4 ms·
As I said in a different subthread, YouTube is in no way responsible for the actions Ms. Nasim took. However, it could be helpful to understand Ms. Nasim's mot
by mistersquid 9y ago
As I said in a different subthread, YouTube is in no way responsible for the actions Ms. Nasim took.
However, it could be helpful to understand Ms. Nasim's motivations insofar as they stem from losing a source of revenue to which she had no entitlement.
To that end, our collective social good might be promoted by platform owners like YouTube giving content-generators greater say over the monetization of their content.
This is not an apology and I accord no blame for Ms. Nasim's actions to YouTube. Mine is just a suggestion that Ms. Nasim had an unjustified grievance which might have been alleviated by giving more agency to the content-generators upon whom platforms such as YouTube depend.
EDIT: add "insofar"
- fixermark 9y agoI think we lack evidence that Ms. Nasim's shooting rampage would have been stopped by YouTube changing their policy. Possilby this shooting rampage, but we don't at present have enough evidence to hypothesize that something wouldn't have set her off. She had a lot of anger directed at a lot of targets.
- _delirium 9y agoI wasn't even looking at a particular solution when I posted this. Maybe YouTube should change something, maybe the social safety net should change, maybe gun laws should change. Lots of options. I just am skeptical that, compared to those options or maybe even others, repeating to people that they have no legally cognizant reliance interests on income that is not contractually guaranteed is a promising way out. I mean, yes, true, but some big billboards proclaiming that is not going to solve the problem.