9 ms·
Police say shooter’s anger over YouTube policies ‘appears to be the motive’
- pnutjam 8y agoYet another licensed and legal weapon.
- mieseratte 8y agoYet another mentally ill individual who did not get the treatment they so clearly needed.
- nielsbot 8y agoWhy not both?
- frockington 8y agoWith everyone hyper-polarizing anything with guns and/or mental health its hard to remember this is an option
- mieseratte 8y agoI never implied the two were mutually exclusive.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoNot every shooter is mentally ill. In fact, most mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than the perpetrators. Most shooters are just shitheads, not mentally ill, and to constantly conflate the two is to add additional stigma to mental illness. In addition, if this truly was a mental health problem, Congress could increase funding for mental health treatment by the end of the week, Trump could sign it by the middle of next week, and we could see an increase in people getting treatment by the end of next month. The fact that we're not seeing that leads me to believe that most know this isn't as much of a mental health problem as people think.
- ctdonath 8y agoA very common factor in such mass murders is the use of antidepressants. Having seen up close what happens when someone on such medication misses a few doses (extreme & systematic rage), I'm stunned that there has not been intense investigation into the correlation.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- DanBC 8y agoPeople always mention mental illness, but other things are more common: being male; having a conviction for domestic assault; having a drug or alcohol addiction; having a TBI. Other countries prescribe anti-depressant medication in similar quantities to the US, and those countries don't have the same problems of violence that the US does.
- mieseratte 8y ago> having a conviction for domestic assault; > having a drug or alcohol addiction; > having a TBI I know the YouTube incident, specifically, was not a mass-shooting incident (4+ casualties, not including the shooter) but the comment you replied to specifically mentioned mass-shooting. That males are overrepresented seems fairly self-evident, but is there a noted link between DV, TBI, and addiction(s) with mass-shootings? I've never heard that angle.
- ricochet310 8y agoMental Illness and Social Media do not seem to mix well.
- f4rker 8y agoOn the same day there was a drive by shooting in the UK Doubt that weapon was legal Gun laws dont stop criminals Murder is already fairly illegal, if I recall correctly
- bsagdiyev 8y agoSo if this gun were obtained illegally this wouldn't be a tragedy?
- snarkyturtle 8y agoLuckily it was just a handgun. If it were an AR-15 it might've been a different story, as this radiologist who treated Parkland students noticed: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-...
- Alupis 8y agoI think you meant to say, if it had been a rifle. AR-15's don't posses special properties... anything shooting a .223 or 5.56 round will have similar properties. The damage truly depends on the type of ammunition used (as well as caliber). FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) ammunition, what seems to be described in the article you referenced, is a non-expanding type of ammunition, typically causing less destruction than expanding types such as HP (Hallow Point), which flatten and expand on impact. Muzzle velocities from a rifle are significantly higher than handguns, which does translate into more kinetic energy. The additional energies in a rifle cartridge will cause more shock damage to organs, as described in the article, however. HP ammunition (not commonly used in rifles) is designed to be devastatingly lethal - specifically designed to leave very large wounds in the target, which have little hope of closing/repairing the wound.
- rbritton 8y agoTo add one other note, HP ammo has the additional (generally beneficial) property of penetrating significantly less than something like FMJ. Through its design it imparts the bulk of its kinetic energy on the first obstacle it hits, which greatly reduces the chances of it doing damage to something unintended.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wyoh 8y ago99.9% of people obtaining a weapon legally don't use it to commit atrocities, but for entertainment. Why should the majority suffer the consequences from the tiny minority of unstable individuals?
- ctdonath 8y agoNot just for entertainment, but a great many for legitimate self-defense. Why should those rationally feeling need to prepare protection be denied by laws which ultimately do not stop the unstable deliberately acting to harm?
- etjossem 8y agoI recommend looking at the data on this before leaping to the conclusion that guns are effective at protecting their owners from lethal injury. In a Philadelphia-based study, "individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession" and that grew to 5.45 times more likely if the assault victim had a chance to resist. [1] Successful defensive gun use happens, but it's the exception to the rule: guns escalate conflict, especially when both parties have them. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/
- sheepmullet 8y ago> Successful defensive gun use happens, but it's the exception to the rule Reliable studies show defensive gun use in 100k-1 million incidents per year in the US. https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shooting-bad-guys/ https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shoo... That's not "exception to the rule".
- etjossem 8y ago“This data is from the 1990s and is based on people’s subjective views of what would have happened if they did not use a gun.” These are not hard stats, they’re self reports from people who had occasions where they felt safer carrying. Peak confirmation bias. Of course we can find 100k people whose guns made them feel safer once. But that’s not the question we are trying to answer. We want to know if you are actually protected by owning a firearm. The evidence suggests it has quite the opposite effect.
- ctdonath 8y agoThere was nothing to indicate she should be denied such. Self-defense is a valid and widely-exercised human right. Just because Policy X has problems doesn't mean Policy Y doesn't (and may unleash the Pandora's Box which Policy X was imperfectly controlling). Even were guns nationally banned, that she decided to proceed with mass murder - showing enough signs of danger far enough in advance that she was reported to & interviewed by police - there were a multitude of ways of carrying out the attack, including by buying contraband weapons. Other products are completely illegal in this country, with enormous suppression activity, yet are widely available; no reason to believe a ban would somehow render guns unobtainable via a few hundred dollars discretely exchanged in the wrong side of town. What's pity is the victims were[0] specifically denied a right to armed self-defense, under threat of harm. She was the rare one who snapped, and in doing so violated a plethora of "reasonable restrictions" to cause grave harm; nobody seems to notice the enormous numbers likewise armed yet never harm anyone - a few happening to stop such attacks early. [0] - summarizing, details beyond a mere comment.
- mediaman 8y agoYes, but she was able to inflict much less damage with this weapon, a handgun. And with the slower discharge rate and muzzle velocity of handguns, the victims in this case appear to have all survived (other than the perpetrator's suicide). In the spectrum from full rights to all weapons, to absolute gun control, allowing access to these handguns (where most wounds are survivable, there is less range, and lower magazine capacity) but restricting assault rifles (high muzzle velocities create injuries that are nearly impossible to survive, high magazine count, sometimes higher discharge rate) seems like a reasonable point to draw the line, and also complies with existing case law around the second amendment. This would have been much, much worse with an AR15 type weapon, with likely far more deaths.
- JarlUlvi 8y agoBeyond the censorship issues & lawsuits, Google regularly gets a pass when their crummy policies negatively impact people. While it is horrible that some were hurt in the process, I wonder if this will make Google start approaching their huge amounts of power with some civility.
- meesterdude 8y agoi suspect they'll sooner roll out security theater practices across their work campuses, than implement such an act of self-restraint.
- Slansitartop 8y ago> Beyond the censorship issues & lawsuits, Google regularly gets a pass when their crummy policies negatively impact people. While it is horrible that some were hurt in the process, I wonder if this will make Google start approaching their huge amounts of power with some civility. Probably not. Whenever there's a shooting, there seems to be a strong pressure to disregard the idea of addressing the shooter's motives. If anything, I expect Youtube's demonetization policies to attract more sympathy and support, since they were victimized on account of them.
- matt-attack 8y agoWhy then is there such an obsession with determining the motive. Or classifying the act as terrorism or something else. Honestly I can’t figure out why anyone even cares what the motive was. Doesn’t undo the harm done. The attempt to “understand” is too close to “excusing”. Which then further motivates others to use the same methods.
- Slansitartop 8y agoIsn't it obvious? To understand causes is to have a better change to predict and prevent these events, at both the individual level and that of sociological forces.
- noobermin 8y ago
- bufferoverflow 8y agoI don't get Youtube policies. Why not let the advertisers decide which channels to advertise on? Why demonetize anything? This babysitting attitude makes so many creators unhappy. If a video is allowed on YT, why not make more money off of it?
- zaidf 8y agoAdvertisers do get to decide but advertisers don't want to have to decide between 10 million channels. They wanted a curated list with some minimum quality control to decide from.
- bufferoverflow 8y agoSo make it optional. Call it family-friendly, make it default, whatever.
- jonny_eh 8y agoSame result. People will get pissed off when they get categorized in a way they don't like, resulting in less money.
- mozumder 8y agoWhat YouTube needs are editors. Editors get to tell people that their content is garbage or great. The problem with social media is that they don't have people telling the public that their ideas are crap, so everyone thinks they're important.
- Rotdhizon 8y agoWhile what this lady did was atrocious, it does highlight a big problem inside Youtube. That their completely biased, unfair demonetization system is costing people enough money in ad revenue to ruin online careers. Smaller channels and politically incorrect channels get flagged pretty much every video, while bigger, white listed channels that post clear ToS breaking content are still allowed to rake in ad money. This woman didn't have that many followers in the respect to what others do, she wasn't making millions of dollars. Here's someone who was making a few dollars here and there, trying to act like it was her livelihood that was at stake, like most medium sized content creators with no real world skills do. I should follow this up by saying I believe Youtube careers are pathetic, and shouldn't exist. Just as with Twitch, Youtube has become nothing more than a money making opportunity that is getting flooded with people who would rather deceive people than get a real job. Just people who want an easy ride begging for money. However, for those who do decide to take that route, the way Youtube flags videos absolutely impacts them. If I were making money, and my income were to be suddenly cut due to something that was entirely out of my hands yet fixable, I imagine I would be pretty jaded as well. Losing a few dollars is no reason to shoot people, this woman was just psycho. You can tell from one look at her on her site, she has the look of one.
- drharby 8y agoThe relevance of your opinion of ones life choice as pathetic is relevant how?
- joe_the_user 8y agoI should follow this up by saying I believe Youtube careers are pathetic, and shouldn't exist. Just as with Twitch, Youtube has become nothing more than a money making opportunity that is getting flooded with people who would rather deceive people than get a real job. I agree that these careers are very problematic - the point and the problem is that these are typical of many gig-economy schemes at this point and this is a problem of the whole economy, not individuals choose these activities.
- keo292 8y agoBold talk from anonymous coward Unless you’ve cured cancer or unlocked new physics, odds are you’re just peddling skills millions of others have and are not contributing anything terribly unique. Just looking to get the right people on your side to scrape together a living in a different context
- mars4rp 8y ago"We know that she was upset with YouTube; whether that rises to the level of terrorism will hopefully be determined in the coming weeks.” I was really shocked that she is not labeled terrorist yet! and here it is!
- make3 8y agoWith her being from Iran, I'm also surprised the right hasn't already spun it that way, as a distraction from the gun control questions. Not saying she should though obv, she was angry at YouTube for demonetizing her videos. That's regular YouTube drama taken to the extreme by a crazy person, not someone part of a group waging jihad on the infidels.
- wyoh 8y agoThere's no "gun control" question, she was already in the most restrictive anti gun state.
- make3 8y agothe fact that she can get a gun from any other state makes it a question. gun control laws work when you can't just super easily go to another state to get a gun, the proof being in the much lower number if gun crimes in every other industrialized country where the gun laws are tight in the whole country. That's pretty much every single other industrialized country.
- ctdonath 8y agoInteresting that those low-restriction states have such low violent crime. In fact, those US counties with zero murders (about half) have the most lax gun control laws. Were the premise of your comment true, those other states should be the ones with outlandish murder rates. We have guns, we don't abuse guns; what's up with the high-gun-control areas being so prone to such violence that when guns are available they're so readily abused?
- apophenia1 8y agoThis incident has certainly turned out to be a Rorschach test of mass shootings: Whatever you feel like complaining about, tack it on. "This does highlight X, caused by people like Y, and we need to address this with Z."
- bluetwo 8y agoShe cra-cra.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y agoYoutube videos are getting demonetized based on advertisers not wanting to be associated with certain things. However, watching online and TV coverage of the shooting where people were actually severely injured and someone died, there didn't seem to be a dearth of advertising. If advertisers don't mind being associated with death and destruction, I think that when push comes to shove advertisers care more about reaching people with ads than the content they are associated with.
- Karunamon 8y agoThose were my thoughts as well. I’d be willing to bet that nothing would happen if Google were to call their bluff. Can’t blame them for not wanting to take the risk.
- ucaetano 8y agoAdvertisers don't mind having their ads shown next to all violent content, only to some violent (and some "controversial" content). Most advertisers won't mind being shown next to a major news channel, but they might mind being shown next to a gore channel, or a channel run by some more radical news organizations. It isn't the content, it's the message. And that's a hard problem. There's one episode of Mad Man that addresses the same problem. An employee of the ad agency ends up having to read the scripts of all TV shows in advance to select the ones that a certain advertiser wouldn't want to be associated with, for example, those referencing abortion.
- ethanwillis 8y agoI think we need to acknowledge that Nasim's content wasn't "gore" and wasn't even "obscene." At BEST it was just "bizarre" and yet I doubt similar content like Tim and Eric would get demonetized.
- tabeth 8y agoIf the unfairness over YouTube's policies resulted in this kind of outcome, I wonder what the majority of people will do once they realize[0] that the world is stacked against them. Tax breaks for the rich, "too big to fail" organizations, with tax payers footing the bill, etc. I won't say the "end is nigh", but if there were a "Revolution Clock", akin to the Doomsday Clock, I think it's slowly nearing midnight. I've read some stuff that also says that inequality and perceived unfairness also can hinder your mental health, which no doubt also contributed here. [0] When I say realize, I mean realize. The gap between the poor and the rich, and the middle-class and the rich is far larger than most realize. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/inequality-an-underacknowledged-source-of-mental-illness-and-distress/985DE9F19CEA4165BE1E85A022BEFDFB https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-... EDIT: I should add that I don't think the world is turning to garbage. Rather, said Revolution Clock simply is getting closer to midnight, as opposed to away from it. I'd say we're like at maybe 10:00pm.
- jurassic 8y agoThe kind of injustice that has more or less always been there (e.g. the financial system favoring the rich over the poor) seems less likely to provoke this kind of sudden and violent response. The shooter’s anger was over a sudden change in policy that she perceived as unfair. Loss and loss aversion are powerful psychological drivers. If her videos had always been handled the way they are now, she probably never would have shot up their office because she never would have had the opportunity to feel she lost something she was previously entitled to.
- pg_bot 8y agoI would suggest you take a hiatus from watching the news. Go outside and you will find that everything isn't as bad as you think.
- tabeth 8y agoOutside of me (NYC) there's homelessness and pollution. I guess that's not so bad? Also, it's not that I think things are bad, it's that I think the increasing concentration of wealth is resulting in increased potential for some event. What event? I don't know, but I doubt it'll be good.
- pcunite 8y agoThe woman in question is neither a woman, Iranian, nor vegan. The digital persona has been manufactured to incite a response. Open your eyes.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- nopriorarrests 8y agoAs someone who follows digital advertising industry, I want to add some context to this discussion. People tend to view youtube "de-monetization" act as something out of the blue. Story goes as "evil youtube cornered the market of online videos and now acting like a spoiled child, f--king with people who were making some small buck from their videos". This is not the case. In fact, for last 2 years large advertisers were getting more and more unhappy and angry about digital advertising, citing the lack of transparency, fraud and lack of brand safety as their main concerns. It was brewing for a long time now. P&G, the largest advertiser in the world, and trend-setter in general advertising, cut hundreds of millions from their digital budgets in 2017. [0] Youtube, unlike google search engine, depends on large brands doing "brand advertising", as opposed to "performance advertising". You can't force 10000's of small businesses advertise on youtube, ROI is just not here. It's P&G, Ford, Unilever and others giants who keep the lights on in youtube offices, and giants were clearly revolting. And when they cut spend, they cut it not from youtube only, but from all digital, meaning that google mothership also hurt from their move. So, youtube tried to save the situation, clumsily. Ads are now appearing in much smaller subset of videos, which are vettoed, and youtube jacked up the prices [1] of such inventory, to make up the lost revenue from long tail of videos. Take into account the fact that youtube is rumored to be unprofitable or making very modest profit (due to enormous technical costs they have) and you see it more like move out of desperation than anything else. [0] http://www.adweek.com/digital/procter-gamble-cut-140-million-in-digital-ad-spending-because-of-brand-safety-concerns/ http://www.adweek.com/digital/procter-gamble-cut-140-million... [1] https://marketingland.com/report-youtube-set-raise-ad-prices-premium-ad-inventory-229814 https://marketingland.com/report-youtube-set-raise-ad-prices...
- bluetwo 8y agoYes. Fascinating to watch markets form and price discovery happen. For awhile they only cared about people providing free content that would bring in the eyeballs so they could sell those ads. When advertisers got demanding they had to do something. But I only see a loose connection between that and what happened. This was a woman driven by likes or money (hard to tell which was more important), and attempted to kill because of this. This is more like a machine shop owner laying off people because some jobs were moving to Asia and an ex-employee shooting up the offices the next day. Macro- and micro- economics surely played a part, but the root of the problem was in her head.