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.
Should she be condemned for that? I don't think so. But the engineering feats alone will never be the focus as a consequence.
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.
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.
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.
Oh, not at all. It's a gender expression issue, some dysphoria problems, I will try to go into once I muster up the courage. I'm cis but have an...odd backstory. It's definitely counter productive to success in tech after a certain point.
>they probably don't want to make the impression that sex appeal is a necessity for success in tech.
It could be, but at the same time, many young women like being flamboyant, most unlike me outgrow it, but few 17 year olds aspire to the pant-suit. A passable IG "thot" doing tech isn't necessarily the bad influence people think it is. I think a healthy balance of role models will attract a healthy balance of candidates. I think saying "you have to be gender conforming within this narrow spectrum or look like this" is an absolute nightmare for, well basically everyone- men included.
I believe this too, although the currency on social media might be different. In a work environment many actually do it as a courtesy to people that do not sexualize themselves. There is an attention economy in the workplace too. Looks do give you a bonus in many cases until you leverage it. Then it is suddenly the worst sin. A bit hypocritical perhaps, but it might level the playing field a bit and it lets people keep focus.
There are probably few people that honestly condemn you if you forget your pants when coming into work, but it is still generally expected that you at least try to put them on. Not sure if there are any barriers yet to be broken down.
> A passable IG "thot" doing tech isn't necessarily the bad influence people think it is
I generally agree, although I would lie that I would not be disappointed if people rely on whatever "thots" do. Perhaps I am too conservative, but Instagram is a great argument for catholic girls boarding schools, even if everyone know they are the worst. I think there is a difference if you get recognition for your looks or for your skills and mixing can lead to trouble.
> aspire to the pant-suit
It changed a bit in recent years, but often it is pretty relaxed. I regard it as a boon that you often can immediately separate the engineer from the salesman. But the former has the choice at least.
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.
This is actually a common apologetic in defense of Burqas and similar objects of "modesty" for women.
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.
Everyone knows sex sells, but some people (not only men) get upset when they see people promoting themselves with their own sexuality, especially when it's in an unrelated field.
I think Naomi is great, but I can see why some people get upset by the way she presents. I wonder how less attractive maker women feel about her, for example?
The question still stands to some extent though I think. Using 'sex' to sell yourself is accepted in music, film, fashion and so on, but perhaps not in technical fields, and, actually, as I think about it more, I'm starting to agree a little bit.
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.
/s for anyone wondering, I can only hope someone is still using some dumb Lycos e-mail today.
Considering something like body dysmorphia (as an example) might help give someone benefit of doubt. I'm not going to pretend to understand exactly why someone feels that way.
Yes, it is something like that. But it's bullshit for me to dance around it and expect some sort of grace. I will say something.
I'm a white male, so it's relatively easy to convince people to take me seriously. That isn't a great situation, but noone expects me to downplay that to make things more fair.
She has a harder time being taken seriously (as evidenced by the MAKE story), but she's attractive which makes her videos more interesting. I don't think you can blame her for using advantages.
From what I've seen of her, she does seem to enjoy being dressed nicely, so I don't think she's only doing it to get views.
(... And nobody should, his videos are great. Seriously if you haven't seen his stuff go check it out. But there's an obvious double standard if he's in and Wu is out).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
But if an individual just wear one themselves by choice, it's silly to judge them for that choice. Interviewing is hard, maybe they feel more confident in a suit.
I feel company culture should be less about someone's personal style/clothing/hobbies than if someone, for example, berates and yells at fellow employees who make a mistake or talks calmly through issues without treating others like they are the problem.
There are only specific cultural understandings, each of which almost always map poorly when applied cross culturally.
That’s just untrue and shows a misunderstanding of what conservatism is, which is about small gov and a return to the roots of said gov. While individual beliefs of how this should be achieved will very between the different nations, the general concept is the same.
From the little I understand, it's complex and dynamic and opaque to the point that current scholars and US government entities studying China have difficulty explaining it; I'm not even going to try.
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.
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.
I'd guess it stems from some feelings of insecurity.
So, yes, insecurity but primarily insecurity about losing power and control, by men. That's why we focus so much on what "she" wears but nobody gives two shits if I show up to work in flipflops, board shorts and a tank top. Why would they? I'm a dude.
Feminism has an extremely broad remit and it's all based on the idea that actual ideology routinely boxes in half of the population in some way or another. It's just a fact, and thus there is endless study that can be undertaken.
Men get made fun of for what they wear all the time. So, I don’t get this argument that no one cares what men wear because we all certainly do. See mens wardrobe options vs womens. Compare the two - look at what is normal for one and normal for another. You’ll see one has far more selection than the other.
I think another aspect is that men's fashion is inherently more limited - because - men are aware of the critiques and don't want to deal with it.
Interestingly enough, this probably applies to the people who were dismissing Obama on the basis of that tan suit as well.
Has this ever been substantiated or verified publicly? Which industry are those and why?
Well, I'd say it's a bit more than "almost nobody" [1], even if you discount trialers.
But we do know that many companies do feel that way, which is why many companies try to create a "family friendly" image. And as Google has said themselves, why many don't want to be associated with "non family friendly" images
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/social_issues-july-dec13...
Advertising itself is that. Sex sells, or at least everyone believes sex sells.
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?
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/
*This is a bad joke
One, you think nudity is in bodybuilding. It's not.
Two, you think the context of whatever Naomi is doing requires her to hang her nude bits out. It doesn't, that's her choice. It's also people's choice to not like it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with being sexy. I don't see Naomi as sexy at all as a heterosexual male. She just screams forced and faked. Those aren't sexy to me. They are sexual though.
It's all about being close to nudity for impractical reasons. Context matters and the definition of nudity matters.
Well no, nothing of the kind was occurring in the demonetized videos referenced in my post. I did not have more skin on display than any typical YouTuber might under the circumstances. It was a tank top and a halter top summer dress on a hot summer day in a tropical city. The issue was my shape inside those clothes- not the clothes themselves. That's what was interesting, YouTube's response to demonetizing the cardboard dress form made it clear my physical shape was the problem- not the degree of coverage or activity.
Perhaps there is a good balance that we can reach?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You mean; seems to get upset by a lot of people.
>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.
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.
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.
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!
https://www.findlaw.com/state/criminal-laws/indecent-exposur...
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."
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
However the issue here is that some men, and some women too, find it bothers them to see boobs, but only female boobs. It's irrelevant if some woman happen to agree, because a woman can still oppress woman, just as a Chinese person can still be racist towards Chinese people.
If a women dressing sexy (but otherwise within the generally accepted constraints of not showing genitalia or nipples) and then gets raped by a person (man or woman), is it her fault or the person's fault? Is she asking for it by dressing sexy? Sexy here is in the eye of the rapist, and whether the women thinks she is dressing sexy herself is irrelevant, so I would argue that it is the rapist's fault. If a woman does something to her outward appearance such as enlarging her breasts or dressing "immodestly" and it causes weird feelings or urges in some people, those feelings are wholly the fault of the person feeling them.
You didn't respond to my points about skin exposure being a social norm. We choose to show/hide genitals, breasts, ankles, feet, etc based on a region by region basis.
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.
You're making this a gender war thing. It's not about who gets to dictate what to whom. It's about why something is dictated and who it's benefitting.
For genitalia, both genders are not allowed to show theirs. This is acceptable because it's fair.
For breasts, men can show theirs, yet women cannot.
For skirts: too short and a woman is labeled slutty. Why? Because people who sexualize them (often men) view them as sexy and wanting sex. And so these people then dictate that they should wear longer skirts so that they don't feel so guilty themselves. This ends up being one party dictating how the other should appear in order to accommodate their own needs.
Men can wear short or long. It's ok because generally women do not sexualize men in that way. But the point here is that the viewpoint of immodesty comes from the viewer, and women have no control in how they are viewed by others, therefore they should not have to adjust themselves to accommodate for something they have no control over.
> 1. Does a person have a right to show whatever part of their body that they want to? >> Sure.
No that is not my argument. I accept the laws that both genders cannot show their genitals or sexual organs. If we enacted a law that said all people have to hide their mouths I'd be in full support. We don't have such a law but we are close to it (face masks for covid). What I am against is unequal laws enacted by one group on another to accommodate the first or other group.
> 3. Should the rule be based on whether the viewer/displayer is female or male? >> Most definitely not.
This is not about male or female. This is about one group forcing their preference on another group to accommodate their own needs.
Source? Anecdotally living in the South, it is overwhelmingly men complaining about women not properly conforming to their sensibility regarding modesty.
I've never heard it the other way around, and you claiming it is an undisputed fact "where I like it or not" is bizarre to me.
I definitely did not intend to say that Naomi Wu is like a flasher, and I appreciate your implicit request for clarification.
I meant that I frequently hear both men and women criticize specifically women for nudity, especially when the critics are from the US, and I very rarely hear them criticizing men for nudity. When men do get criticized for nudity, it's usually in a circumstance where the nudity is being interpreted as a threat, such as a flasher, which is a very different situation than posting a video of laser-cutting a dressmaker's dummy.
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 ...
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).
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.
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...
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.
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.
If we're going to discuss being charitable, we should start by allowing people to be happy with themselves and not share our thoughts on what we don't like about them because that's the problem. That's at the root of this whole topic. We are incapable of allowing people to deviate without telling them how we feel about it.
Why? And why don't we do the same thing as to men? (There is no 100% rule. Some men are shamed and some people shame men. It's not at the same rate.)
It benefits them because they're expressing their values and preferences, which allows them to find others like them and build bonds over these shared values. A shitty way to do it maybe, but it always comes back to bonding.
Edit: although some people shame out of genuine concern that the shamed party will not themselves be able to find human bonds. This is a type of shaming you often see from parents.
> We are incapable of allowing people to deviate without telling them how we feel about it.
I'm not sure who "we" is. Society collectively is much more tolerant of deviations from normal dress, appearance and behaviour than they were even 10 years ago. Society takes time to adapt.
I'm comforted by the admission of how shitty that is. I don't agree with your premise but I don't have to. The end result is that we can converge on the idea that people should stop being so forthcoming about their opinions of what other people do to and for themselves. If that's all we could (collective we, not specific) ever do, that would make the world pattern and remove the examples from Publix that keeps the pattern of shitty behavior going.
> Edit: although some people shame out of genuine concern that the shamed party will not themselves be able to find human bonds. This is a type of shaming you often see from parents.
Parents shouldn't shame their children. That's shitty behavior too. It's also infantalizing, whether from a parent or not. I've never shamed my kid and I don't plan to. I dealt with that myself and I can tell you that it didn't reap the outcomes anyone could have been looking for. I haven't spoken to my parents in years.
> I'm not sure who "we" is. Society collectively is much more tolerant of deviations from normal dress, appearance and behaviour than they were even 10 years ago. Society takes time to adapt
I'm not so sure that's true. I may have agreed with you 10 years ago but now we have Incels and Red Pills and Men Going Their Own Way and people openly advocate raping women (I have a hard time knowing that's a real thing). I think we've regressed and we're more than happy to shame people for anything we don't agree with. Loudly. Constantly. To the point that we drive people to isolation because they're tired of the barrage. (look up You Look Like a Man for a perfect example of this)
I'll only close to say that I think the media exaggerates this phenomenon considerably because it drives clicks, so don't buy into it. It's the same effect where people saw terrorism everywhere and feared muslims back in the late 1990s to late 2000's because the media was constantly harping on it.
Yes these people exist, but I haven't seen any evidence that they are a problem on the scale the media would have you believe (unless you're on Twitter, which is an unrepresentative cesspool).
* Why do little girls suddenly start to ask if "boys are better" when they get to school?
* Why do we feel the need to tell people out opinions about how they look?
* Why is a tattoo of a butterfly on a wrist okay for a woman but not full sleeves? (Contrast that with men.)
* Why do we insist on loudly proclaiming our daughters are "not like other girls" or are "like a boy"? Is there something shameful about it?
We took away agency long ago and we've been dangling it in front of oppressed people for years, periodically letting take small bites. That's another form if how me keep a grip on things. We give people a taste, as long as they're willing to take the conditions that comes with it.
There's a thing called "choosey choice feminism" that is a hot button item. One side days "following the magazine standards is a choice and I'm free to make it because feminism" and the other side says "but why do the magazines exist and would you choose that if you weren't bombarded by it all day?" I think both sides are right but I also hear and see the problems. It's not about whether or not feelings or opinions are right though, it's about what you'd feel or think if you weren't subjected to it constantly. To ignore the external influences and dismiss patriarchy is to accept the status quo as a Good Thing and be okay with slut shaming and demonizing the very freedom of choice you're trying to defend.
I don't see how this works well for long (and it arguably hasn't) because of th cognitive dissonance required to accept all things to be true.
It's not about whether their opinions are right, it's about where they're valid. Women can have opinions that aren't correct, just like men are free to be wrong. When you say it's about what they would feel if they weren't subjected to it constantly is totally subjective. Some might say women would run around naked because it's more comfortable without societies pressure, some say they would cover up because taking off clothing is a societal pressure to appease the male gaze. But then again, the assumption that all women would think that same is just more simplifying them and their views.
In reality it'd probably be a mix, because women can dislike other women without it being because society brainwashed them to. Saying they wouldn't ever be rude to one another if not for society feels like that patriarchal idea that women are all innocent flowers that must be protected from bad influences, rather than they're normal people who are nice and mean and everything in between. If you're gonna go into the territory of "what if everything were different" you can't also declare you know exactly what would happen. And yes society has taken a lot of agency away from women, but the solution isn't to take agency away from them in service of feminism. This just leads to a different set of problems for women
little boys also ask if girls are better when they get to school. both sexes are curious as they grow up. school is also dominated by female teachers and there are now more girls in school than boys.
the rest of your questions are nonsensical. people are people. norms exist. they might change but there will always be norms, and they will be tied to masculine and feminine expressions too.
"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.
"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.
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.
That's like thinking that gold is not prized.
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.
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.
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.
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?
What is "revealing clothing" to you. We are not in the 1900s where it's a crime to show a little ankle. Her clothing is nothing out of the ordinary in many videos.
If you have big boobs people will notice no matter what you wear, youtube shouldn't act different based on your body... If another youtube would exist who has very small "assets" I can assure you nothing would've happened.
Again, I'm not making a moral judgement. But the first three tweets in the linked thread:
1. Bare midriff and tiny shorts 2. Deliberately fully exposed cleavage 3. A tiny spaghetti strap
Wear whatever you want, but don't be surprised when you get sexual attention, and don't pretend that as a public figure who makes money off of eyeballs that you're not deliberately taking advantage of your assets.
It's like we're not allowed to acknowledge that people dress for attention without being accused of puritanism or shaming.
And while we're on the subject, it is disingenuous to ignore the fact that the female figure induces a instinctual physiological and psychological responses in men. Social norms around modest dress may exist for a reason beyond oppression or patriarchy or what have you. It's tens of millions of years of evolution - not quite fair to pretend that revealing clothing does not force an onus onto men to suppress visceral urges.
Extremely skimpy clothing isn't culturally "sexy" or frowned upon in Chinese culture as it is in USA.
Yikes. That's some incestuous ideology. Thankfully, there are many men who do not suffer from such instincts.
Also, if it were about the "onus", where does it stop? I'm regularly attracted to women and OBVIOUSLY I have to suppress my visceral urges. Do you want women to wear a burkha?
Please stop making such pseudo-intellectual sweeping statements.
(Lack of) Self control much?
No. We are not all that shallow. In order to cause such a reaction there has to be some context, some hint of availability. I like her. I enjoy her videos. I'd like to have a coffee or beer with her. I'd love to be her friend. I'd like to ask her a ton of questions (political, technical, social), but I am not sexually attracted to her. Even if I were, I know I'm not what she likes and that she's not single.
> force an onus onto men to suppress visceral urges.
The universe has no obligation to make it easy for a person not to behave like an animal. That's what the sizeable lump of tissue inside your head is for. It's not a space heater.
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.
Great perspective. Most people (most likely not on HN's highly productive community) find it hard to stay focus following education materials.
Some content creators put soothing bg music, animations, funny jokes. Something to engage. It's an art, be creative of what you have.
For what it's worth, you're a great woman, a great tech and a great entertainer.
Some around here apparently wouldn't win the game of life even with a Royal Flush on hand.
She herself commented in a different reply and agreed to some of the points, yet this comment is getting downvoted to hell
(Disclaimer that I don't know Naomi Wu and have never seen a video of hers. I'm replying based on the context of the OP link and reading through replies)
And what exactly is the issue with that?
Every model in advertising & on Instagram, every actress, and many more do the same. And so far I haven't seen a reason why that's supposed to be bad, aside from religious fundamentalist nutcases.
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.
Taiwan's official name is the Republic of China, so the folks I've heard use the "mainland" qualifier aren't saying "there are two parts of China" but rather that there are two countries that call themselves "China".
Besides, if ambiguity is the concern for people from the PRC, the phrase "I am from the People's Republic of China" lacks any political subtext.
The reason why many Chinese, regardless of nationality, use the phrase “mainland Chinese” or “mainland China” in English is because it’s the direct translation of 中国大陆, the phrase used to identify the mainland. It doesn’t indicate political affiliation in any way.
In principle, yes, and I do think this is an underappreciated issue which, if understood better, could have avoided several needless heated arguments in general.
However... Where does your understanding come from? It runs contrary to my experience from living in the region.
IME, "Mainland China" is one of the least loaded and ambiguous terms, and tend to refer to "the literal mainland of the PRC" (that is, sans Macau and Hong Kong, and definitely Taiwan).
> 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.
While technically, yes, but it could equally (and probably more often in practice?) be used by people who recognize the independence of Taiwan and do not want to force a "reunification".
"China" (and even more so "Chinese") is more open for being problematic as it can imply the citizens, ethnicity, cultural heritage, the CCP, the PRC nation-state as such, etc... Being more specific removes room for misinterpretation, willful or not.
This is my perspective from living in the region for a couple of years. Though I wouldn't say I've knowingly interacted with more than a small handful of "pro-unifiers".
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. :)
EDIT: See now that you already accept the main ones <3
Pro tip for when you have the time: Generate a new BTC address (native segwit bech32; starts with "bc1" instead of "1"). It will lower fees significantly, which can be a difference between a smaller donation being meaningful or not when fees are higher)
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.
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.
Honest question as they don’t seem the same. But maybe they are?
It's fighting against the stupid view that two lumps under your flesh are somehow evil and must be hidden away or punished somehow (but only if you're a woman), or that touching your crotch on television is an arrestable offence, or any other thing in that long list of stupidity.
It's about having rights over your own body, such that you can say "You don't like what you see? Well too bad, because it's my body and my right and you can't do a damn thing about it, nor do I have any obligation to explain myself."
It's primarily women who fight this battle because the rules are tilted far more against them. Most men can't even see the problem.
Here's an interesting thought experiment: A man gets breast implants and then goes around topless like he did before. Can you imagine the chaos that ensues? The legal questions? The social commentary about "decency"? The traumatized children? Can you see the hypocracy?
I’m curious if you are suggesting that is perfectly acceptable that, in a society that prohibits topless women from walking around, it would be perfectly acceptable for a man to implant breasts on himself and then walk around topless.
Because sex is bad, and tempting/teasing people is bad? - as some certain cultures say (but hardly bat an eye with portrayals of "fun" violence or tons of other issues).
I’m not talking about this particular video by the way, but more than likely the reactions to her other videos have affected how this particular video is judged, which is probably not fair.
What if she's like that anyway, and thus doesn't have to "try" and is correct in saying that?
Some women dress like that just fine on their own, enjoy enhacement surgery for certain parts and so on, and they don't have to do it for some audience...
This to me, is disingenuous. If I am attending a math lecture, I do not want to see my professor's abs (or balls or whatever) even if he was the most attractive man on the planet.
The problem (at least to me) is not that Naomi is wearing skimpy clothes. The problem is her channel has nothing to do with fashion (or women empowerment etc). It can be a completely fun and educative channel, instead there is more discussion about her clothes than the good stuff she makes and the good education she provides. All the while claiming she is not trying to be sexualized. All this unnecessary controversy can probably be shut down if she had two channels - one for fashion and one for electronics.
Having said all that, maybe we should grow up as a society and learn to not put so much thought into body parts. I get that viewpoint too.
Of course, she could hide it, but she just doesn't want to.
So? Why should people be compartmentalized, and not be allowed to feel and look sexy whne doing tech stuff?
That's the puritan dichotomy, where the body/sexual is bad, and should be kept inside marriage and procreation, or -as adjusted in more permitting puritans- to specially allocated sexy-time.
And, that said, the premise that her channel has nothing to do this is wrong.
Her intention is not to show how some technical stuff. It also isn't to show that women in general can too do some technical stuff.
It's to show how a sexy, sensual woman, a category often dismissed as bimbos, can also do technical stuff. And that technical stuff can be part of a fun and sexy thing, not just something that's relegated to bookish somber asexuality.
I mean, it's even in the channel's name...
>All the while claiming she is not trying to be sexualized.
She's not "trying", that's who she is.
Naomi Wu never claimed not to aim for sexualization. She talks about it pretty frankly. She uses the handle "sexycyborg". She's obviously aiming for sexualization.
But sometimes advertisers do not want to advertise on that type of content, and since it is their money, thats alright.
Like sure, go ahead. Make that type of content. But don't be surprised when advertisers don't want to buy ads on it.
I remember an earlier discussion on HN about Youtube demonetizing other content - videos about guns, I think. My thought then and now is that there are many advertisers on Youtube who would like their ad to run on "ForgottenWeapons shoots a pre-WWII anti-tank rifle" and many (probably not with a lot of overlap) who would like to advertise on "SexyCyborg builds a sexy mannequin". Large, conservative brands probably wouldn't, but Youtube is leaving money on the table if it caters exclusively to those.
You are sexually attracted to dressmakers dummies made out of 4mm cardboard?
However I do think that western culture is a bit on the prude side and has a strange double standard regarding nude or partially nude bodies depending on gender or its features. Sexualizing one type, while normalizing another.
I'd much rather children grow up knowing what the other gender looks like naked with that knowledge being delivered in some environment other than PornHub. It's insane -- I literally only knew about the female form from reading medical textbooks as a child and had never seen a naked woman until I was 19. Many women have no idea what their own anatomy is, because cultures have such a taboo about it. Yet on American cultural exports, love, breasts or bodies get an 18+ rating and explosions, shooting and murder get a prime-time action TV slot. I don't get it.
Everyone's naked under their clothes.
(1): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/06/john-dillerman...
Use whatever euphemism or descriptive word you want. The point here, is that advertisers do not want to be associated with whatever it is you want you call it.
Call it whatever you want, or use whatever euphemism. But at the end of the day, whatever word you use, the advertisers likely don't want to be associated with it.
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 exactly what rules are those? If you're gonna call people less civilized at least have the decency to be specific. Muslims make up 25% of the world population and many Muslim women find modesty to be an empowering personal choice. I know many myself. The idea that they're brainwashed or uncivilized just echoes of the colonial mentality of "these brown people are uneducated and they need to learn to be like us". You're toeing the line as close to Islamophobia as possible while simultaneously acting as a women's rights champion.
It's so strange that men can disqualify women's voices in the name of feminism, like women with unpopular opinions aren't valid. I don't agree with the Taliban but without clarification it seems as though your just implying that people who believe modesty is a virtue in women are uncivilized. It's amazing that this kind of speech is acceptable, when we can all recognize similar criticisms coming from conservative voices as problematic
We don't go back towards saying that slavery is acceptable.
We don't go back towards saying that racism is acceptable.
We don't go back towards saying that executions are acceptable.
And we're also not going back towards saying that women have less say than men, that women must defer to men, that women should have less opportunity than men, that women should lose autonomy over their bodies, that women who are "immodest" should be punished, etc.
These uncivilised things are slowly weeded out while we as societies learn better ways to counter the baser instincts of our reptilian brains and (hopefully) eventually treat each other with the respect and dignity that are now even codified into a declaration of human rights (very civilised!)
So yes, anything that goes counter to that is uncivilised. I don't care who you are; these principles apply. And if you happen to be slower on the uptake, you'll be pitied by those who get there earlier.
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.
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.
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.
This excuse really needs to go. It's empty. How a company chooses to make money is an indication of internal culture, and it determines the place the company has in overall society. Every company needs to make money, so what? That doesn't give them carte-blanche in their operations, not even in the US.
Huh? From my understanding, "science" has had the same perspective on this since like forever: it's unfalsifiable either way, but both explanations are at least self-consistent. There's no smoking gun against either side, and so it all depends on your priors.
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.
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.
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.
Do you realize how totally subjective this sentence is?
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.)
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.
> 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.
She almost certainly did that kind of research. She's basically forced to at this point.
Because this is Hacker News. We can't summon her with @SexyCyborg or /u/SexyCyborg like we can on Reddit. Heck, you won't even be notified of my reply, and will have to actively check out your threads.
I understand how this policy may reduce heated arguments, but it makes it harder to connect with people, and I've never managed to have an actual conversation spanning several days here.
Search for "391533" and you can find several others with thousands of views.
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)
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.
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. :)
If anything, she is punished for looking too good.
fine, you win, i'll go look her up.
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.
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)
Shoving your genitals in someones face is definitely aggression. Just showing breasts is not.
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.
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 mean, who else would you make a bust of if not yourself?
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.
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.
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.
Where are you? UK? Poland?
Everywhere I've been in Europe breasts != nudity.
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 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.
Have you seen other cultures? US culture is one of the LEAST repressed cultures.
I disagree. Yes it's multicultural; but there are unified attitudes and cultural behaviors that purvey the country. Foreigners who come from abroad to live here maintain their own cultural identity while adopting American culture.
What do you mean by strong cultural weight? You mean like Japan or China?
China has no cultural weight on English speaking countries.
This thread is a goldmine of the most politically correct ways to say "the middle east doesn't count"
This isn't the same as Turkey, but their cultural weight does not impact English speaking countries.
Worldwide I’d put the US just on the conservative Side of the middle line regarding sexuality.
But if says there's more prepressed than Puritan.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-95129...
I think it’s kind of like when you read “public is outraged” and in reality there’re three people writing angry tweets.
I would also probably feel offended if Google told me that my breasts are pornographic just because of their size.
Having a binary 'you have been demonetized' flag just seems like a way to stir discontent.
She has not been demonetised, despite the clickbait title, but classified as adult which means roughly 99% less ad revenue.
Correct
The assumption being in this case that advertisers will pay for ads when a man creates a nude female torso and not when a woman creates a nude female torso and YouTube is simply acting on their behalf?
I think the reason people see demonization as censorship follows the same lines as seeing non-government censorship or "ceasing to do business" (in an industry that generally does business with everybody) as censorship. They aren't exactly going out and burning books, sure, but it's certainly exclusionary and it's certainly targeted.
What's wrong with demonitizing all the videos of gay people? "It's not censorship." Still seems to have most of the negative impacts of censorship. It's a spade to me.
So SexyCyborg would, unsurprisingly, prefer to be on youtube. But she's also dancing on the edge of what people call "adult" (again, I'm presenting no personal opinion here: take it up with Liberty Mutual if you don't like the definition). So naturally she's going to have trouble with those boundaries. PornHub never would have kicked her off, but she doesn't want to be on PornHub.
It's all about money here, not freedom. That was my point.
https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/105920334/my-chann...
I’ll never understand how a nipple is more offensive than shooting someone.
But full nudity and sex? Noooo, we can't have that! Thanks, Puritan America.
Male and female bodies will never be the same, and they shouldn't be.
That should have zero implications on equality though. It means that it is trickier to achieve
Do you have a point?
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?
You're right, unfair, painting with a broad brush. It's easy to feel like people are coming at you from every direction when that's not the case.
Like you've said yourself many times, your appearance is provocative to many, but just as people criticize you for it, you also capitalize on it; at least, it appears that way. (No publicity is bad publicity -PT Barnum)
My question is, what is the controversy this time? You said you see why they did it.
Also, how do you know the guys' videos of printing women’s busts aren't also demonetized?
Seen lots of comments implying that.
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
If the complaint is "your hotel is made of brick" and it's not in the ToS that's a problem. YouTube can't actually cite which of their rules I'm violating- in fact according to their rules I'm fine, and the thing they do have a problem with- my physical shape, would require surgery to bring into compliance with their demands. I'm not doing that.
I think the most realistic path to something better is that content-makers who realize the value in alternatives to the YT model and Google or would like to minimize being dependent on their goodwill, will start to double-post their content to a less controlled alternative (today that would be Peertube and/or LBRY). It will probably not happen over night, but at some point I think that's the best shot at reaching critical mass where it's enough market share to be profitable and all the rest will follow. Even if exposure is initially negligible, keep at it, Rome was not built overnight.
Same thing for Twitter... Why not start having a presence on the Fediverse? :)
I absolutely get where you're coming from, but now that you're personally experiencing some of the downside of the centralized US/China-centric status quo, rather than only trying to have the dictators be more benevolent, start taking steps to be part of something better?
HMU if you're up for it and need help with hosting or whatnot.
BTW, really appreciate you doing what you do and coming in and engaging in the comments. I'm sure you're a source of inspiration for many.
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.
I haven't found a dedicated "maker" instance on https://joinpeertube.org/instances (apart from a specific https://video.ellijaymakerspace.org/), but I think it's an interesting idea.
Now I'm not sure whether it would be best to encourage each maker to have their own instance (complex to administrate, unless completely automated, but at least easier to migrate to another handler), followed by a maker-dedicated instance, or directly host everything on a centralized instance.
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
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.
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?
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.
(An automatic tool setter for the SYIL mill will make it more useful. Having to manually set each tool discourages you from using more than one tool per job. Automatic tool setters are cheap, while automatic tool changers are expensive. I've used a Tormach without a tool setter, which means you spend too much time setting up.)
Thank you
>An automatic tool setter for the SYIL mill will make it more useful. Having to manually set each tool discourages you from using more than one tool per job. Automatic tool setters are cheap, while automatic tool changers are expensive. I've used a Tormach without a tool setter, which means you spend too much time setting up.
Right?! I have to do something about a tool changer, my Carvera is so much easier that I use it 10x more.
I do not suggest to shorten her name though, that's me being lazy typing on the phone. And my suggested title even with the name written in full is not longer than some other approved titles on HN.
Who's a feminist? Those disappear where I'm from. Thing is marginalized women living in circumstances that would make most of those busybodies shit themselves don't need to collect enough ideological compliance head pats and "atta girls" to get a "good feminist" sticker on our foreheads. We have praxis.
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.
I hope YT realize one day that your content is far better and rich than the false medical ads they're pushing sometimes on kids playlists... And that an less evil alternative emerges.
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.