Youtube HQ Shooter Found Dead - Blamed Youtube For Censoring ETC...

[Zacha341]

Article Headline:

Shooter hated YouTube: Iranian animal rights protester, 39, who shot three staff at video giant's HQ before killing herself, had a vendetta against 'dictatorial' site for censoring her videos and not paying her

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...alifornia.html

YouTube shooter may have had a grudge against the video-sharing site

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/04/us/wh...ter/index.html

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/...-1201755715681

[Johnnny5]

Crazy bitch should have shot herself first instead of injuring the innocent. That said, she does bring up a valid point about YouTube's recent censorship practices. I would not be surprised at all if there are additional attacks by some of these loons that believe [[Rightfully or not) that they have been harmed by YouTube or other tech companies that are expanding the scope of opinions that will no longer be supported on their platforms.

[Richard]

They moved anything that goes bang or boom over to porn hub but yet have no problem showing gaming advertising that shows violence or war.

They have naked yoga on YouTube as age restricted,I can imagine what her videos were like in order to be placed in the age restricted category.

I have to agree with YouTube on this one though a video of boiling a dog in water is probably not the best example to be posting,the whole shock factor for clicks is disgusting at best.

But then again it is YouTube site and up to them as what they allow,she had a choice to not participate but then got upset when she did not get her way.

Notice a pattern here.

[Zacha341]

Youtube revenues are in the millions. Individuals, news sources and organizations, etc. use the venue to market ideas, showcase products, education, politics, varied world view etc. Some making huge sums via their youtube channels.

There are myriad other individuals relying on the youtube income streams for basic needs. Some viewers may think little about the monetary aspect of the site. It varies.

It's been known some time that youtube manipulates viewership and sensors, yet also allows very questionable content. Their criteria has been challenged by many as more find their once active channels either removed or moved to age restricted category settings.

Depending on who you talk to or read it's been the conservative and right on the receiving end of censorship lately [[especially the Alt-right crowd). Enter Nasim Najafi Aghdam who was hardly on the right on any level.

For example, her fully-clothed exercise vids went from full viewership to age restricted category. She questioned/ challenged this and other changes to her youtube channels, particularly a drop in viewers as a further manipulation she claimed. The changes continued and as it has turned out being mentally disturbed she acted out in extreme revenge.

It's going to be interesting how this tragedy is used [[or ignored) to advance agendas: 1. Aghdam can't be touted as a radical Muslim as she was Bhai. 2. Not a 'gunman'. She was a woman. 3. Not right-winged white-male-on-the-nut as, um, again she was a woman. 4. The extreme anti-gun crowd will have their say yet a. it's not clear where she acquired gun, b. Cali that has pretty strict gun laws, c. it's highly unlikely she was a NRA member. 5. The far left can't really ignore orchampion this incident as their own was targeted for censorship! 6. Gun free vs non-Gun free zones...

Do you use your own youtube channel to question the above, etc.?!

The broader subscribers to and users of youtube who at one point may have poo-poo censorship of the far right-wing sites may have to rethink that. Aghdam was clearly wrong to exact violence as she did. I do not condone it.

However, how does youtube justify their actions against her in light of the heavily sexual content and violence they ignore, daily?

Maybe their defense will be that she was particularly weird? Weird how? What criteria? That'll hardly hold up, again considering the content they allow without question. Aghdam questioned that hypocrisy. That question remains.

Between this and that facebook breach it's for sure been good times for social media. Yeah...

[Honky Tonk]

It sounds to me like Y'allTube has a firm foothold on the market, and is starting to play judge and jury as to what they will and won't show, or what category what belongs in. Maybe they're starting to go for pay to play?

[Richard]

I got flagged on FB for posting a picture of a lost dog,somebody found it offensive.

When Google took over YouTube the writing was on the wall but I think it is more based on user flagging verses all out scrubbing of content,outside of the gun aspect.

I am not sure if they have some kind of program based on the amount of people flagging because it would be tough to review every thing posted.

There is a lot of really good content on there and also a lot of Darwin Award competitors and I think some were pushing the envelope on how shocking the content could be in order to gain clicks,there becomes a morality issiue in a time of weak morals.

But at the end of the day owners of websites are the owners and they are free to regulate them as they see fit,the only recourse we have is not to visit the sites that we do not agree with.

They are coming up with pay to play stuff Kinda like Ruko etc. mostly on the movie side.But I am not sure if that is YouTube itself or the person posting.