or school bullying. Someone sends packages to various homes blowing up the individual killing them, we're ready to discuss the dark past and mental anguish of the devious manufacturer of these bombs. Now in the recent news regarding the tragic shooting at YouTube headquarters, we are now discussing censorship, something I've noticed content creators have been complaining about.

According to Nasim Aghdam the female responsible for wounding four people in the shooting, she blames YouTube for censoring her and filtering her content, keeping her from getting views. Apparently she was enraged that YouTube stopped paying her for her video content. From what was initially reported, Aghdam was involved with PETA and animal rights issues, but despite all that I wonder if her mental status will be questioned. More importantly what does that say about our society that is reactive instead of proactive when it comes to change?

YouTube shooter told family members she 'hated' the company

Looking at YouTube videos there there appears to be a considerable amount of narcissism and sociopathy going around with no shortage in sight with some of them coming across as bonafide Psychopaths.

This tragedy simply isn't surprising to me for which I think a fair number of entitlement minded YouTubers are quite literally off their rockers in their personal quest for fame and fortune to the extent I think a number of them will do anything and say anything to keep those illusions of grandeur alive.

Long story short you're just going to get people like that on a social media website. Worst if they convince themselves they can make a living from it.

I'm surprised this type of thing hasn't happened to Patreon and Twitch already.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But then again, it seems somewhat tenuous, to try to earn a living by making YouTube videos. If people wanted to do that, why wouldn't they just have their own website and their own videos, and just leave YouTube out of it? YouTube is free, and you get what you pay for.

I think YouTube should stop monetizing and return to its roots as a forum of creative expression and Free Speech.

Making a living from YouTube is just about one of the most worthless " careers" I can think of.