Active Shooter, Casualties Reported At YouTube Headquarters

[Bearcatrp]

Initial reports said a woman shooter.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/0 ... ng-report/

[INOR]

Lovely. Watch how militant anti-gun they get now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ghost]

Can’t be, California has laws against this!!!

[Rip Van Winkle]

Updated 10 mins ago
SAN BRUNO, Calif. (KGO) -- San Bruno's police chief confirms that one person has died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound at YouTube's headquarters in San Bruno and that four other people who were injured have been transported to local hospitals.
http://abc7news.com/source-active-shooter-multiple-injuries-at-youtube-hq/3297411/

[Bessy]

Lovely. Watch how militant anti-gun they get now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe instead of going right to the political ramifications you could take a minute to empathize with other human beings who are having objectively one of the worst days of their lives.

[Ghost]

Lovely. Watch how militant anti-gun they get now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe instead of going right to the political ramifications you could take a minute to empathize with other human beings who are having objectively one of the worst days of their lives.

Do we have enough details here to empathize anything at this point? Yeah it sucks. I no doubt feel bad for those innocents involved but I don’t know them nor do they likely care how I feel.

This shouldn’t happen but it does. More laws will only make more criminals and will do nothing to stop this from happening again.

[Bessy]

Lovely. Watch how militant anti-gun they get now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe instead of going right to the political ramifications you could take a minute to empathize with other human beings who are having objectively one of the worst days of their lives.

Do we have enough details here to empathize anything at this point? Yeah it sucks. I no doubt feel bad for those innocents involved but I don’t know them nor do they likely care how I feel.

This shouldn’t happen but it does. More laws will only make more criminals and will do nothing to stop this from happening again.

I'd say someone shooting up your place of work is enough context. Not everyone at Youtube shares their companies political view points. Even if they do they don't deserve this. I know several people personally who work at that location, they are in fact human beings, and they do infact not deserve this.

I don't think additional laws will help prevent this sort of thing. I do think immediately running into the political fray with no information, and dehumanizing the victims because they might be used as a prop to promote laws you disagree with is a dick move.

[Ghost]

Maybe instead of going right to the political ramifications you could take a minute to empathize with other human beings who are having objectively one of the worst days of their lives.

Do we have enough details here to empathize anything at this point? Yeah it sucks. I no doubt feel bad for those innocents involved but I don’t know them nor do they likely care how I feel.

This shouldn’t happen but it does. More laws will only make more criminals and will do nothing to stop this from happening again.

I'd say someone shooting up your place of work is enough context. Not everyone at Youtube shares their companies political view points. Even if they do they don't deserve this. I know several people personally who work at that location, they are in fact human beings, and they do infact not deserve this.

I don't think additional laws will help prevent this sort of thing. I do think immediately running into the political fray with no information, and dehumanizing the victims because they might be used as a prop to promote laws you disagree with is a dick move.

Who said they deserved this?

How about some inside information for the other thread on how YouTube isn’t allowing gun people?

[Bessy]

How about some inside information for the other thread on how YouTube isn’t allowing gun people?

I don't work for youtube, I've had several coworkes leave for that company, which is my connection to them. I don't have any inside information, when I inquired about it they were as in the dark as everybody else.

I do however work for a tech company in Silicon Valley, and here is what I've been able to grep (understand) about the issue so far.

From what I understand the newest upcoming policies are partially a result of net neutrality going away. Instead of being treated as utility they are now being treated as a content provider. This means they can be held liable for illegal/sketchy content hosted on their site. This is actually MUCH bigger than simply gun related content. It affects a huge swath of content currently hosted on the site, and is large worry outside the gun community as well. We have seen the effects of this already on reddit with the banning then re-instatement /r/gundeals. In essence I think youtube is trying to minimize their liability, and perhaps virtue signal at the same time.

In order for any of this to make sense you need to understand that youtube makes most of it's money off of ad revenue, not users or content creators. This means youtube is mostly beholden the advertisers. Most advertisers want to advertise with "family friendly" content with the widest possible appeal. There is little incentive finically for youtube to continue to host content which doesn't appeal to advertisers. From youtube's perspective shows that are entirely de-monetized such as InRangeTv, are not providing them good ad revenue and taking up bandwidth/space. It's unclear how the future policy will be interrupted. As with most youtube policies it's incredibly nebulous. To add to content creator's frustration the majority of enforcement on youtube is done via computer. It can be hard if not impossible to get a set of human eyeballs on something, unless enough noise is made about it.

On a side note, the recent rise of Patreon is great for content creators, because they get paid directly, and great for viewers because they get to reward content creators for creating a better product, but doesn't fit well into YouTube's monetization scheme. The sorts of long form episodes that Patreon enable don't monetize as well. The content tends to be of higher quality and catered to a more select viewership which means less eyeballs for advertisers. If you look at all the good gun channels (Forgotten Weapons, InRange, C&Rsenal), they are becoming more and more Patreon funded. I suspect this trend will continue, which will further de-incentivize youtube to host content it might view as having a higher liability cost to them.

On a positive note if youtube does come down hard on gun related content it may finally allow for a competitor to finally gain some traction by being firearms friendly.

[Ghost]

How about some inside information for the other thread on how YouTube isn’t allowing gun people?

I don't work for youtube, I've had several coworkes leave for that company, which is my connection to them. I don't have any inside information, when I inquired about it they were as in the dark as everybody else.

I do however work for a tech company in Silicon Valley, and here is what I've been able to grep (understand) about the issue so far.

From what I understand the newest upcoming policies are partially a result of net neutrality going away. Instead of being treated as utility they are now being treated as a content provider. This means they can be held liable for illegal/sketchy content hosted on their site. This is actually MUCH bigger than simply gun related content. It affects a huge swath of content currently hosted on the site, and is large worry outside the gun community as well. We have seen the effects of this already on reddit with the banning then re-instatement /r/gundeals. In essence I think youtube is trying to minimize their liability, and perhaps virtue signal at the same time.

In order for any of this to make sense you need to understand that youtube makes most of it's money off of ad revenue, not users or content creators. This means youtube is mostly beholden the advertisers. Most advertisers want to advertise with "family friendly" content with the widest possible appeal. There is little incentive finically for youtube to continue to host content which doesn't appeal to advertisers. From youtube's perspective shows that are entirely de-monetized such as InRangeTv, are not providing them good ad revenue and taking up bandwidth/space. It's unclear how the future policy will be interrupted. As with most youtube policies it's incredibly nebulous. To add to content creator's frustration the majority of enforcement on youtube is done via computer. It can be hard if not impossible to get a set of human eyeballs on something, unless enough noise is made about it.

On a side note, the recent rise of Patreon is great for content creators, because they get paid directly, and great for viewers because they get to reward content creators for creating a better product, but doesn't fit well into YouTube's monetization scheme. The sorts of long form episodes that Patreon enable don't monetize as well. The content tends to be of higher quality and catered to a more select viewership which means less eyeballs for advertisers. If you look at all the good gun channels (Forgotten Weapons, InRange, C&Rsenal), they are becoming more and more Patreon funded. I suspect this trend will continue, which will further de-incentivize youtube to host content it might view as having a higher liability cost to them.

On a positive note if youtube does come down hard on gun related content it may finally allow for a competitor to finally gain some traction by being firearms friendly.

That’s interesting, thanks for the insight.

[Ghost]

From Twitter

Vicky Nguyen
Vicky Nguyen
@VickyNguyenTV
Breaking: Nasim Aghdam identified as the YouTube shooter. She had her own YouTube channel and apparently ranted against the company in her videos. Sources say she drove up to San Bruno from Riverside County, shot a man and 2 women before killing herself. #youtubeshooter

[Ghost]

She was active
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-peta-protests-militarys-use-pigs-training-2009aug13-htmlstory.html

[INOR]

They’re reporting now that cops may have had warning. Cops had found her sleeping in a car at 2 am. Called her dad. He says he told the cops she may be heading to YouTube as she had a major grudge against the company for demonetizing her account. Sounds like she was also pissed that she was being censored in her view.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BigBlue]

Wonder what made them call it a 'domestic dispute'?

[INOR]

Wonder what made them call it a 'domestic dispute'?

I think they originally jumped to that conclusion because it was a female shooter. I’ve since read reports that she didn’t know anybody there and that it wasn’t a domestic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk