Naomi Wu video demonetized on YouTube
twitter.com
twitter.com
One of the useful things she's done is to put up lots of videos of her running around Shenzhen. There aren't enough ground-level videos of the working parts of Chinese cities. There's extensive coverage of Tokyo, by comparison. It's interesting to see the high-density housing blocks and street-level activity. (The "let's increase housing density" crowd from Strong Towns should watch those videos.) People who've met her report that she knows Shenzhen very well, down to the back alley level, where some unmarked door leads to an important factory. She's toured the electronics markets of Huaqiangbei. (I miss the days when Silicon Valley had electronics parts stores.)
She's done some nice technical work. Her main thing is 3D printing, and she came up with the first angled 3D printer that worked reliably. The print head moves in a plane 45 degrees from vertical, and the base surface is a belt, which advances the workpiece one layer at a time. So it can produce objects continuously, or very long objects if you add support rollers. Others had made prototypes of such machines, but the properties of the belt and print head are touchy to make that work right. She got it all working, and it's now a product, with her picture on the box.
At various times she's pushed on GPL compliance, mask quality, and other issues of interest to the tech community.
She wears skimpy outfits sometimes. So what? That's most of Instagram. Unlike most Instagrammers, Wu has something original to say. Sometimes with a biting wit. I gather that it's more biting in Cantonese.
Also apparently a lot of male gamer Youtubers are considered sexy, even though they don't have exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics like giant muscles, and I've never heard of them getting demonetized for it: https://ar.pinterest.com/madelineulatows/logan-paul-sexy/ https://ar.pinterest.com/ktatianalima203/rubius-sexy-3/
Even if you don't have the skills, it generally shouldn't matter what clothes you wear.
Like don't strap knives to your arms, and do wear a good mask, but generally we spend a lot of time policing other folk's bodies and attire, and for what?
Some signals are loud and drown out more complex ones. "Sex sells." The more those types of signals are tolerated or incentivized on a platform, the further it will be dominated by noise masking covert signals.
I once attended a round table discussion in a previous job. The topic was women and work. I'm male, and was a manager, and figured that if half my directs are women I should do what I can to listen and support them.
Anyways, the guest of honor proceeded to advise the 100+ female managers in the room to, among other things, "use their assets" to influence people in the organization. This was met with a stunned but approving clamor.
I felt embarrassed, as if I had accidentally crashed a private sleepover. The person sharing the advice had a proven track record. Why hang onto sexuality signals? Because they work.
This is actually a common meme:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/fbwnd0/im_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/ajthjb/thi...
https://www.quora.com/What-do-people-think-good-programmers-...
How developers dress really depends on the company and the culture there. E.g. in Germany in many of the conservative older companies, wearing a suite is mandatory, and esp also in all those consulting companies. Also in many of the privatized companies like Deutsche Post, Deutsche Bahn, etc. But then, in other more modern software companies, people would make fun of that.
The idea that you must adhere to some clothing dress code rules is really against the open-minded principles of software developers.
What you wear when you're not trying to convince anyone of anything is your own business, but when you're actually trying to reach someone, maybe it's not asking too much to demonstrate some basic self awareness? If you're not willing to go that far then why should anyone listen to you?
I'd guess it stems from some feelings of insecurity.
It doesn't look like the stereotype of conformity from our parent's generation, so people don't acknowledge it for what it is. Or think that conflict between subcultures with a handful of mutually exclusive standards for conforming somehow nulls it out.
Signal put the warning in, of course, after she got enough white men to repeat her request. Until the right people reported the problem, the only response she got was Moxie blocking her and dismissing the issue. I don’t see how that isn’t an operational vulnerability a mile wide for Signal: security problems go ignored if people from the wrong demographic report them.
Her "skimpy outfits" are part of lesbian culture. One of the lesbian archetypes she enjoys being a part of entails her clothing choices and physique. I don't think that's any different than other cultures. Her content was never branded for children anyway, I don't understand what the issue Youtube has.
The crazy shit she's had said to her on social media makes me gobsmacked over and over again. You always hear people say they get these sorts of comments but she seems to get them a lot more, and a lot worse. It's really heartbreaking.
I've learned a lot from her, enjoy her videos, and yeah. This is just another example of how broken Youtube and Google are.
That's fucked up. Why would someone accuse anyone of being a fake, just because they didn't look a certain way? Detestable.
I respect her a ton for doing what she's doing, and if I remember correctly, she had to install a very elaborate and advanced security system at her home to feel safe.
Sad.
They made huge contributions to their Maker movement and gave me $9 Pro Micros, and I’m thankful of it, but I won’t forget that they always are like that.
I was once told in an interview for a statistician role that the questions were designed for male candidates and I shouldn't worry if I struggle with them. And this was a big FTSE 100 company.
So I would show up to job interviews in a basic black suit, and I liked the way I felt when I wore it. The old-school attitude about "Dress for Success" is just one more thing that's become retro and ironic these days.
From a European standpoint, the simpler explanation (in this particular case) is that the US tech scene is incredibly, fascinatingly prude. It feels like even HN users would rather post their DNA and a list of illegal drugs that helped them pass an exam before they'd talk about their sex lives, for better or for worse.
Also, though, it isn't really practical for her to get her breast implants removed just because woke "feminists" at Google and NPR are uncomfortable with the sexualization of women's bodies.
Despite a lot of popular youtubers giving off the vibe of being one-person shows, most employ production assistants and editors.
Besides, (old) Top Gear was one of the most beloved shows of all time, which constantly featured segments where the Clarkson-Hammond-May trio was implied to make various contraptions, which were clearly made by the production staff. Not once did I feel like that it detracted from the enjoyment.
So as long she puts out high quality content, no one should mind that what she does is 'movie magic' in part.
Hmm, visiting Tokyo (which is even better than watching videos) didn't make me change my opinions about high-density housing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
>so what? that's most of Instagram.
I don't like watching the same physical appearances on places where they belong like TV, Movies or Instagram.... so no that's not "normal". If you merge making erotic cakes and cake baking on YouTube, expect a lot of cake baking lovers to not want to watch. It's just logic.
It just feels forced and is an ugly stain on otherwise awesome videos. But I understand that others might enjoy it.
Reminds me of the guy uploading math videos to a porn site, technically we should rate his work based on the math problem solving and teaching skills but you would be a fool to not recognise the problem of it being only reachable by being on a porn site.
Perhaps there is a good balance that we can reach?
Should she be condemned for that? I don't think so. But the engineering feats alone will never be the focus as a consequence.
Another aspect as well is homogenising around the social mores of America by default which particularly in the aspects of sex and sexuality are deeply troubled.
Of course we do! I'm not into football, but several of my friends who are dislike him explicitly because of this.
The reality is that anyone can be really smart and make “serious” contributions and they deserve to be taken seriously regardless of how they choose to dress or present themselves. We have chosen a certain definition of normality and we can choose to expand that to be more inclusive.
From what I’ve read about Naomi, she is interested in both the engineering and the social justice aspects of her work. She deserves to be taken seriously and not dismissed simply because of the way she looks.
There's a line between "never be the focus" and "we will erase you". This sort of thing is constant- but I'll give you a recent example-
NPR recently ran this story: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1047691984/decades-after-poli...
About an American lady who needed some parts for her iron lung and how no one would help her. Only the thing is, they knew I already had: https://youtu.be/4VKZTmTP7oY
I'd fabricated the collars in Shenzhen, mailed the first batch, revised them and needed someone on the US side to to the final fitting. Martha told them this, a quick search told them this, hundreds of people told them this- did NPR revise the story to correct the omission of "oh by the way this problem we were talking about was solved by this female engineer". No of course not. I mean, it's NPR, you think they are going to get smut on their fingers writing about someone who looks like me? Never going to happen.
Then the Razer mask story, I was central to it and some outlets gave me credit: https://www.pcgamer.com/razer-rows-back-after-zephyr-face-ma...
Others like the Verge flatly refused to mention my involvement- even jumping through some pretty crazy hoops to avoid it: https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/10/22876303/razer-zephyr-mas...
Again, hundreds of people called them out. But they did the math and decided that the stigma of mentioning someone who looked like me was worse.
That's just the last few months- this has been a constant for years. I fully Open Sourced the best selling 3D printer on the planet, have the first five Open Source Hardware Association certifications granted in China- which people said would never happen, have brought multiple Chinese companies into GPL compliance, I'm the only women to have brought a 3D printer to mass-market- a game changing design for small scale manufacturing- the list is long, but somehow, none of it is "appropriate" to cover- just because of how I look.
We're well beyond- "does my appearance detract from my work". Of course it does. We're at "does my appearance justify not just complete erasure of my work but constant attempts to deplatform and defund me" I don't think it does.
I hope you don’t get worn down by the bullshit, we need more people like you in the world.
Some people in the comments here have noted, that wearing anything that is more revealing than people are used to, might be seen as "fighting for the right to display yourself in whatever way you want" for women in general and see it as a positive thing. Whether that is interpreting too much into the action, I cannot say. On the other hand there are other people, who interpret it as means to attract more viewers, and does not add to the technical content.
So there are at least 2 contrary interpretations. Perhaps it could be named "polarizing". I would not say that this is "your fault" in any way. It is simply the state of our society currently and how we are being socialized. It can be improved. The human body is in itself nothing criminal. It is our interpretations of expression, that gives meaning. There will always be critics, who see it one way or another.
I did not know your channel before. I congratulate you for making some GPL happen. Good job on that! One thing I personally would value is, if you put emphasis on free (libre) software, when doing GPL and not name it merely open source. I think your content is interesting. I also like to see how it looks in Shenzhen, besides the technical aspects of the channel.
It’s not you, it’s not the advertisers, it’s them. It’s not fair play. The fair play aspect is particularly infuriating. So what if it’s their platform - just because they can set the standards as they please doesn’t make it right.
YouTube is a US corporation, and this action is un-American.
You think your successes would have been harder to achieve if you didn't advertise with sex appeal? You don't need to justify yourself for anything but you still sound like you feel the need to do so.
I don't even know their exact angle to be honest, they probably don't want to make the impression that sex appeal is a necessity for success in tech. But that is speculation. I understand the want to keep it "clean" but I hope you can appeal the demonetization.
Guess what - some people will judge, or even attack, just because she was a woman. Another example is Australia's political climate the past two days.
Naomi is a cool person, and she should be celebrated for doing cool things regardless of how she looks.
This is actually a common apologetic in defense of Burqas and similar objects of "modesty" for women.
You mean; seems to get upset by a lot of people.
Look at an even more women-oppressing culture such as that of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Women are required to cover their faces in public. Why? For "modesty." What it boils down to is that if women show their faces it could have a negative effect on men (sexual attraction).
A lot of people where are shaming her for being essentially immodest in her quest for female empowerment. A face is not immodest. A boob is not immodest. It is not sexualized because it is just a body part. It takes a man to do the sexualization, so the sexualization isn't the boob, but a man's who is doing the sexualization. A baby does not sexualize the boob (it's food). They get conditioned to it by society and culture as they grow older (a culture that sexualizes it).
Sub out face in Afghanistan with boob in America and you'll see it's the same picture. While we should pat ourselves on the back for being so progressive as to allow women to show their faces in public, we haven't quite gotten to the point where it's ok to show boobs in public. And yes, some women prefer to wear burkas, just as some women prefer to hide their boobs in public.
The point is that those restrictions on women shouldn't be dictated by the actions or effects they have on men. Instead, men should either change their viewpoints or control their own sexualization so that women don't have to accommodate. These immodest views come from those who sexualize women, and because that's out of the control of women so they should not be forced to accommodate something out of their control.
You're complaining that men are the problem because women are the target, but I'm pretty certain a significant number of women also complain when a venue has unexpected partial female nudity.
[1] Every culture draws the line at different points. Turning it into a "men are the problem" conclusion, while being wildly incorrect, is also hilariously sexist to both sexes. Edit your post to demean non-binaries as well and you'll have a hat-trick!
In an environment where it's normal, there are no problems. I experienced such an environment myself, I was (surprisingly?) not bothered by this in such a setting and women there neither.
Women may complain that they have no wish to see male genitalia in a setting where it is not normal / can be seen as / is an assault. Intents matter, too.
If you point your middle finger, the finger is still a body part but you are doing something offensive because you intend to insult someone.
Also, while I use the term "men" I really mean "any person that sexualizes a woman over their physical appearance."
But, they can dictate how some men want to show their body? *shakes head*
Firstly, you claimed that men are the problem, not that people who object are the problem. This new claim is a different claim.
Secondly, whether you like it or not, women are more likely to complain of male nudity in a venue than men are to complain of female nudity in a venue, yet you want to portray the argument as "men are the problem".
Your argument only works in your head because you draw an artificial distinction between men and women, and you want to "protect" the women. Treat everyone as people and your argument falls over.
Distill your argument to the essential bits:
1. Does a person have a right to show whatever part of their body that they want to?
Sure.
2. Do people have to be forced to see that display in a public venue?
Depends on what the society has decided on.
3. Should the rule be based on whether the viewer/displayer is female or male?
Most definitely not.
We live in an (I hope) egalitarian democracy and what's acceptable to display is dictated by our polis. Can this same be said regarding women wearing burkas in Afghanistan.
>most men don't want to be tempted by seeing boobs Just lol
https://www.findlaw.com/state/criminal-laws/indecent-exposur...
"Per se", perhaps. Your reasoning goes like this: sticking up your middle finger or shouting "motherfucker" in someone's face isn't insulting. It's the recipient that makes it an insult. Therefore, it is perfectly civilized to do either.
And we're not talking immodesty. While different cultures may have different limits, that doesn't mean they're too subjective to even pay attention of.
And showing your body is not a quest female empowerment, if only because it would leave the lesser gifted in the shadows. Calling it a quest female empowerment is an absurd word game.
What I find interesting is the other female voice that gets shush is women who are for modesty. Other female content creators often take issue too-- it reminds me of the twitch scandal a while back where some women would wear beach wear on cam. Some women complained that in order to compete with that they needed to wear less too. And then they felt uncomfortable with the direction things were going. I think they made valid points, and yet then as now no one really cares.
It feels like it's still a matter of controlling women's bodies, just not society is saying they should "wear less and be free" rather than wear more. Women's voices, at the end of the day, are still secondary in these conversations, especially when they take place on the internet, and that's something I find incredibly ironic. SexyCyborg herself is making posts here but it's drowned out by others fighting her fight for her. Rather than elevating the voices of creators like her, it's just turned into a "women need to be able to wear less everywhere or were the Taliban" thing.
Which, by the way, is bordering in Islamophobic. Muslims make up close to 25% of the world population and many women choose to wear modest clothing. I know some firsthand. Treating them like they're just brainwashed or being forced by the Taliban is so insulting and demeaning and completely ignoring the voices of billions of women. I find it so strange how often I see people treating them like they don't exist or the their voices aren't valid. The Taliban isn't the only people in earth who find value in modesty and its frankly misogynistic to imply the women they feel that way are just backwards and oppressed
No one should be forced to wear burkas nor to not wear them. But the status quo there is that they are forced to wear them. Yes I agree with you forcing women to not wear burkas is equally as bad as forcing them to not wear them.
I’m arguing that we should let each woman individually decide for herself their preferred body image (within the confines of equal laws applied to all genders). They can show their boobs, cover, them, cover their faces, shoe their armpit hair… whatever they want.
I think you’re trying to rewrite the books that mention erogenous zones. Go read them instead. Boobs are sexual.
Having said that, sexuality is not the problem; prudeness is. A vagina could be sexual and still be fine to be uncovered, as it is/was in some cultures.
Display of genitals is seen as a gesture of aggression or dominance, not just in Humans. That's what distinguishes nude breasts from nude genitalia. And it's a rather more pronounced problem with male genitalia, we're not equal in that regard.
Some cultures do allow them being uncovered, but I think experts could still tell us that there are some rules to all of that. And these cultures are rather small and rare.
As opposed to the sexually liberated cultures of Asia, India, or the Middle East?
> The point is that those restrictions on women shouldn't be dictated by the actions or effects they have on men. Instead, men should either change their viewpoints or control their own sexualization so that women don't have to accommodate them.
What is this mirror universe where men recoil at the unclad female form? Please direct your complaints either at puritanism in general, or Google and their advertisers in particular. I certainly don't feel accommodated by this demonetization.
> What is this mirror universe where men recoil at the unclad female form?
That's great that you don't, but the point is not that men recoil at the female form, it's that men are dictating rules on women to help them control their own urges. Again, burkas were invented because men wanted women to be more modest, and to help prevent sins such as womanizing and sexualization. Both of those "sins" are predominantly committed by men towards women so it is a problem rooted in men, but solved by adjusting women's behavior. Even if some women prefer to wear burkas, or agree that it is good to be modest for some reason, that does not mean all women should now be required to do so.
Which is why movements to ban porn enjoy wide support among Western men...
Showing naked bodies in various contexts on public television is not controversial in many Western countries.
I can't say I know of a "perfect" nation in this sense, but there's absolutely varying degrees of range between "embraced ideas" and "accepted expressions". Both the USA and Afghanistan rank particularly low in an international context, there.
My main point with the comment you're replying to is that either way, the idiosyncrasies presented by GP as "Western" are more American, or at least anglo-christian (in lack of a better fuzzy word).
I agree with most of your comment, but I just want to point out that women are also harsh judges of other women who don't fit cultural norms in how they dress or behave. It's not just men sexualizing women and trying to cut them out if they don't fit, it's also women policing other women in this way.
Women can be misogynists too. We don't have a monopoly on that. We as a collective value conformity because it keeps people in line and doesn't threaten our existing architecture. Things that deviate from norms draw attention and inspire discussions like this. Too many people thinking about coloring outside the lines and then more will do it.
If we didn't indoctrinate our kids at the start, we'd have a higher chance for more uniform distribution of power. More people would be able to achieve success, which would raise the floor and make the ceiling not feel so high. Those on top would feel like they're losing because the gap would shrink and the perceived height from the top would be lower. Can't have that so we say things like "boys will boys" to dismiss shit behavior, glorify #boymom, defend our girls by saying they're "not like other girls" and sell little girls on shiny object and lacy dresses, even if they really just want to play with dinosaurs (because dinosaurs are cool and not only for boys).
Patriarchy, ftw! Red Pill, yay!
If you want to be uncharitable, sure. Or maybe you could recognize the fact that human bonding is largely based on shared values, and if someone looks or acts radically different, then you see no common ground on which to establish such a bond.
I think people are all too quick to reach for the "hatred" and "misogyny" labels.
Whoa, whoa. Is that why so many macho men can’t wear a face mask? Do face masks emasculate men? Because if they’re being told what to wear, to cover up their face, it’s being treated like a woman. Except it’s so completely not that. It suddenly makes more sense to me that people are so irrational about the mask and calling it “freedom” while they casually shed virus particles (micro-scale microaggressions), because it’s this weird cultural/emotional response.
"No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs became more popular in reaction to the ruling, but the expected wave of bare female breasts did not happen, disappointing immature males.
You're not telling us what you're thinking, or you're telling us something without thinking about it. What you posted reads like a collection of ideas and not an argument of any kind. The quality of individual constituents in that above collection seems suspect as well.
An argument might go something like: hypothesis, supporting evidence, prediction, theory, course of action.
What you wrote reads something like: prescription, direction, story, conjecture, prediction, dismissal of example to the contrary, proposed emotional response.
Showing primary sexual organs in my opinion is not a question and shouldn't be tolerated in many venues. It is a form of aggression in almost every culture. Even some hunter gatherers who walk around with genitals visible often have some way of making it less offensive. Very rare exceptions...
The issue of contention here is that women have to adjust their behavior/physical appearance over some non genitalia body parts because it happens to induce sexualization in some men, and men don't have to cover that same body part.
What if the majority of people were sapio-sexuals instead of breast-sexuals? Do I need to start dumbing down my HN posts so that I don't be perceived as immodest? Given the diversity of sexual preferences where do I draw the line of accommodating others' sexualization boundaries?
For the record I agree with you on genitalia, because at least both men and women are not allowed to show them. But breasts? It is not genitalia—it is not even used in the act of sex (normally)!
Edit: I would like to add that its not okay to demonetize Naomi Wus 3D Bust Video. Thats another discussion and i think we are on par here.
Most likely, a prudish approach to breasts is simply good for business. That's why advertisers like it. And that's why Google has a hard time selling ads for this video. And that's why Google's algorithms demonetized it.
Also, a lot of people in the US were upset about US companies bending to Chinese demands. But China is a huge market. Sacrificing your morals to gain 1.4 bio potential consumers is the correct decision if you're a die-hard capitalist.
We live in a culture that allows the profit margin alone to dictate almost all moral decisions. I'm not surprised that this has led to questionable morals ...
That's like thinking that gold is not prized.
She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation. Yes the algorithm is capricious, yes its arbitrary, and yes YouTube is evil. But she's clearly making a bust of herself naked. I'm sure if I put my balls on YouTube they'd be more than demonetized.
I have no problem with her personally, I also don't find her interesting at all... but it is what it is. YouTube probably needs to classify videos more finely grained so that we can distinguish between types of videos and match tolerances for blue content to advertisers.
Quite often one needs to take a more direct approach because these misogynistic policies are so ingrained that people actually believe them to be natural. One needs to be in-your-face to get past that.
We like to scoff at Muslims and their backwards policies about women, and yet somehow Western societies are blind to their own - so much so that we need to be told from time to time that the emperor has no clothes.
Naomi is doing a good thing, and a service to women's rights.
I strongly agree with this. No one would dream to complain if the Louvre posts a male academic-led MOOC lecture about the Venus of Milo [0]. The pathology of this puritanism isn't harmless disagreement over which art is or isn't in "good taste"; it's the undercurrent of diminution of and disdain towards women, as Wu is very right to call out. The wild disparity between how censors classify male sculptors and woman sculptors is precisely how bigotry works -- tacit, implicit, unexamined. Men get the benefit of implicit respectability where women are suspect. Any constructive discussion about this will of course push sexists far outside their comfort zone.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKsdb8dq7fo ("La Vénus de Milo par Ludovic Laugier - Musée du Louvre")
That video has 33k views and I didn’t see an ads so I’m not sure it’s even monetized anyway? What’s the point of the comparison?
it's the american (or western?) exceptionalism at play - the bar is set to the _current_ western level, and muslim rules that the taliban abide by are seen as a lower level of civility (where civility is defined as _western social mores_).
We've had similar disconnects between civilisations on other topics such as slavery, brigandry, serfdom, duels, witch trials, honor killings, torture, debtors prison, capital punishment and such, which improved and in some cases even disappeared as various peoples attained higher levels of civilisation.
That said, being "less bad" compared to some others isn't a laudable accomplishment. Honestly investigating your weak spots is an important aspect to growth.
And in doing so she fought censors, TV networks, the FBI, you name it. She fought her whole life against this kind of bullshit. And now Naomi has taken up the fight too, and is probably discovering just how unnecessarily heavy a burden it is.
I'm a mainland Chinese citizen with a high profile on Western Social Media, I can assure you I work very hard to make sure no one confuses me as a women's rights activist. Particularly not these days.
"Yes the algorithm is capricious,"
Not the algorithm- all human moderation.
"she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation"
Why not just have an Only Fans, weekly photo video sets, and a decent copywriter and make 10x as much money? Why go through all this work?
"she's clearly making a bust of herself naked."
It's a dressmakers dummy, for sewing. It's a tool, it's not even decorative. It's of me because the clothes are for me. You can't make it with clothes on it or it won't work, I decimated the mesh instead. Men have been 3D printing far higher resolution models of nude female torsos without complaint from YouTube for a decade.
For any random project that gets posted on HN, "hey, author here..." posts will typically end up at the top of the page, let's hope we also manage for this one here.
I had honestly not ever thought about your financials, simply assuming that with such a prolific youtube chain you would be fine. Your first twitter thread about this a few days ago made me reconsider, and given that youtube are being so arrogant about this I just signed up for a small $5 subscription on your tipeee.
@everyone: if your stance is "just ditch youtube" then this is your chance to make it possible: https://en.tipeee.com/naomiwu/
Edit: wow, just read through the rest of the thread. Actually a lot of back and forth going on. I stand corrected. :)
Also, in my understanding, youtube only demonetizes PER VIDEO, not your whole account unless you do something serious, is that right?
“No, there won't be an answer as to why men making nude female torsos will not be subject to the same enforcement and never have been.”
I pressed YouTube on are or would those videos with identical content be treated identically, over several emails- they refuse to answer. That model is an extremely common test print in the community and I’ve never heard of anyone being demonetized for it. I’m hardly going to test it by reporting them and I’m also worried that people may now go and report or otherwise brigade those videos- many of whom are incredibly supportive friends in the community so I don’t want to over emphasize this and have them somehow blamed for doing nothing wrong.
>Also, in my understanding, youtube only demonetizes PER VIDEO, not your whole account unless you do something serious, is that right?
That is correct, although in my case it has been becoming more common every month and more ridiculous each time. None of the adult content rulings have fallen within their own definition.
Which is a hugely touchy subject around here on its own, for some reason
* They were taught to do so and simply understand it to mean 'someone from the People's Republic of China'. No political subtext intended.
* They use it to mean that they are from the literal mainland of the People's Republic of China, but not Hong Kong or Macau.
* They use it because they genuinely see Taiwan as 'that other part of China' that needs to be unified with the People's Republic of China, despite having been a sovereign democracy for over 70 years.
When you say "I am from China" (or "I am from the PRC"), there is no chance of this having any deeper political meaning. When you say "I am from mainland China", there is a good chance that you do see Taiwan as a 'rogue province' and may support its 'inevitable' reunification by any means, including force. That latter sense is the one that is highly political and irks many people.
Note: there is no need to get into the justness or wrongness of Chinese reunification here; it would be off-topic and not likely to be fruitful. I do think it is important that people understand that the phrase 'mainland China' is not bereft of connotations and may cause readers to form an opinion of the person using it that may not be in line with that person's actual intent.
Thank you for spreading such good information on masks.
I mean, I cant help but agree that you're being a little dishonest here. Without passing judgement on whether what you're doing is right or wrong, a quick glance through the Twitter link in the OP and its quite obvious that you are well endowed and using it to your advantage by wearing revealing clothing. Can we acknowledge that some probably significant proportion of your channel views are at least initially due to your physique and the way you happily show it off?
Yes, I play the cards I've been dealt.
>by wearing revealing clothing.
No, the clothing and gender expression predates YouTube and is for other reasons, is usually more conservative when I'm filming for YouTube, and is for myself. I've never worn anything for my audience.
>Can we acknowledge that some probably significant proportion of your channel views are at least initially due to your physique
Yes, I’ve come to take pride in it "came for the tits, stayed for the tech". If I happen to look the way I do for reasons other than marketing, being able to encourage technical proficiency in a demographic that was not looking to learn anything is about as good an outcome as I could hope for.
>and the way you happily show it off?
Sort of. I look the way I do for myself, and I don't object to any one else's polite enjoyment of that. As a gay woman I've gone from conflicted to entertained and accepting of it- as might any straight man who found themselves on the receiving end of the support of a large number of gay men, just for being himself and looking how he likes to look. But like our hypothetical straight creator- benefiting from something, it not the same as catering to it.
> YouTube's criteria are patriarchal, and male gaze focused- if men like it, it's bad and women need to change
I think she's right. The kind of puritanism enforced by Youtube (or Facebook) is based on, and obsessed by, male gaze, and therefore patriarchal and retrograde.
I would agree that there's a limit, and that limit is porn (yet Twitter doesn't censor porn, with no ill consequence to their business). What she's doing isn't porn.
There is, very obviously, a whole strain of content aimed at "sexual content where you normally can't have sexual content" - and the problem for providers is not dealing with it at some point means that is now what your platform is for (which ironically pretty much devalues the original content - the taboo is the appeal).
they do - if it's explicit, you must login to view it. I'd consider that a partial censorship.
Thankfully men know better than her what she is (as opposed as what she claims to be), and can put her in her place
After all this demonization happens to everybody who claims to be X when they're something else (e.g. a champion of rights vs an opportunist careerist, or a tech reviewer vs a sponsor shill).
/s
She's posted many examples of videos by other YouTubers (most, if not all, men) that show reconstructions of nude female busts. Here are some:
https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/148435177122526003...
She could have just watched the videos from a non-Premium account (or not logged in) and tracked the kinds of ads shown.
Search for "391533" and you can find several others with thousands of views.
Yeah, she’s definitely pushing the boundaries… but I’m not convinced that she does it to gain subscribers.
I recall speaking with her in what I believe was her first “public” appearance on the Internet, on Reddit, several years ago. She put up with a lot of sexist crap[1], and disappeared for a while shortly thereafter.
I think her reasons for her body modifications and the somewhat sexual tone of her projects are inherent to her personality; I think she’d be doing exactly the same stuff if she wasn’t getting paid for it.
1: … and bear in mind this is coming from someone who has a generally low tolerance for “wokeness”. The things people said to her were really bad.
I have no problem with her doing it for attention. I’m only saying that I don’t believe that’s her motivation.
You are over-reading this. I would chalk it up to "Chinese market is different from the US. Shrug."
When I was looking for Cantonese lessons for my work many moons ago, the tutors made a point of emphasizing their modeling credentials (both men and women).
HUHWUT?
It was a very strange experience for me having come from the US where "sexual-type discussions are considered unprofessional". I simply shrugged it off, tried a couple tutors until one clicked, never talked about their "modeling career", and got on with butchering Cantonese horribly. :)
There are 1000s of videos of young women doing Yoga in such tight clothes you would know exactly what the nether regions look like and even without clothes with no age restriction on there.
If people wanna watch such content that is their business. It is none of my business however maybe have a age restriction for over 18s.
It is a sad fact that if you took two women on youtube with equal talents and content - the one that "dressed up a little" would be more successful. I don't think that's the case with men (although Colin Furze and Integza do wear ties, maybe that's a factor in their success)
It hard to see how YouTube can defend their actions - her videos are far less titillating than many (most) music videos available (do a youtube video for "female rap video").
Initially, before I was Outed I could not explain any of it. Which was...frustrating at the time to say the least. Now, as shitty as getting Outted was I can at least reference part of the explanation: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/139660466709473690...
But as to the rest, I'm still on the fence. I'd like to explain, but these things are very personal, and if I won't explain, I understand why people assume the most likely explanation even if it's unflattering to me. As I said, I'm very aware of my own role in all this.
I mean the demonetization and ToS stuff on YouTube isn't really about Google trying to enforce their morals onto the rest of the world, it's mostly about them making money.
Even today, there's a surprisingly high number of very conservative people living in the US & EU. That's why abortions are illegal (or a gray area) and why questions like "Is it immoral for unmarried women to get pregnant?" still get almost 50% yes. Plus the US has a really odd relationship with breasts. Murder on TV is fine but show titties and you're adult-only. I believe it's because so many people are devoted Christians and have matching puritan views. People still say "god bless America" quite often if you consider that modern science suggests that god probably doesn't exist.
With that in mind, any content that might anger or drive away the more conservative &/ religious half of YouTube's viewers is risky business for YouTube. They probably couldn't sell you to enough advertisers, which is why they are now refusing to pay you. For them, it's just profit optimization. And that means explaining things wouldn't help.
I fully support your right to sculpt your body however you choose. The people who are uncomfortable with it should take responsibility for their own feelings instead of blaming you for them.
And you don't need to. Unfortunately people are people - titillation and everything else is in the eye of the beholder - and they will interpret what they see in a way that fits in with their perspective.
Of course it's also the case with men. The dude in a suit will absolutely garner more attention than the one looking like an unwashed hobo. Although some people may rally behind the hobo-look as challenging the norms.
We shouldn't expect them to. There's always going to be blurry boundaries between sexual and non-sexual content, and we should accept this. What we should be critical of is the appearance of selective enforcement - ie. some people are banned and others are not for identical behavior.
I remember on Twitch there's a girl who kept getting banned for wearing the same skimpy clothes that many other female streamers wear, she just had larger breasts that were more attention-grabbing. So the bans seemed superficially unfair, but it was fairly obvious what principle was motivating them.
The only reason I could think of for the demonetisation was because family brands didn’t want to be alongside this content. What kind of family advertiser opts to display their content on “not for kids” videos?
Unless — forgive some hyperbole — Oreos want in on the Megan Thee Stallion hype with amongst 9 year olds.
I will not pretend to care for her for 2 simple reasons: I don't know anything about her, and I don't pity people who dance with YT "anymore"(As in 2014 and later, when Youtube de facto became sh1t, and later in 2016-2017 when this was already established as a way going forward for youtube, resulting in what's known by the masses as "adpocalypse", further censorship post 2016, etc.)
We don’t have puritans or religious nutjobs doing it any more… now it’s Google, Facebook, and Amazon.
A naked woman is only as big is a deal as you make her, just label content accurately and as long as nobody is getting hurt, let it be.
They absolutely are still active and doing write-in campaigns about this; that's where FOSTA/SESTA came from. The ability of evangelicals to sway elections by having a large number of people in a pulpit filter bubble is greater than that of tech in the US.
The expression you may be looking for is "a dressmaker's dummy". Or, in the US one finds "mannequins" in the department stores, with clothes hung on them.
I have no problem with her personally, either, for before this morning I had never heard of her.
I don't see why she can't both be a women's rights activist and be a "purveyor of some weird type of titillation". It gets dangerously close to another ugly argument: that immodest clothing diminishes the culpability of a rapist.
Naomi Wu was influenced by the cartoon (animate) culture. She designed her character according to the public perception of a girl in animation, it's her persona. And based on how I look at it, her wearing style is a rebellion against the traditional idea of what a woman should be wearing, maybe it's a political statement of some sort.
I do agree that she maybe wearing a little too less. If she were my own sister, I would probably constantly annoying her so she can dress more properly at least for her own safety concern (you don't want to test the dark side of people). However, if it was truly an act of political statement, then maybe it's reasonable that she wants to make it louder.
(Seriously, I would recommend that she remove the "Sexy" reference in her banding to avoid serious legal issues)
I think the businesses that receive complaints that they saw 'tits' with their commercial is pretty large. 'Cardboard nudity' or not. ( if they ever see it ofc)
You seem to be implying these are somehow mutually exclusive. I don't see how that follows though. Pushing the boundaries by purveying a weird type of titillation could very well be a form of women's rights activism.
fine, you win, i'll go look her up.
So, we have an article about the negative consequences of dressing like she does, and you're still here pushing the "she does this only 'cause she benefits from it"?! She really, obviously does not benefit from it.
> She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation.
Dude, this is so beyond false it's insulting. She's an accomplished engineer. Sorry you don't like how she dresses—hell, I don't especially, either. But to ignore everything she has accomplished and act like she's a pornographer because of it? Your misogyny is appalling.
Do you realize how totally subjective this sentence is?
I mean, who else would you make a bust of if not yourself?
If anything, she is punished for looking too good.
Shoving your genitals in someones face is definitely aggression. Just showing breasts is not.
1. Discussing where YouTube should draw the line on modesty. They don't allow full on pornography and most people think that's okay. I personally think that an attractive person making tech videos is probably okay. Maybe not everyone likes it, but there are a ton of videos on YouTube that I don't like and are still monetized. Even if I disagree with where exactly we draw the line, I think it's okay that YouTube sets a modesty standard. There will obviously be disagreement across cultures about the right set of standards to apply.
2. Criticizing YouTube's inconsistency in applying these rules. There are numerous examples of videos with women wearing skimpy outfits that are monetized and there are numerous examples of videos with women's busts in them that are monetized. It doesn't matter what the reason is for Naomi's demonetization- whatever the reason it's inconsistent and that is unfair. I think this is clearly the worse of the two issues here. If YouTube is going to claim some set of morals to appeal to advertisers, they need to be consistent. It would even be preferable (to what they are doing now) if their reaction was to give a strike strike or demonetize every creator that is pointed out where they had videos of women's busts. Just the appearance of aiming for consistency is better than what they are doing now.
YouTube found something special in creating a community of people that identified as YouTubers (above any other media platform they were on) and YouTube's recent actions are going to result in them losing that magic. Naomi's case is just one example. Maybe the magic is already gone.
The fact that women have to censor photos of their nipples on Instagram is outrageous to me.
But I guess there is money in that for advertisers, so it's allright, too bad money speaks and then when individual content creators just try to utilize that same thing, they get demonetized.
I'm all for youtube not becoming basically a strip club, but at least have some cohesive applying of those rules then for the music industry also.
Youtube is a fickle beast, and there's plenty of examples of creators and videos getting demonetized seemingly without a good reason [0]. I would guess that this particular video got hit because she´s pushed the limits before, and Youtube has their eyes on her. There might be some mass reporting from haters as well.
In a different tweet she writes "YouTube's criteria are patriarchal, and male gaze focused". I kind of agree with that, at least that women's bodies seem to be more sexually loaded than men's according to Youtube and the US culture Youtube bases its rules on. I don't think men can monetize sexually loaded videos on Youtube either, but the rules for what's deemed sexually loaded are different for women.
There's really two problems converging here. One is that women's bodies are considered inherently more sexual, and the other is that anything that can be considered sexual is deemed immoral and wrong.
Here's a video of a Youtube video getting demonetized automatically after 0 views [0], probably because of previous videos on the channel.
Her videos are, routinely, though, hence the generalized title which is appropriate.
I don't think that's 'punishing topography', that's punishing the choice of clothes to suit it (or not). If the person on the right were wearing something similarly revealing, so they only difference was 'less to reveal', sure.
Again, not commenting on whether that's 'right' or not. I just don't think that's a valid defence if she (thinks she) knows that's what the problem is. It's like wearing a children's long-sleeve shirt somewhere that requires covered arms, and saying 'What? You're just punishing my long arms!'.
We need a European Alternative.
Anyways, heading to the sauna right now. Naked.
Here we are again, click bait HN comments distracting me from work. How is this allowed? Maybe we should stop paying people who are naked under their clothes. /s
DailyMotion tried and failed.
Creating content on YouTube has been my full-time job for nearly four years. There is a HUGE difference between a channel being kicked out of the Partner Program and a video being 'demonetized.' (Namely, that in the latter case, all of your other videos, past and future, can still earn revenue.)
*I know it when I see it.
I’ll never understand how a nipple is more offensive than shooting someone.
I wouldn't jump the gun on allowing sexualization everywhere since it can have pretty bad effects on some people.
Now whether this is sexual or not is another matter.
There's a distinction worth making between voyeurism and sexualizing others but when someone portrays themselves as they want to be seen I have no idea why that needs to be put in some sort of box. Because there ought to be nothing offensive about sex, which is just about the most natural thing on earth.
And of course for some reason everything is assumed to be sexualized, from a sculpture of a torso to even breastfeeding mothers, I still remember 'female presenting nipples' on what was it, tumblr? It's like some sort of cursed feedback loop where the repression leads people to be horny about every sight of a nipple.
I would also probably feel offended if Google told me that my breasts are pornographic just because of their size.
I think it’s kind of like when you read “public is outraged” and in reality there’re three people writing angry tweets.
You can say "USA", no need to bring the whole "western civilization" generalization into this.
While fascinating to read through the thread here on all variations and manifestations of evil in each eye of the beholder, please bear in mind that these are uniquely held disturbances from the writer.
And again, before all of HN jumps on me, yes I get why, and agree why, but no I'm not doing it for the reasons many of you think and will want to chastise me for. I really do just look like this. If it was just a matter of changing outfits like a normal functional human being I really would at this point, it's just...not that easy. I'm contemplating an explanation video but it's a sensitive subject for me and not an easy thing to do. Yelling at me that I have it coming because I'm a lying whore trying to cheat poor innocent simps out of their money isn't going to make it any easier to offer a more complete backstory.
But this feels uncalled for.
> Yelling at me that I have it coming because I'm a lying whore trying to cheat poor innocent simps out of their money isn't going to make it any easier to offer a complete backstory.
No one’s said anything like that.
From what I’ve seen, HN is generally pretty supportive and respectful of you, even if they disagree personally. So why all the negativity coming out of the gates?
I don't agree with some of Naomi Wu's comments about her being specifically targeted for some characteristic, I really suspect she is just an unfortunate victim of the same dumb "human review" everybody is. Some low paid person working for Youtube has X seconds to discern between 'porn' and 'not porn' - they see large breasts and think 'porn'.
The main problem here is they optimized all humanity out of their system. There's no empathy, there's no justice, there's no room for change. It's not a platform I have enjoyed using for a long time now, and it's only because of people like Naomi Wu or EEVBlog that I even interact with it at all. I think most people are looking for a compelling reason to leave.
But yeah, Youtube demonitization is pretty bad and arbitrary. Might be better if they had competition.
What I'm really concerned about is her safety operating out of China. Just in the last couple of years, we've seen several relatively high profile women either go silent or even disappear without warning in China.
She could easily get caught up in some party member's politics net for doing or saying "the wrong thing".
If she gets nabbed tomorrow, there will be a 1-week public uproar in the West then crickets after that. That will be accompanied by criticism that "she deserves it" and "omg Becky just look at her" kind of sexist comments.
I’ve been watching YT, Make, and others bully, harass and in some cases actually put Naomi in danger. I am proud of Naomi, she doesn’t need me to be proud of her.
She is brave. She dresses how she wants. Idk what you decided to put on this morning but if you’re still wearing it then it was good enough for today wasn’t it?
She works on what she wants, and she is good at it, gives props to others, among a million other talents. She does good work for her local community and ours.
She stands up to people bullies who get butt hurt and upset because apparently they think they did something there and are surprised to find they didn’t.
Women have been expected to take criticism silently with grace. She matches energy, without stooping down to their level, as we should.
She is a credit to the tech community and we should not be making excuses to continue justifying this type of behavior just because of its dated normality; we have every reason to be proud.
It was not long ago that computer geeks were stereotyped as virgin basement dwellers, who rarely showered; “Remember the 3-2-1 rule”.
She can walk around dressing however she wants where she lives without having to worry over much about something happening to her or people harassing her. I’m not gonna lie I wish we had it like that.
She is a kind, brilliant, caring person and instead of justifying how she’s being treated we should be proud to have her.
Some of these comments, I can’t even.
I wish Wu's critics would just be honest for once. I try not to be reductive, but I her case it's patently obvious that she gets flack because she's got extremely big tits.
Given the boxes she checks (female, clearly very intelligent, creative, STEM stuff, good content creator) she'd be held up as a hero by everyone sans implants.
I think one action to take is to gather and show as many examples as possible, like she did on her Twitter account. In addition to discussing for pages after pages here, people can also retweet to amplify the message. Because it is the prerogative of those that sympathise with her, to point out hypocrisy of YouTube. They can't do as they will, punish selectively, and not expect public backlash, can they?
I also wonder if it would make sense for Naomi and other sympathetic content creators to make videos with different characteristics (same kind of demonetised video, but with the full spectrum of what YouTube deems questionable) to figure out more precisely where they draw the line, which would more clearly define YouTube's obviously malleable boundaries and paint them in a corner, for the purpose of giving people like her more opportunities to point out the double standard publicly. Just off the top of my head, the examples in this instance could be re-shooting the video with
- another cardboard clone that has a penis
- another cardboard clone with its nipples taped (I'm serious)
- Naomi in winter clothing
I know that this might come across as a stupid idea, and it shouldn't even be needed in the first place, but since all politics is shaped by public opinion, every weapon in our arsenal that can move it, even by a millimeter, should be used. It's hard work, really.
Centralized : Dailymotion, Bitchute, Rumble, DTube, Vimeo, Vidlii, DLive, Triller
Decentralized : Odysee(LBRY), Peertube
That is the reality. Like it or not. Vimeo has its use case, the arts mostly. Odysee is something I'll check out every now and then, but even there it's just YouTube creators using it as a back-up.
That sequence has stayed with me for the clear depiction of prudishness and stupidity to which people can reach when censoring something.
When she leaves the house she puts on a full set of clothes, so even shes consciously aware of how she looks in her videos.
From what ive seen, she doesnt deserve demonetization because youtube has worse.. and shes providing educational content but its clear to me where the controversy lies, education + intentional sexual appeal. Id bet a large part of her audience is 10-18
No. I look how I've always looked. My clothing is about gender expression and visibility and is common within my LGBT niche. That appearance sometimes helps, it sometimes hurts, I don't object to those followers that like it but I also don't cater to them.
>When she leaves the house she puts on a full set of clothes, so even shes consciously aware of how she looks in her videos.
You mean in the winter? Why would I wear hot pants outside in the winter?
She explains herself well enough in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30097069
I also take issue with the word "but" in your sentence, as though the latter discredits the former.
What next, are we going to demonitize Michelangelo's David?
Regularly, not sure why this time made HN.
to believe that she is a genuine person is laughing on the faces of the women in the RoW. i like naomi wu and her videos, but i would like to believe that she is an aggregate of many people/minds and an entertainer. and that's ok.
if she is real, she is an unreliable/dishonest narrator. if she is a creation, then she is awesome. i would rather prefer that she is a creation of many minds.
Hard to see why YouTube would have a problem with Naomi Wu.
However, I have no idea whether any or all of that is also demonetized. So maybe it doesn't mean anything, I dunno. I just noticed it's kind of easy to misread demonetized as demonized.
Most would agree that pushing sexualized content onto 13 year old deliberately is unethical.
You see the same tug of war battle happening on Twitch.tv with the constant rise of some exotic-like content (hot tub streaming, boob "ASMR", etc.) followed eventually by some token bans so that Amazon can make it look like they aren't willingly promoting that content.
All power to Wu, but I could not care less about this channel. It feels very misplaced and fake. Feels like going half naked to a childrens party.