I wonder how strange it is for a person who commits a crime and kills themselves, to have their
personal website taken down. Of course, the site could've been share with someone else and
fearing negative backlash, closed it, and the speed it was done, reflects this.
But can 'the internet' do this...? Google or the domain owners?
The same goes for YouTube. If someone makes videos and passes away -let's say with old age,
and without notifying YouTube, does the company decide that it's time to close it after a certain
period of time?
In this particular instance, the content cannot have been offensive because even though the
ratings were alleged to be stifled -according to this female, it wasn't shut down at once.
It's possibly another example of the control a private company has over it's customers, a control
that's not much talked about.
.................................
Isn't it funny how the Left demand gun-control in the public realm and yet, when it comes to corporate reasons,
seek assistance from armed-security companies to protect themselves.
One could think that it's a form of Class censorship...
Quote:YouTube will increase security at all offices worldwide following shooting.
'In the aftermath of the shooting at YouTube's headquarters in San Bruno, California yesterday, the company has
announced plans to increase security at all of its offices worldwide. This is intended to “make them more secure
not only in the near term, but long-term,” YouTube says.
The move reflects a growing concern in Silicon Valley that the effects of increasingly toxic and partisan online
behavior may translate into violent offline actions.
YouTube's statement was released through Google's Twitter account for communications; it's not clear whether
Google itself will be implementing stronger security measures beyond YouTube.
The Verge has contacted Google for comment.
The shooter, 39-year-old Nasim Aghdam of San Diego, died yesterday of a self-inflicted gunshot wound after
shooting and injuring three employees. From police reports, testimony from Aghdam’s family members, and
extensive traces of the woman’s online behavior on YouTube and other platforms, we now know that Aghdam
was disgruntled over the demonetizing of her videos and harm to her financial well-being.
She called the practice “censorship,” saying in one video, “There is no free speech in [the] real world [and] you
will be suppressed for telling the truth that is not supported by the system.” Aghdam was a vegan and animal
rights activist, and none of her videos involved direct calls to violence.
However, in the wake of the shooting, hardline alt-right members and conspiracy theorists, both of which share
a hate for YouTube for its presumed liberal bias, have begun spreading misinformation about the shooter and
are even attempting to hail Aghdam as a free speech martyr.
The hashtag #CensorshipKills has sprung up as a gathering ground for those who want to use Aghdam’s attack
as a political tool in the fight against platform moderation and political correctness.
The YouTube statement naturally does not address any of these matters, instead focusing on the victims, the
YouTube community, and what the company plans to do in the coming days to offer support and improve
employee protections...'
SOURCE:
