As long as you maintain that the argument is about whether violence is an appropriate or in any way justified response to YouTube's conduct, you're arguing against a strawman. Again, nobody is saying that, and they aren't really implying it either, unless you believe that any statement that weakens a good case must be false or regarded as support for the opposing case - again, more of a rhetorical concern than a concern about what is true.

>>As long as you maintain that the argument is about whether violence is an appropriate

He clearly mentioned that YouTube is already doing great service to people by hosting their videos, providing serving infrastructure and content discoverability.

The fact that people seem to be, to the extent, expect YouTube to pay them, instead of being thankful to all the free stuff YT provides itself feels wrong here.

> There are people here who write that "It was only a matter of time until one of those furious victims took up a gun to get revenge." and that's well into apologist territory.

Are they wrong? It's only a matter of time until lots of bad things happen. Still bad, still going to happen.

Yes they are wrong. "Victims"? The only victims in this story were the people that she shot.

The only person in this thread who used the word "victims" was you.

This is a Burning-man-sized strawman.

No it wasn't...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16754694

Right, sorry, I missed that.

In any case, using loaded language doesn't change the validity of the argument.

>that's well into apologist territory

No, no it's not.