News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by mschuster91 on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @09:34AM (#16754506)
I mean a support team that has actual freedoms to help the customer and is not forced to operate on a script that has only one option to tell the customer: You're screwed.

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?

Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by ajross on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @09:45AM (#16754598)
It's been alleged that her videos were genuinely controversial (vegan screed, animal violence depictions). How is a support team going to fix that?

And the right to sue for redress of grievances is covered in the first amendment, for goodness sake. She didn't exercise it.

Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by walshemj on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:08AM (#16754786)
How is "vegan screed" controversial
Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by ajross on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:12AM (#16754824)
Animal violence is controversial. I added the vegan bit to clarify that she wasn't, I dunno, a dog fighting afficionado. Her content (which, again, I haven't seen!) was "controversial", it wasn't a straightforward ToS violation.
Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by mschuster91 on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:28AM (#16754983)
> 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.

Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by ajross on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @11:20AM (#16755548)
What are you talking about? If it's less than the local statutory limit (quick google tells me $7500 in California, likely around what this woman thinks she was owed) then you don't even need a lawyer. File a small claims suit, show up at court, and make your case before the judge.

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.

Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by mschuster91 on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @06:30PM (#16759881)
> 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.

Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by lotsofpulp on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @09:47AM (#16754612)
Because youtube didn't employ her. She was never hired, and so can't be fired, in any sense of the word. If anyone thinks that they are working for Youtube, then they must be delusional.

Edit: I meant if anyone thinks they should depend on youtube ads for income, they are delusional.

Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by Larrikin on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:22AM (#16754929)
If they actually are receiving their income from Youtube why are they delusional?
Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by lotsofpulp on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:24AM (#16754943)
Youtube specifically states they dictate how much you will earn, and you have no negotiating power.
Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by tedunangst on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:49AM (#16755211)
How does the law work in Germany? If youtube pulls ads from a German's videos, they can demand to get paid anyway?
Re:Suspect in YouTube Shooting Angry That Her Videos Had Bee... by mschuster91 on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @10:56AM (#16755300)
Not if you're working on your own (though there may be a slim chance of getting damages replacements if the decision is proven to be malignant, but that's difficult as hell to do). If you are an employed creator, on the other hand, yes your employer has to pay you even if Youtube shuts down the monetization.

Exactly this safety net is what the "gig economy" tries to cut...