5 ms·

YouTube Suspect Was Popular and Ridiculed in Iran

31 points by mistersquid 9y ago

mistersquid 9y ago
This video is also featured in the article "‘Vegan Bodybuilder’: How YouTube Attacker, Nasim Aghdam, Went Viral in Iran" [0] which I came across after submitting story. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghdam-youtube-shooter.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghdam-y...
pvelagal 9y ago
I am not sure if this incident would/should cause any review/discussion of youtube's or any site's policies relying mostly on user generated content ? Should there be a broad industry standard / governing body / laws to make sure attackers don't go crazy after innocent employees ?
- ldiracdelta 9y ago
  Like the ability for citizens to effectively defend themselves as granted under the 2nd amendment? Or do you just mean the police, which attempts to protect people against crazy people of any sort.
- apotheothesomai 9y ago
  What would be effective is a real-life way for families or friends of a mentally ill and possibly violent adult to have some useful recourse. Banning her videos wouldn't have made her less violent, and a tech company wouldn't have any resources beyond what her family had. The problem wasn't the effect her videos had on other people. In the U.S., it's already illegal to threaten violence against others. "Conspiracy to commit" charges and "terroristic threats," for example. Select illustrative incidents: Florida night club shooter - mentally ill and violent in word and deed - his dad warned the FBI and police and asked for help. Florida school shooter - mentally ill, violent in word and deed, multiple instances of minor run ins with the law - family and friends warned the FBI and police. This woman - mentally ill and voicing intent for violence - family warned Law Enforcement and tried to get help.
  - pvelagal 9y ago
    I am not sure why i got down voted, but I was wondering if it is possible to isolate policy + enforcement of policies by the industry, through an independent body (say w3.org) over all, instead of individual companies. This will make sure that the policy is uniform no matter where the content gets posted, be it youtube or face book or any site. Think about movie ratings by Motion picture association. If a movie is rated R, it is R no matter where you watch it, be it netflix or any movie theater.
    - seatotree 9y ago
      You got downvoted because you put a ton of slashes + plus signs in your question that made it difficult/impossible to read.
    - supreme_sublime 9y ago
      I believe that different countries have different ratings systems. This is part of the problem as well. Germany for instance has recently crafted laws to try to financially punish companies for content on their site that is deemed "hate speech". [0] Should this "universal" body be established country by country? Should laws in Germany affect what people in the US can see? What about competitors who want to have different policies in an attempt to give themselves a competitive advantage? Personally I'm not a fan of the direction the major tech companies have gone with free speech, but I hope and believe that ultimately these principles will win out. However, when a man is convicted by the UK government of committing "gross offense" by recording a joke video of his pug responding to Nazi references; the situation seems a bit more dire. [1] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/17/german-officials-say-facebook-is-doing-too-little-to-stop-hate-speech https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/17/german-of... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_QlnY8Ggg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_QlnY8Ggg
danielvf 9y ago
Wow - It’s an amazing omission how the end of this article skips over any kind of attack on YouTube employees. > “Then, just after noon, she parked her car at a business near YouTube’s offices. She walked into one of YouTube’s parking garages, and then emerged into an outdoor courtyard where employees were eating lunch.” > ”Emergency officials arrived at YouTube’s offices two minutes after the police first received 911 calls about shots being fired. When they arrived, they found Ms. Aghdam dead. A 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun, registered in her name, was found at the scene.” > “By Tuesday night, YouTube, as well as Instagram and Facebook, had taken down her pages and videos...“
- danso 9y ago
  When I saw it earlier today, the video accompanied a longer story about the shooter and what she did: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghdam-youtube-shooter.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghda...
meric 9y ago
> By Tuesday night, YouTube, as well as Instagram and Facebook, had taken down her pages and videos. Her videos seemed quite harmless - home exercise, veganism, animals. I don't understand the motive for YouTube to take down her remaining videos.
- sushid 9y ago
  Are you serious? Maybe YouTube isn't so keen on hosting videos of attempted mass murders. Doubly so if the person attacks their employees. Don't conflate social media site hosting policies with the first amendment.
  - meric 9y ago
    Her livelihood was destroyed by a YouTube algorithm change and she couldn't handle it emotionally, and attacked YouTube headquarters, as a result YouTube takes down her remaining home exercise and vegan videos. It doesn't need to be said that she is in the wrong, there's no excuse, no defence that can be offered - but I said it anyway in case you misunderstand me in my next statement: Tech companies and employees and the people who use their products live in the same world. Even if there is no legal or financial responsibility between ourselves and others, it doesn't mean we can forget about the fact that we all live on the same planet. Whenever we are thinking about making a change in the code, we have a responsibility to be empathetic and also think about its effects on other members of the same society we all belong to.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wagecuck 9y ago
  YouTube doesn't take kindly to anyone questioning their completely arbitrary exercise of power on the platform, especially not content providers that make their business possible.

31 points by mistersquid 9y ago

This video is also featured in the article "‘Vegan Bodybuilder’: How YouTube Attacker, Nasim Aghdam, Went Viral in Iran" [0] which I came across after submitting story. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghdam-youtube-shooter.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghdam-y...

pvelagal 9y ago

I am not sure if this incident would/should cause any review/discussion of youtube's or any site's policies relying mostly on user generated content ? Should there be a broad industry standard / governing body / laws to make sure attackers don't go crazy after innocent employees ?

ldiracdelta 9y ago
Like the ability for citizens to effectively defend themselves as granted under the 2nd amendment? Or do you just mean the police, which attempts to protect people against crazy people of any sort.
apotheothesomai 9y ago
What would be effective is a real-life way for families or friends of a mentally ill and possibly violent adult to have some useful recourse. Banning her videos wouldn't have made her less violent, and a tech company wouldn't have any resources beyond what her family had. The problem wasn't the effect her videos had on other people. In the U.S., it's already illegal to threaten violence against others. "Conspiracy to commit" charges and "terroristic threats," for example. Select illustrative incidents: Florida night club shooter - mentally ill and violent in word and deed - his dad warned the FBI and police and asked for help. Florida school shooter - mentally ill, violent in word and deed, multiple instances of minor run ins with the law - family and friends warned the FBI and police. This woman - mentally ill and voicing intent for violence - family warned Law Enforcement and tried to get help.
- pvelagal 9y ago
  I am not sure why i got down voted, but I was wondering if it is possible to isolate policy + enforcement of policies by the industry, through an independent body (say w3.org) over all, instead of individual companies. This will make sure that the policy is uniform no matter where the content gets posted, be it youtube or face book or any site. Think about movie ratings by Motion picture association. If a movie is rated R, it is R no matter where you watch it, be it netflix or any movie theater.
  - seatotree 9y ago
    You got downvoted because you put a ton of slashes + plus signs in your question that made it difficult/impossible to read.
  - supreme_sublime 9y ago
    I believe that different countries have different ratings systems. This is part of the problem as well. Germany for instance has recently crafted laws to try to financially punish companies for content on their site that is deemed "hate speech". [0] Should this "universal" body be established country by country? Should laws in Germany affect what people in the US can see? What about competitors who want to have different policies in an attempt to give themselves a competitive advantage? Personally I'm not a fan of the direction the major tech companies have gone with free speech, but I hope and believe that ultimately these principles will win out. However, when a man is convicted by the UK government of committing "gross offense" by recording a joke video of his pug responding to Nazi references; the situation seems a bit more dire. [1] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/17/german-officials-say-facebook-is-doing-too-little-to-stop-hate-speech https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/17/german-of... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_QlnY8Ggg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_QlnY8Ggg

danielvf 9y ago

Wow - It’s an amazing omission how the end of this article skips over any kind of attack on YouTube employees. > “Then, just after noon, she parked her car at a business near YouTube’s offices. She walked into one of YouTube’s parking garages, and then emerged into an outdoor courtyard where employees were eating lunch.” > ”Emergency officials arrived at YouTube’s offices two minutes after the police first received 911 calls about shots being fired. When they arrived, they found Ms. Aghdam dead. A 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun, registered in her name, was found at the scene.” > “By Tuesday night, YouTube, as well as Instagram and Facebook, had taken down her pages and videos...“

danso 9y ago
When I saw it earlier today, the video accompanied a longer story about the shooter and what she did: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghdam-youtube-shooter.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghda...

meric 9y ago

> By Tuesday night, YouTube, as well as Instagram and Facebook, had taken down her pages and videos. Her videos seemed quite harmless - home exercise, veganism, animals. I don't understand the motive for YouTube to take down her remaining videos.

sushid 9y ago
Are you serious? Maybe YouTube isn't so keen on hosting videos of attempted mass murders. Doubly so if the person attacks their employees. Don't conflate social media site hosting policies with the first amendment.
- meric 9y ago
  Her livelihood was destroyed by a YouTube algorithm change and she couldn't handle it emotionally, and attacked YouTube headquarters, as a result YouTube takes down her remaining home exercise and vegan videos. It doesn't need to be said that she is in the wrong, there's no excuse, no defence that can be offered - but I said it anyway in case you misunderstand me in my next statement: Tech companies and employees and the people who use their products live in the same world. Even if there is no legal or financial responsibility between ourselves and others, it doesn't mean we can forget about the fact that we all live on the same planet. Whenever we are thinking about making a change in the code, we have a responsibility to be empathetic and also think about its effects on other members of the same society we all belong to.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wagecuck 9y ago
YouTube doesn't take kindly to anyone questioning their completely arbitrary exercise of power on the platform, especially not content providers that make their business possible.