Or, even better: as here the case seems to be that the shooter depended on Youtube as income, why shouldn't she have the right to have her effective "firing" appealed in a proper court of law, like in Germany?
And the right to sue for redress of grievances is covered in the first amendment, for goodness sake. She didn't exercise it.
Good luck trying to sue one of the most powerful companies in history. I wouldn't dream of this.
Now, she probably wouldn't win, because there's no contract here and Google has no affirmative duty to host anyone's video in particular nor to pay them for it. But you can absolutely do it.
You can do it, but who has the resources (especially the motivation and willpower) to drag such a case through the various appeal instances, with the issue that if you do lose, you have to pay the opposite party's lawyer bills? No way in hell I'd risk loading up THAT debt risk.
Edit: I meant if anyone thinks they should depend on youtube ads for income, they are delusional.
Exactly this safety net is what the "gig economy" tries to cut...
I'd imagine a significant part of it is that we live a society where some people can have their livelihood yanked away from them, with no support structure to help them, leaving them desperate and angry.
Youtube and its employees are the victim here. Using this to put pressure on them in the "for the safety of your employees" way is incredibly distasteful.
Addressing the systemic reasons behind hostile actors does not mean "caving" to the actors themselves.
Should we let ISIS take over the Middle East and establish a fascist theocratic state? No, obviously not.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't carefully consider how the past decades of violent imperialist foreign policy might have played a significant part in the conditions that allowed ISIS to rise, and use that to inform our future policy.
Neither Austin bomber nor Parkland shooter explained why they did it, but whatever they states reasons, the objects of their hate don't necessary have responsibility to obey their wishes.
So no, the "youtube can not demonetize videos" straightforward nonsense is not an analysis of systemic reasons behind this shooting.
Indeed it is not, but that would be a very shallow reading of the systemic arguments made in this thread.
That is extreme, sure. But I have to work hard to not interpreted milder comments that way too. The straightforward reading is pretty much that. The youtube blaming and insinuations that youtube brought it in itself were pretty much prevalent when I commented.
No. The employees are the victim. Youtube? Not at all, save for a day of missed work. Them cutting off a person off their income without any way of appeal caused the whole chain of events in the first place.
By this logic, if employer in right to work state fires someone and that someone shoots the workplace, employer caused the shooting.
Of course not. But there is, more often than not, a common background between all these cases. Recognize and fix the system and prevent more suffering. Shootings are the ultimate outlet, so if you fix the system you automatically prevent loads of more suffering.
> By this logic, if employer in right to work state fires someone and that someone shoots the workplace, employer caused the shooting.
Yes (except for the rare case where an immediate firing is warranted, such as stealing from the employer, sexual harrassment or similar).
There is no obligation to exercise the "fired on the spot". You can as a boss always behave like a decent human being and show your employees at least a fucking basic level of respect. Or you can decide "uh we dont need XYZ any more, even if he's still productive, has worked years of overtime, shown dedication and has to support a family but if I fire him I can make 10k personal bonus that year"... but then I would not be surprised if you'd end up at the wrong end of a baseball bat or worse.
By the way I would advise you to read up on how most of the workers' rights we know today in civilized areas of the planet (right to unionize, strike, illegality of "at will employment", social security systems) have been achieved: through shitloads of blood. If your state still has legal "at will employment", the state is responsible for any avoidable suffering caused by this.
I don't understand the equivocation here. It seems a symptom of the broad inability in modern social thinking to pin any responsibility on individuals. While this stems from our desire to root out systematic issues, which is necessary and important, it should not be the only thing we care about.
In fact, a culture of individual responsibility actually can become a deep feature of our society if we take the time to engender it.
Talking about individual responsibility is not ignoring the systematic issues in society, because a lack of focus on individual responsibility is actually rooted in our culture and hence is a systemic issue in itself.
Because a culture that seeks to blame individuals for problems makes individuals extremely reluctant to actually accept responsibility for their decisions.
Consider how the airline industry investigates after a disaster: They investigate the circumstances leading to each bad decision, and then attempt to change the process such that it cannot happen again. This leads to individuals being forthcoming about their mistakes, and implements changes that actually solve the problem. This culture of focusing on systemic issues rather than individuals has made air travel extremely safe.
That was crazy, but maybe not all parts of that machine were broken. If I genuinely had millions of views on my videos that gave me an income and was suddenly cut off, I would have felt being very wrongly treated as well.
You might want to take some of your individual responsibility and correct your statement.