I don't want to debate the state of her mental wellness as we can only speculate at this time, but I don't think a healthy person would feel that a tech giant is specifically targeting them, even if they think it might be unfair and arbitrary.
Her methods are nuts, obviously, but her beef with Youtube is entirely justified.
The end result, unfortunately, isn't going to be Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc... realizing the error of their ways - it's going to be them over-reacting to protect themselves.
I expect Silicon Valley campuses will get locked down. I expect any content that even slightly might maybe insinuate violence will get taken down.
tldr; The problem is going to get worse before it gets better.
It’s about time many of these companies start to realize their decisions have very real consequences on people’s lives (in who makes money/a living and who doesn’t, harassment levels) and their seemingly capricious decisions and rule changes are very problematic.
They’re not the small semi-isolated bubbles they used to be, they’re powerful entities that have large effects on the online economy.
Obviously they shouldn’t be subject to physical attacks/assaults/etc. But YouTube is not what it was in 2007 anymore.
I am curious as to how we concluded that? Until now, we have only heard her side of the story, and not that of YouTube. May be she was violating ToS? There could be thousands of well-justified reasons for YouTube to terminate her account.
Without hearing the other side of the story, how do we know that her beef was entirely justified?
And, of course, there is the usual argument that YouTube is a platform owned by a private entity. Nobody has a justifiable right to put their video on YouTube and earn revenue from it.
not specifically that person but people who think like him/her.