"Do you think that Iran is better than U.S.A. or U.S.A. is better than Iran?"

I thought I'd read "demonization," but what YouTube does to video creators they don't like is "demonetization."

I'm reading a NYT article that looks at the YouTube policy that purportedly drove Nasim Aghdam to enter the YouTube headquarters, shoot 3 people, cause a major panic, and then murder herself.

It is, we're told, "likely" that Aghdam's problem with YouTube "had to do with a concept called 'demonetization'":

In response to pressure from advertisers and consumers, YouTube has been pulling ads from thousands of videos that it decides do not meet its standards for content.....

“My Revenue For 300,000 Views Is $0.10?????” Ms. Aghdam wrote on her website, while calling YouTube “a dictatorship.” “There is no equal growth opportunity on YOUTUBE or any other video sharing site, your channel will grow if they want to!!!!!”

Ms. Aghdam’s complaints echoed what a wide range of YouTube posters — from self-described animal rights activists like her to right-wing political provocateurs — have increasingly been protesting over the last year.....

When YouTube was started in 2005, it took a hands-off approach to much of what was posted, so long as the content was not overly violent or sexual. ... But a series of news reports revealed big brands’ ads running alongside extremist, racist and other hateful videos, leading some companies to pull their money from the site. YouTube has since clamped down and pulled ads from thousands of controversial videos....

When YouTube pulls ads, it tells creators which videos violated the standards, though it doesn’t elaborate very much on what they did wrong....

I can understand how that feels. I have Google "AdSense" ads on this blog, and I often get bland corporate messages like this (click to enlarge):

So... what did I do? Where did I cross them? All I'm told is that the last 24 hours, "New violations were detected." What were the alleged violations? What is the rule I violated? What is the detection process? Is it working accurately? Do I have any recourse? None of those questions are answered, though there is a link to a "Help Center" and to the "AdSense Program Policies." I could read those policies and guess what I might have done to offend them, and I'm sure that if I were more dependent on the ad income and more willing to adjust my speech to avoid losing money I would read them.

I just assume somebody or some machine detected a violation of the "Content policies":

Publishers may not place AdSense code on pages with content that violates any of our content policies. Some examples include content that is adult, shocking, or advocates racial intolerance. Please see our prohibited content article for more information.

I'm sure any page of this blog could be deemed a violation if the faceless authorities at Google wanted to demonize/demonetize me. If I were less lucid (and more financially needy), I might feel persecuted and perhaps hopelessly blocked.

Look at this list at the "Prohibited content" page:

Adult content
Dangerous or derogatory content
Recreational drugs and drug-related content
Alcohol-related content
Tobacco-related content
Gambling and games-related content
Healthcare-related content
Hacking and cracking content
Pages that offer compensation programs
Misrepresentative content
Shocking content
Weapon-related content
Content that enables dishonest behavior
Illegal content

Each one of the things on that list is a link, and there's much more detail. It's as if making money with  this program has become a religion, with elaborate sins, and I'm supposed to continually search my soul and ask how have I offended thee, O Lord?

Almighty Google, Father of our AdSense, Monetizer of all things, Judge of all bloggers: I acknowledge and bewail my manifold sins and wickedness, Which I, from time to time, most grievously have committed, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against me...

The judgment comes down: "ad serving has been restricted or disabled on pages where these violations of the AdSense Program Policies were found." Which pages? Which violations? "To resolve the issues, you can either remove the violating content and request a review, or remove the ad code from the violating pages." Which pages are the violating pages? What did I do? Misrepresent something? Say the wrong thing about health care? Talk about a weapon?! Shock somebody? Mention a glass of wine? Smoke?!!



It's kind of a joke to me, but only because I'm old and financially and mentally secure. But Google and YouTube have millions of users — all kinds of people, and I know the corporate overlord needs to get and keep advertisers in the program, but the creators of the content matter and freedom of speech matters. It doesn't excuse crimes to say that Google and YouTube ought not alienate and antagonize these people. (It doesn't excuse school-shooting murders to say that more attention to the problem of bullying outsiders might have averted the tragedy.)

I assume the policy I keep inadvertently violating is the one about "Shocking content"

What's the policy?

We want to be sensitive to our advertisers and users. 

For this reason Google ads may not be placed on pages that display shocking content. Examples include but are not limited to:

• Content containing gruesome, graphic or disgusting accounts or imagery (e.g., blood, guts, gore, sexual fluids, human or animal waste, crime scene or accident photos)
• Content depicting acts of violence (e.g., accounts or images of shootings, explosions, or bombings; execution videos; violent acts committed against animals)
• Content with significant obscene or profane language (swear or curse words)

Oh, for fuck's sake.

UPDATE: At 11:20 AM the day of this post, I got a message just like what you see above, telling me I'd committed a violation in the past 24 hours. I'm just going to guess it's my joke that ends this post. Really, fuck them.

In Iran, "they kill you by ax," but in the U.S., "they kill you with cotton."

Said the YouTube suicide shooter, Nasim Aghdam. To "kill you with cotton" is supposedly an expression in Iran, meaning to kill with something that doesn't seem to be dangerous. I'm reading this in the NYT, in "Vegan Bodybuilder’: How YouTube Attacker, Nasim Aghdam, Went Viral in Iran."

In another video, she responded to viewers who had begun to wonder if she was mentally ill: “I don’t have any special mental or physical disease, but I live on a planet filled with disease, disorders, perversions and injustices.”...

“If you are superficial, you will think it is heaven here, that you can go naked outside and have sex left and right like other animals without any morality,” she said in one video in Persian. “But if you enter the system, you will see that it is worse than Iran,” she said. “Those who want to inform people against the system and big companies get censored.”

This is...bizarre.

This is YouTube shooter Nasim Aghdam. pic.twitter.com/goxfowcmT4

— Ethan Ralph (@TheRalphRetort) April 4, 2018

"After it was reported that the suspect who opened fire at YouTube headquarters was a woman, the network's coverage turned to speculation of 'love triangles' and possible relationships."

Hollywood Reporter documents the criticism on Twitter:

"Love the @cnnbrk reporter's conjecture, once he found out the #youtube shooter was female, that the shooting was due to a #lovetriangle. Yes, and she was probably having her period too."

"CNN tees up a theory out of nowhere that the shooting must be a love triangle because the shooter was a woman. turning on Cartoon Network."

"I'm not sure why but hearing someone on @CNN say a female shooter might have to do with a 'love triangle' really pisses me off. Cuz she can't just be batshit like other fucking shooters?"

"@CNN Why did the analyst jump to the #lovetriangle motive? Because shooter was woman? Seems like a sexist jump. Never heard of that motive for other mass shootings."

"Of course since the YouTube shooter is a woman, terms like "crime of passion" & "love triangle" are already being used. Stop spinning webs."

Etc. etc.

Is there some corresponding thing on Fox News where when the name of the shooter came out — Nasim Aghdam — they were talking about Islamic terrorism? If not, Fox wins in the ongoing struggle to back off from the "fake news."

The now-dead lady seems to have been an animal-rights/PETA-type person who got mad at YouTube for affecting the income stream from her channel, which looked like this:



ADDED: I had the "murder" tag on this post, but the only person who died (so far, at least) is Aghdam. So the right tag is "suicide."

ALSO: I don't normally watch the news on TV, and this is why. I happened to sit through a couple hours of the YouTube story yesterday, because Meade turned it on, and I was in a nearby chair, reading on my iPad. I could have gone somewhere else to read, but I chose not to. The real news that was available during that time period was readable in less than one minute, so what was all that time on TV for? Well, I know what it's for for them. They have to fill their time, and they want to rope us in with the feeling that we're watching something happening live. It's O.J. Simpson in the white Ford Bronco, driving down the freeway forever. Oh! Maybe something's about to happen! Maybe O.J. will jump out of the car and blow his brains out on live TV! Don't want to miss that like I missed Jack Ruby darting in from the right-hand corner of the screen and blasting Lee Harvey Oswald in the stomach. Must monitor the dead time because it might suddenly spring to life... with death!!!