3 ms·

Actually I disagree. Obviously responsibility is shared and primarily owned by Nasim but some is also owned by youtube. Think of it like this - does youtube be

Actually I disagree. Obviously responsibility is shared and primarily owned by Nasim but some is also owned by youtube. Think of it like this - does youtube bear some responsibility when creators leave the platform because of demonetization? Of course. Does youtube bear some responsibility when creators make lots of angry videos because of demonetization? Of course. Does youtube bear some responsibility when demonetization is implemented in a way that feels arbitrary to it's creators? Of course. Does youtube bear some responsibility for failing to stand up and protect it's creators from some of the advertisers demands? Of course. The company makes decisions that affect some peoples lives in a profound way thus they also have some responsibility in the direct and indirect effects of those decisions.

golergka 9y ago
I think you're confusing being part of the reason behind something and being responsible for it. When a fit minded adult makes a decision out of his own free will, there's a lot of factors and reasons involved. However, since it's his decision, he's the only one responsible for it.
- nmca 9y ago
  This seems... curious. It might be an appealing simplification of a terrifyingly complex world to operate on the basis of the binary attribution of responsibility; but I really think it's a bias that we should fight to overcome.
cal5k 9y ago
Respectfully, that's bullshit. There is nothing that YouTube could have done that makes an active shooter their fault. "Maybe if they hadn't been so mean...". News flash: normal people don't go on a shooting spree when bad things happen in life. This is squarely the fault of a psychologically troubled woman. Discussions about YouTube's monetization policies shouldn't even be part of the story.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  >Respectfully, that's bullshit. There is nothing that YouTube could have done that makes an active shooter their fault. Why so black and white? I'm arguing for a shared responsibility. I even acknowledge that most of it lies with Nasim just that youtube also shares a piece, I don't think that's really an extreme viewpoint. >News flash: normal people don't go on a shooting spree when bad things happen in life. This is squarely the fault of a psychologically troubled woman. Discussions about YouTube's monetization policies shouldn't even be part of the story. Actually I do think some normal people go on shooting sprees when bad things happen in life. The idea that if you commit a shooting you must be mentally troubled seems wrong to me, it allows us as a society to remove our responsibility from these peoples lives. Besides it's not as if being 'psychologically troubled' just springs from the ether. Of course sometimes it can but it can also be caused by life stressors such as the ones youtube introduced to the life of this woman. Take this from Wikipedia: In 1993, the United States Congress conducted a joint hearing to review the violence in the U.S. Postal Service. In the hearing, it was noted that despite the postal service accounting for less than 1% of the full-time civilian labor force, 13% of workplace homicides were committed at postal facilities by current or former employees.[19] I'd say that there was something specifically and especially dehumanizing about working for the postal service and that the postal service had a shared responsibility in the fact that this happened. To say that youtube had no responsibility here and that the postal service had no responsibility with it's shootings demonstrates that we can see individual factors at play but are purposefully blinding ourselves to the systematic factors at play. I'm just saying that both play a role in actions like this and that implies a shared responsibility.
- psyc 9y ago
  There's something akin to burying one's head in the sand about this approach. Implying YouTube has no reason whatsoever to examine itself. The actions of psychopaths can be like canaries. You can say there's no relationship between YouTube and the shooter's actions, but I think that's a bad idea. I believe the drastic rise in mass shootings is itself symptomatic of something. Something that is being drowned out by all the yelling about guns. Why so much rage in a supposedly civilized and wealthy society?
- hackinthebochs 9y ago

golergka 9y ago

I think you're confusing being part of the reason behind something and being responsible for it. When a fit minded adult makes a decision out of his own free will, there's a lot of factors and reasons involved. However, since it's his decision, he's the only one responsible for it.

nmca 9y ago
This seems... curious. It might be an appealing simplification of a terrifyingly complex world to operate on the basis of the binary attribution of responsibility; but I really think it's a bias that we should fight to overcome.

cal5k 9y ago

Respectfully, that's bullshit. There is nothing that YouTube could have done that makes an active shooter their fault. "Maybe if they hadn't been so mean...". News flash: normal people don't go on a shooting spree when bad things happen in life. This is squarely the fault of a psychologically troubled woman. Discussions about YouTube's monetization policies shouldn't even be part of the story.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
>Respectfully, that's bullshit. There is nothing that YouTube could have done that makes an active shooter their fault. Why so black and white? I'm arguing for a shared responsibility. I even acknowledge that most of it lies with Nasim just that youtube also shares a piece, I don't think that's really an extreme viewpoint. >News flash: normal people don't go on a shooting spree when bad things happen in life. This is squarely the fault of a psychologically troubled woman. Discussions about YouTube's monetization policies shouldn't even be part of the story. Actually I do think some normal people go on shooting sprees when bad things happen in life. The idea that if you commit a shooting you must be mentally troubled seems wrong to me, it allows us as a society to remove our responsibility from these peoples lives. Besides it's not as if being 'psychologically troubled' just springs from the ether. Of course sometimes it can but it can also be caused by life stressors such as the ones youtube introduced to the life of this woman. Take this from Wikipedia: In 1993, the United States Congress conducted a joint hearing to review the violence in the U.S. Postal Service. In the hearing, it was noted that despite the postal service accounting for less than 1% of the full-time civilian labor force, 13% of workplace homicides were committed at postal facilities by current or former employees.[19] I'd say that there was something specifically and especially dehumanizing about working for the postal service and that the postal service had a shared responsibility in the fact that this happened. To say that youtube had no responsibility here and that the postal service had no responsibility with it's shootings demonstrates that we can see individual factors at play but are purposefully blinding ourselves to the systematic factors at play. I'm just saying that both play a role in actions like this and that implies a shared responsibility.
psyc 9y ago
There's something akin to burying one's head in the sand about this approach. Implying YouTube has no reason whatsoever to examine itself. The actions of psychopaths can be like canaries. You can say there's no relationship between YouTube and the shooter's actions, but I think that's a bad idea. I believe the drastic rise in mass shootings is itself symptomatic of something. Something that is being drowned out by all the yelling about guns. Why so much rage in a supposedly civilized and wealthy society?
hackinthebochs 9y ago