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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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...“
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.
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.
14 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 39.6 ms ] thread[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghdam-y...
Should there be a broad industry standard / governing body / laws to make sure attackers don't go crazy after innocent employees ?
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.
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-of...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UD_QlnY8Ggg
> “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...“
Her videos seemed quite harmless - home exercise, veganism, animals.
I don't understand the motive for YouTube to take down her remaining videos.
Don't conflate social media site hosting policies with the first amendment.
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.