Remember a while ago when the “women in stem” (or whatever it was) hashtag took off and women took selfies with what they wear in the lab and at work? Lo and behold, women dress like normal people when working in the lab or with their work equipment.
Let’s not act like Naomi isn’t running the influencer gig and doesn’t know what she’s doing here. If she wanted to do a tech video about her CNC machine, then do that, but leave out the eye roll inducing camera shots.
Nobody is arguing over watching it, or whether people should be able to (turns out they can). They're arguing over whether youtube's (predominantly brand) advertisers are going to want to have advertising displayed alongside this, and whether youtube has the right to make that call.
I don’t watch YouTube/Instagram/Tiktok at all, I feel that the content that people produce is more often than not manipulative, and the algorithms take care of the rest.
> women took selfies with what they wear in the lab and at work? Lo and behold, women dress like normal people when working in the lab or with their work equipment.
Ah, the good ol' "Wear what you want—but not like that!"
No… because that would imply I’m attempting to police what people wear. I am not. My complaint is with Naomi putting words into Google’s mouth and jumping to the extremes, which is completely disingenuous. It has to be, because she’s smart enough to know why content from someone who’s built their personal brand as @SexyCyborg could sometimes be a little too sexy. This isn’t a women in stem issue, it’s a “I wanna sell risqué content to Google and Google won’t buy it” issue.
> No… because that would imply I’m attempting to police what people wear. I am not.
Well, that's because it really sounds like you are. There was a very strongly implied 'Why can't Naomi dress more respectable, like those women using the women in stem hash tag?'
Sorry, I understand now. My intent was to show that there is a distinct, measurable difference between normal people and influencers in terms of their appearances and behavior in real life. However, I can see how part of that could be seen as policing what people wear.
My claim remains the same though, that her brand is built around creating risqué science content and so the linked Twitter thread is manufactured outrage.
Americans are puritans, don't expect SV companies to be any different. They do what the advertising industry wants or they don't make money. I mean television channels censor a peeing dogs genitals and people get all out raged when you have a dog that is not fixed.
"American advertising friendly" is the right term. Advertising in many other countries has actual nudity, which is a big step beyond anything Naomi does.
Frustratingly there is very little "testing" happening in the video. No running, jumping, or even swimming. She doesn't even ask any of the other people if it looks good. It's 100% "ogle me while I move around slowly and pan the camera all over my body."
Expecting that you conform to a standard about whatever some company thinks is "dignified" for women is a women in STEM issue. (along the lines of people trying to shame women in STEM about having the audacity to not look "professional" in all their social media pictures)
And plenty non-tech influencers are playing up the "looking sexy" way more and somehow that isn't a problem.
I will generally defend the right of everybody to wear more or less whatever they want (I'm a t-shirt and shorts kinda guy) but I find that this particular youtuber goes out of her way to gain viewership through stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the primary topic of the videos. Personally, I find it distracting from the content (and her content is often interesting), but then again, I prefer videos of autistic woodworkers who rarely if ever talk (https://www.youtube.com/c/OlivierGomis/videos).
I would say the same thing if it was a hunky guy in a bathing suit doing CNC. Either way, youtube should not demonetize her videos for dressing the way she does.
I can't remember where I picked this up, but, a way to evaluate visual communications for tone and intent is to watch the video with the sound off. Words often trip us up and tie up different parts of your brain.
If you watch this gals channel with the sound off... It's prurient, in my opinion.
My favorite woodworking channel, the guy never says a single word. He's barely on screen. Wearing clothes appropriate to making things. No facial expressions. I watch it with the sound off because the wood cutting noises bother me. I love it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML2nsBag3kk
You're conflating several issues here. I don't know (or care) what other influencers do.
YouTube is abhorrent, we all know that. However, Naomi Wu is trying to push the limit here. It is inevitable she bumped up against it. That side boob shot was completely staged and unnecessary. Did we need 20 seconds of her plugging in a cable? If I was the editor, I would be asking myself, "How is this sequence helping tell the story?" The answer is, its not.
The thought I'd like to leave you with is this:
Do you wear a bikini in your shop or when operating industrial equipment?
While there is an argument to be made about how much YouTube should cater to advertisers, and what kind of adult content kids should consume, perhaps with supervision, I don't see where commenters are getting dramatic accusations of "puritanical" from. The content is obviously adult, and all YouTube did was label it as such, which gives advertisers the option of avoiding it (again, what advertisers want is assailable and relevant here, but I can't see any moral problem with YouTube simply labeling adult content - that's just useful information).
> But it seems pointless to try to make a semantic argument that excludes her content from any reasonable definition of the word "adult".
With this statement aren't you doing the same thing? Obviously, I don't see anything illicit with her showing the side of her breast. It's gratuitous but that's the internet.
I've seen more explicit content in art museums, does your definition extend to the classics?
Maybe I should have been more explicit: My point wasn't that you implied somebody was wrong. My point was that you implied almost everybody was wrong, and, more importantly, did not elaborate. Of course the act of disagreeing involves implying other people are wrong, but if you only assert that they are wrong and don't say anything else, it is insulting/dismissive. In my comment, I gave background for my opinion.
>I don't see anything illicit with her showing the side of her breast
This is a pretty heavily reductive description. Again - context is everything. Even full blown nudity can be non-"adult" for some reasonable definitions of the word (though it's also arguably reasonable to have a definition that does always include full nudity, regardless of cultural disagreement! Maybe we should encourage content hosts to split the word up into more parts, like TV ratings do - what's the overhead on that?).
>does your definition extend to the classics?
Why not? Some of them are quite adult. The Venus de Milo? No. Caravaggio's Holofernes? Maybe? But this is just my opinion on a word: "Adult". I don't have a strong opinion on the implications without more context. E.g. the artists of thematically adult works shouldn't be punished, and children shouldn't be disallowed from ever seeing them. Regardless, as in many cases of analogy, the similarities are only on the surface, and the many subtle and contextual differences cast doubt on its usefulness. The most salient problem with the question is that "how much body is exposed" is only one small parameter that by itself can't determine adult-ness.
Really though, the most important part isn't what makes semantic sense to call "adult", but what the practical consequences are of tagging - if YouTube tags the Caravaggio as "adult", do some advertisers pull out of that painting? What's the likely loss of income for Caravaggio? How much of that is reasonable based on the advertisers' target audiences? How much of it is because the advertisers don't want their product associated with that painting, vs how much of it is simply because advertisers don't think their audience is actually even looking at that painting? How much of the unreasonable portion of consequences is YouTube's fault, and how much is the fault of the advertisers? It seems like there's more interest in tilting at puritan windmills than considering the practical issues, which is really the only point I was making in my original post.
Assuming that's not abnormal for her channel. For the record, I don't think it's, e.g., "indecent", and I don't think it's bad for kids to be exposed to even full nudity (barring contexts with negative messages), but I also don't know what point you're trying to make (you should be explicit).
Honest question: on what basis can you or anyone here make that claim? You can say that you wouldn't call that screenshot "adult" (using your own heuristics to determine what "adult" means in this context), but unless you've run some kind of survey of "people in general," this just feels like massive overgeneralization of individual tastes. It's as valid as someone else coming in to say "Generally most people would call that screenshot 'adult.'" What's the rebuttal either way?
The basis is that I'm familiar with norms shared in a large part of the world, especially her audiences.
in general, the term 'adult' is used (in the western world, more specifically the US) to refer to pornographic content. That's what youtube means, it's what advertisers mean, etc, which all matter here because that's what demonetization is about (advertisers avoiding a channel due to its content).
Really, the term youtube uses here is 'explicit content'. The content on her channel is not explicit.
>Generally people would not call that screenshot "adult".
That's not my experience. Again, criticize advertisers for taking ads away from such tame content all you want, or YouTube for making it even possible - I agree (mostly with the former). But it seems pointless to try to make a semantic argument that excludes her content from any reasonable definition of the word "adult".
>in general, the term 'adult' is used (... in the US) to refer to pornographic content
As used in the US, the term "adult" can mean porn, but can also refer to sexual content much more broadly. It's contextual.
>That's what youtube means, it's what advertisers mean
I can see the word "pornographic" being used in the most generic, clinical sense possible to describe any kind of content intended to sexually stimulate, in which case, yes, her channel has pornographic content, but you're obviously using it more colloquially, in the more normal sense that would exclude her channel's content, but then of course that's demonstrably not what they're referring to.
This all seems moot. They explicitly state their definition of "adult", and it is far from porn, and her channel is far from porn, so... what does porn have to do with it?
Booth babes have been on the way out for a few years now. They're not extinct, but even back in 2019 they were much less prevalent than they used to be.
50 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 254 ms ] threadhttps://youtu.be/7u7lZQQZm2s?t=474
I like softcore, and I like CNC, but never realized that a combination of both would work as well!
Let’s not act like Naomi isn’t running the influencer gig and doesn’t know what she’s doing here. If she wanted to do a tech video about her CNC machine, then do that, but leave out the eye roll inducing camera shots.
Ah, the good ol' "Wear what you want—but not like that!"
Well, that's because it really sounds like you are. There was a very strongly implied 'Why can't Naomi dress more respectable, like those women using the women in stem hash tag?'
My claim remains the same though, that her brand is built around creating risqué science content and so the linked Twitter thread is manufactured outrage.
God YouTube is really puritanical.
"American advertising friendly" is the right term. Advertising in many other countries has actual nudity, which is a big step beyond anything Naomi does.
Yet there's no contact information. Sure... must be a real human...
This channel is pushing the boundaries and the boundaries pushed back.
Frustratingly there is very little "testing" happening in the video. No running, jumping, or even swimming. She doesn't even ask any of the other people if it looks good. It's 100% "ogle me while I move around slowly and pan the camera all over my body."
There are plenty of women who have STEM channels that are dressed in a dignified manor. (Xyla Foxlin for instance).
And plenty non-tech influencers are playing up the "looking sexy" way more and somehow that isn't a problem.
I would say the same thing if it was a hunky guy in a bathing suit doing CNC. Either way, youtube should not demonetize her videos for dressing the way she does.
I can't remember where I picked this up, but, a way to evaluate visual communications for tone and intent is to watch the video with the sound off. Words often trip us up and tie up different parts of your brain.
If you watch this gals channel with the sound off... It's prurient, in my opinion.
YouTube is abhorrent, we all know that. However, Naomi Wu is trying to push the limit here. It is inevitable she bumped up against it. That side boob shot was completely staged and unnecessary. Did we need 20 seconds of her plugging in a cable? If I was the editor, I would be asking myself, "How is this sequence helping tell the story?" The answer is, its not.
The thought I'd like to leave you with is this:
Do you wear a bikini in your shop or when operating industrial equipment?
Because I wear a leather apron.
> But it seems pointless to try to make a semantic argument that excludes her content from any reasonable definition of the word "adult".
With this statement aren't you doing the same thing? Obviously, I don't see anything illicit with her showing the side of her breast. It's gratuitous but that's the internet.
I've seen more explicit content in art museums, does your definition extend to the classics?
Maybe I should have been more explicit: My point wasn't that you implied somebody was wrong. My point was that you implied almost everybody was wrong, and, more importantly, did not elaborate. Of course the act of disagreeing involves implying other people are wrong, but if you only assert that they are wrong and don't say anything else, it is insulting/dismissive. In my comment, I gave background for my opinion.
>I don't see anything illicit with her showing the side of her breast
This is a pretty heavily reductive description. Again - context is everything. Even full blown nudity can be non-"adult" for some reasonable definitions of the word (though it's also arguably reasonable to have a definition that does always include full nudity, regardless of cultural disagreement! Maybe we should encourage content hosts to split the word up into more parts, like TV ratings do - what's the overhead on that?).
>does your definition extend to the classics?
Why not? Some of them are quite adult. The Venus de Milo? No. Caravaggio's Holofernes? Maybe? But this is just my opinion on a word: "Adult". I don't have a strong opinion on the implications without more context. E.g. the artists of thematically adult works shouldn't be punished, and children shouldn't be disallowed from ever seeing them. Regardless, as in many cases of analogy, the similarities are only on the surface, and the many subtle and contextual differences cast doubt on its usefulness. The most salient problem with the question is that "how much body is exposed" is only one small parameter that by itself can't determine adult-ness.
Really though, the most important part isn't what makes semantic sense to call "adult", but what the practical consequences are of tagging - if YouTube tags the Caravaggio as "adult", do some advertisers pull out of that painting? What's the likely loss of income for Caravaggio? How much of that is reasonable based on the advertisers' target audiences? How much of it is because the advertisers don't want their product associated with that painting, vs how much of it is simply because advertisers don't think their audience is actually even looking at that painting? How much of the unreasonable portion of consequences is YouTube's fault, and how much is the fault of the advertisers? It seems like there's more interest in tilting at puritan windmills than considering the practical issues, which is really the only point I was making in my original post.
Assuming that's not abnormal for her channel. For the record, I don't think it's, e.g., "indecent", and I don't think it's bad for kids to be exposed to even full nudity (barring contexts with negative messages), but I also don't know what point you're trying to make (you should be explicit).
in general, the term 'adult' is used (in the western world, more specifically the US) to refer to pornographic content. That's what youtube means, it's what advertisers mean, etc, which all matter here because that's what demonetization is about (advertisers avoiding a channel due to its content).
Really, the term youtube uses here is 'explicit content'. The content on her channel is not explicit.
That's not my experience. Again, criticize advertisers for taking ads away from such tame content all you want, or YouTube for making it even possible - I agree (mostly with the former). But it seems pointless to try to make a semantic argument that excludes her content from any reasonable definition of the word "adult".
>in general, the term 'adult' is used (... in the US) to refer to pornographic content
As used in the US, the term "adult" can mean porn, but can also refer to sexual content much more broadly. It's contextual.
>That's what youtube means, it's what advertisers mean
I can see the word "pornographic" being used in the most generic, clinical sense possible to describe any kind of content intended to sexually stimulate, in which case, yes, her channel has pornographic content, but you're obviously using it more colloquially, in the more normal sense that would exclude her channel's content, but then of course that's demonstrably not what they're referring to.
This all seems moot. They explicitly state their definition of "adult", and it is far from porn, and her channel is far from porn, so... what does porn have to do with it?
Naomi is far better content than Amouranth and the similar
But booth babes concept objectifies women. This is a completely different situation and I believe people should be able to wear whatever they want.
Men don't do this as often, but lest we forget firemen calendars...