Hacker News Reader

Comment by oceanghost | Hacker News Reader

Sigh... while talented, she is constantly pushing the boundaries of taste and the YouTube TOS to gain subscribers.

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.

View on HN

So did Madonna. And for good reason.

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.

Madonna explicitly wanted to be seen that way and did not attempt to suggest otherwise.

Yes, she did. And she wanted the right to do it. She wanted the right to do with her body as she pleases, and the right to be seen as she pleases.

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.

My point is different. Is it the same fight? Is explicitly pushing boundaries because you want to be seen as sexualized and have the right to do so the same as trying to push those boundaries while claiming not to aim for sexualization?

Honest question as they don’t seem the same. But maybe they are?

It's the same thing.

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?

> 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.

That's what Facebook enforces, yes. "Male" chests are fine, "Female" chests are not.

Sexualization is in the eye of the beholder. In most cases, men. So men can’t keep it in their pants so women have to surgically reduce their breast sizes to accommodate some boundary of sexualization set by men?

You don't believe they're real, right?

She said she had implants. Do you think she can remove them without surgery?

Why she shouldn't have the right to be seen as sexualized if she wants to?

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).

She completely has that right. I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized.

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.

>I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized

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 is not about the body, this is more about the choices. For example if you’re going to wear practically a thong in a bunch of videos unrelated to something sexualized, and then claim you are not trying to make it sexualized, a lot of people will think that’s being disingenuous. Doesn’t even matter what the actual body type is, it’s a question of what people consider to be appropriate in relationship to what someone says they mean by their dress.

They can certainly do that, but then they need to be aware of how it appears. It’s all well and good to imagine a society where you never have to care what people think, but unfortunately neither men nor women live in that kind of society. People will draw conclusions from how you present yourself.

I remember getting a book on spirituality whose author is an attractive young woman. She had rather suggestive photos of herself throughout the book and the book's content had nothing to do with the photos (and it was wasting space, the book would have been a few pages shorter without the photos). The book itself was pretty good, but it was really annoying to see her photos everywhere. There is not one reason for suggestive photos and yet here we are.

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.

Her appearance is part of her (sexual) identity: https://twitter.com/realsexycyborg/status/139660540781712998...

Of course, she could hide it, but she just doesn't want to.

Wow, that thread. Sexual identities have become very complicated.

I suspect they always were. Society just had an easier time pretending that they were not.

>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).

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.

> Is it the same fight? Is explicitly pushing boundaries because you want to be seen as sexualized and have the right to do so the same as trying to push those boundaries while claiming not to aim for sexualization?

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.

Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted other comments that she’s made on the subject. It does feel like a lot of the debate is caused by miscommunication perhaps, or misleading intent.

Ok, thats fine if she wants to do that type of content (if you don't like the words "sexual content" then make up a new word, because that's not the point).

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.

Except advertisers can’t make a choice to advertise on her channel through YouTube so this comparison misses the point.

It seems to me Youtube could solve the problem by providing advertisers fine-grained controls.

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.

>Ok, thats fine if she wants to do sexual content.

You are sexually attracted to dressmakers dummies made out of 4mm cardboard?

Seems like he is not the only one: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201311/lov...

A lot of people think that looking at flickering colorful lights on a planar surface can be sexually arousing. There are so many fetishes... ;)

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.

Not Western culture. Anglophone culture. Vast swathes of European cultures are quite happy with nudity; I remember nude sunbathing in Amsterdam in the summer being very common and not at all sexual. Denmark recently found fame for Dillermand, literally translating as "willy man", an animated children's show about a man with a prehensile stripey penis (1). He gets into trouble using it inappropriately -- for example by putting petrol on a barbecue with it. Owch.

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...

The point here, is what the advertisers want to spend their money on.

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.

Yes, and for this, the content need to be triaged. Here the content is rated as containing depiction/drawings of nudity, and this is just a fact, advertisers are then free to buy or not.

Depends on what is painted on the cardboard.

You'll have to ask the advertisers what they think on that.

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.

>"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. "

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")

> No one would dream to complain if the Louvre posts a male academic-led MOOC lecture about the Venus of Milo [0].

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?

> We like to scoff at Muslims and their backwards policies about women, and yet somehow Western societies are blind to their own

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_).

Please don't mistake what I've said for whataboutism. The Muslim rules about women that the Taliban abide by are a lower level of civility. Full stop.

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.

>The Muslim rules about women that the Taliban abide by are a lower level of civility. Full stop.

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

Those are the rules that emerge as a byproduct of history as it marches onward. When it comes to human rights, one can note that what is considered acceptable behavior towards a human changes in one direction only.

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.

So basically you skipped over everything I said and made a straw man of "modesty is equivocal to policing women and deciding they must have less opportunity to men". Like you literally cannot consider the subtleties of what some non western believe. Forcing women to believe what you do.. "for freedom" isn't feminist. This is just bigoted intolerant nonsense, and your righteous indignation doesn't make it okay. You would get kicked out of most western feminist groups for saying this stuff. Women aren't uncivilized because you think their views aren't worth discussing and because you cannot understand the difference between women valuing modesty and someone else mandating it. It's exactly the same type of paternalistic thinking that religious leaders use to tell women what to think and what they can't think

"She pretends to be some women's rights activist"

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.

Upvoted you and oceanghost just so you dont have to reply the same idiocy over and over if they are buried in downvotes

I am a huge fan. Keep being you. And you are brave.

If YouTube put as much effort into addressing the pandemic of health misinformation as they do into making your life difficult, the world would be a better place.

Thank you for spreading such good information on masks.

>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?

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?

>its quite obvious that you are well endowed and using it to your advantage by wearing revealing clothing

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.

It's so weird that this is the default response.

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.

There was a video, by her, explaining this years ago. The standard for "sexy" is completely different in China vs USA.

Extremely skimpy clothing isn't culturally "sexy" or frowned upon in Chinese culture as it is in USA.

>the female figure induces a instinctual physiological and psychological responses in men

Yikes. That's some incestuous ideology. Thankfully, there are many men who do not suffer from such instincts.

Yeah, but what about the music video and commercial advertising argument? E g., That sexiness is commonly used in western society? Why single her out?

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?

As a gay man, I most certainly do not!

Please stop making such pseudo-intellectual sweeping statements.

> Wear whatever you want, but don't be surprised when you get sexual attention

(Lack of) Self control much?

> the female figure induces a instinctual physiological and psychological responses in men.

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.

>its quite obvious that you are well endowed and using it to your advantage

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.

>being able to encourage technical proficiency in a demographic that was not looking to learn anything

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.

> Yes, I play the cards I've been dealt.

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.

The amount of downvotes you got for this comment is IMO a part of the issue and undeserved. Gender and sex aren't taboo topics, and pointing out that someone might or might not use their attractiveness to their advantage is part of the discussion and totally reasonable to do, without having to start with "what is sexist", "what is male oppression", "what is sexual discrimination against woman" etc. We're all driven by instinct, and sex is part of that. If someone is presented attractive, they will (usually) get more views, which is also why attractive people are used as models

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)

> its quite obvious that you are well endowed and using it to your advantage

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.

1 question: how do you know their videos aren't demonetized?

Also, in my understanding, youtube only demonetizes PER VIDEO, not your whole account unless you do something serious, is that right?

>how do you know their videos aren't demonetized?

“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.

Hold on, this is important. You're claiming gender-based discrimination but you don't actually know for sure if you're being treated differently from the male content creators.

She said many of them are friends. The strongest plausible interpretation is she asked them.

> mainland Chinese citizen

Which is a hugely touchy subject around here on its own, for some reason

From what I understand it is as often a problem with translation as it a clear political standpoint. What makes the phrase 'mainland China' problematic in English, is that it can mean a number of things. Someone from China using it may do so because:

* 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.

> 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.

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".

People from the Republic of China (i.e., Taiwan) with English language proficiency don't refer to themselves as 'island China' or 'the real China' (barring fringe elements), but may call themselves (ethnically) Chinese. Generally though, they call their country Taiwan and themselves Taiwanese in English.

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.

Expecting mainland Chinese to use the formal name of the PRC to self-identify is needlessly clunky and formal.

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.

> From what I understand it is as often a problem with translation as it a clear political standpoint.

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".

It may be a bit similar to when I say I live in "Ireland" referring to the "Republic of Ireland", which exists on the same island as Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK. I've been here for about 6 years and I would love to see both countries unified as one, both for historical reasons and to annoy the brexiters. Extra points if we also get Scotland and form the United Republic of Scotland and Ireland. That'd drive the brexiters nuts.

In my experience the vast majority of people who use the phrase "mainland China" in Guangdong - and especially Pearl River Delta area - are using it to mean "not Hong Kong or Macau". Taiwan is really not part of the consideration for most people in Guangdong.

I don't have a nuanced thought to add. I think it sucks these videos were demonetized and I agree there's something weird going on when 3d bust test prints abound. Sorry you have to fit so hard to get people on the same page

I'm happy to see you here, and kind of shocked how the discussion seems to flow past your comments, going back and forth within the HN crowd instead of engaging with literally the creator who's livelihood is being discussed here.

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. :)

That's very kind of you. No Patreon and Western sponsors are understandably reluctant to work with a Chinese national- even those that are ok with my appearance. Chinese businesses can't figure out how I am still online, most don't want to risk the association but a few do and sponsor just enough to keep the lights on. It's tight some months though.

Would you be up for receiving cryptocurrency, either as sponsoring (like your tipeee site) or just as donations?

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)

All her recent YouTube videos have cryptocurrency donation addresses for BTC, BCH, LTC, ETH, and XMR (Monero).

You're right! Was on mobile where YT isn't available for me.

I think you can install youtube-dl (or yt-dlp) in termux, or if not maybe use NewPipe.

I do, just usually save it for when I'm on a proper computer. (Piped is my fav altfront for YT so far BTW)

Ooh, thanks for the rec.

You're not wrong. You are being discriminated against. I mean you have so many things that 'family friendly' reactionaries would object to: Chinese, LGBTQ, cup size, making naked torso. I guess they all count. If it was only one you'd probably be fine. It's not a surprise. For what it's worth I do not support such discrimination and in a better world this wouldn't happen.

You may not be completely wrong, but this is her answer:

> 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.

This is pretty closely related to hot tub channels on Twitch though.

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).

> yet Twitter doesn't censor porn

they do - if it's explicit, you must login to view it. I'd consider that a partial censorship.

>She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation.

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).

> 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.

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...

Her videos are not taken down, just have what YT calls "limited monetization". How does she know the same does not apply to other YouTubers she pointed out? Afaik the monetization status is not displayed anywhere on the site for anyone else than the channel owner.

> How does she know the same does not apply to other YouTubers she pointed out?

She could have just watched the videos from a non-Premium account (or not logged in) and tracked the kinds of ads shown.

If that's the case then I would love to know how reliable this method is, and whether she actually did this research before making the claim that other videos are not demonetized. If there really are not while hers is, then obviously YouTube has a problem.

Good luck writing a paper then squeezing it into a Twitter post.

She almost certainly did that kind of research. She's basically forced to at this point.

Seems like everyone is just guessing at this point. She's in this thread right now, why not ask her? Everyone is fighting over one another for women's rights while ignoring the actual woman

> She's in this thread right now, why not ask her?

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.

Oh I actually wasn't aware of the. Yes I agree.. I can see how it avoids arguments a bit, but it'd be really useful in situations like this where one wants to single out certain voices. Seems otherwise they get drowned out by the masses of posts

They're friends of hers.

How many views do those videos have though?

Not sure what the number of views has to do with anything, but this one has over 80k: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LwMokG2urk

Search for "391533" and you can find several others with thousands of views.

> she is constantly pushing the boundaries of taste and the YouTube TOS to gain subscribers.

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.

She's doing it for attention, and that's ok, right? People want to be noticed, and they want to control what others notice about them (see fashion industry). I think there's some give and take that comes along with that. I don't find it that surprising that the bust video was demonetized, or any of the others, frankly. That's the cost of expanding the Overton window, I guess.

> She's doing it for attention, and that's ok, right?

I have no problem with her doing it for attention. I’m only saying that I don’t believe that’s her motivation.

Eh. I think we're all fooling ourselves when we say we're just doing anything for ourselves. People are just hardwired to seek the respect and approval and, yes, attention, of our peers.

> She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation.

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. :)

> She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation

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.

She is a conundrum: is she titillating or expressing herself, or maximising her reach?

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").

>She is a conundrum: is she titillating or expressing herself, or maximising her reach?

Initially, before I was Outed I could not explain any of it. Which was...frustrating at the time to say the least. Now, as shitty as getting Outted was I can at least reference part of the explanation: https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/139660466709473690...

But as to the rest, I'm still on the fence. I'd like to explain, but these things are very personal, and if I won't explain, I understand why people assume the most likely explanation even if it's unflattering to me. As I said, I'm very aware of my own role in all this.

> I'd like to explain, but these things are very personal

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'm pretty sure that explaining things will not help here.

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.

it's mostly about them making money.

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.

> modern science suggests that god probably doesn't exist

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.

Nitter link: https://birdsite.xanny.family/RealSexyCyborg/status/13966046...

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.

>It hard to see how YouTube can defend their actions

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.

> 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

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.

Yeah - I don’t know why people find this hard to believe. The more physically attractive talent will always win over the less physically attractive given all other things are equal.

Youtube has a checkbox for not for kids and she points out that she checks this for all her videos.

Thank you for this comment — this is such an important part of the story.

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.

As far as I know YouTube has video "for kids", meaning video especially and solely made for kids, kids shows, etc. The "not for kids" is literally everything else. There's no real "family friendly" category, all the "not for kids" videos are still supposed to not be NSFW.

That youtube checkbox is to highlight content specifically made for children, not content unsuitable for children

While true the tweet where she mentions this also shows that sexual content is permitted, and advertisers can opt in for monetization.

If she is pointing this as an excuse, it just shows how ignorant and/or manipulative she is. This checkbox is not how she says it works. It doesn't mark video's unsuitable for children..

there should be a way to do that.

What boundaries?As in, who knows (besides the higher ups at youtube, of course) what are the boundaries of the YT TOS?This is the problem with your argument(if you made it, i'm not sure).Nobody knows literally what the boundaries are because they are too vague and YT has clearly a double-standard in both applying it to certain people and letting people know what is allowed.Then again most people, and definitely creators (should) know that YT has stopped being the platform of edgy interesting videos which actually made it explode (especially after 2007).

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.)

But who cares?

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.

> puritans or religious nutjobs

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.

A Christian group Exodus Cry got Pornhub's payment processing capabilities revoked over involuntary porn hysteria.

The involuntary porn thing seemed pretty real and the not so fringe group… er the New York Times certainly helped.

Facebook allowed users to foment genocide (also NYT article). They didn't lose payment processing. The point that puritanical elements are seeking to push sexuality away still stands. Facebook apologizes and promises to moderate better. Pornhub gets cut off at the knees.

the united states is puritan. we always think we've broken away from our puritanical roots, when really we've just found new expressions of our puritanism.

If you think nude statues are tasteless wait until you learn about fine art!

"A bust of herself naked".

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.

> She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a > purveyor of some weird type of titillation.

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.

> She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation.

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)

Isn't this just business?

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)

> She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation.

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.

> She pretends to be some women's rights activist when she's really just a purveyor of some weird type of titillation.

fine, you win, i'll go look her up.

> Sigh... while talented, she is constantly pushing the boundaries of taste and the YouTube TOS to gain subscribers.

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.

If those are the boundaries of taste, taste is not big enough for me.

> boundaries of taste

Do you realize how totally subjective this sentence is?

> But she's clearly making a bust of herself naked.

I mean, who else would you make a bust of if not yourself?

It's basically the digital equivalent of body shaming. And this sort of thing will feed into biased AI algorithms, and shape the world of "acceptable media" in the years to come. It may seem harmless on the surface, but the ramifications run deep.

It's not body shaming, it's sexism by enforcing a questionable modesty standard.

If anything, she is punished for looking too good.

That's still body shaming though. It's sexism because it doesn't apply to men, but it's body shaming because it's only applying since she is good looking and doesn't hide it.

"Balls" are primary sexual organs, breasts, male or female, are not.

Shoving your genitals in someones face is definitely aggression. Just showing breasts is not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com