YouTube Suspect Was Popular and Ridiculed in Iran
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
> “Then, just after noon, she parked her car at a business near YouTube’s offices. She walked into one of YouTube’s parking garages, and then emerged into an outdoor courtyard where employees were eating lunch.”
> ”Emergency officials arrived at YouTube’s offices two minutes after the police first received 911 calls about shots being fired. When they arrived, they found Ms. Aghdam dead. A 9-millimeter semiautomatic handgun, registered in her name, was found at the scene.”
> “By Tuesday night, YouTube, as well as Instagram and Facebook, had taken down her pages and videos...“
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/nasim-aghdam-y...
Her videos seemed quite harmless - home exercise, veganism, animals.
I don't understand the motive for YouTube to take down her remaining videos.
Don't conflate social media site hosting policies with the first amendment.
It doesn't need to be said that she is in the wrong, there's no excuse, no defence that can be offered - but I said it anyway in case you misunderstand me in my next statement:
Tech companies and employees and the people who use their products live in the same world. Even if there is no legal or financial responsibility between ourselves and others, it doesn't mean we can forget about the fact that we all live on the same planet. Whenever we are thinking about making a change in the code, we have a responsibility to be empathetic and also think about its effects on other members of the same society we all belong to.
Should there be a broad industry standard / governing body / laws to make sure attackers don't go crazy after innocent employees ?
Banning her videos wouldn't have made her less violent, and a tech company wouldn't have any resources beyond what her family had. The problem wasn't the effect her videos had on other people.
In the U.S., it's already illegal to threaten violence against others. "Conspiracy to commit" charges and "terroristic threats," for example.
Select illustrative incidents:
Florida night club shooter - mentally ill and violent in word and deed - his dad warned the FBI and police and asked for help.
Florida school shooter - mentally ill, violent in word and deed, multiple instances of minor run ins with the law - family and friends warned the FBI and police.
This woman - mentally ill and voicing intent for violence - family warned Law Enforcement and tried to get help.
Should this "universal" body be established country by country?
Should laws in Germany affect what people in the US can see?
What about competitors who want to have different policies in an attempt to give themselves a competitive advantage?
Personally I'm not a fan of the direction the major tech companies have gone with free speech, but I hope and believe that ultimately these principles will win out. However, when a man is convicted by the UK government of committing "gross offense" by recording a joke video of his pug responding to Nazi references; the situation seems a bit more dire. [1]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/17/german-of...