6 ms·

I'm not a Googler, but would still ask commenters to show some respect for the person who died, and save your opinions about youtube for another day.

by daveed 2y ago

asah 2y ago
In particular, Susan was a lovely soul and specifically deserves all of our respect. If you want to hate, then hate the game, not the player (especially in this case).
- somenameforme 2y ago
  This saying never made sense to me as a game is only a game if there are players.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    The point of the saying is that the player is not necessarily in position to change the rules, or at least not in the immediate short term. How far one wants to accept this as acceptable reasoning is a subjective matter.
    - sleeplessworld 2y ago
      Or maybe not that subjective when looked at closer. It may just as well be a saying that the entitled classes use to defend their selfish and less than good behaviour. Beacause the classes of the not-entitled buy this as somehow having reasonable meaning. The entitled classes have no reason to change rules that are clearly stacked in their favour. But it sounds way better to say the rules cannot be changed. But it is hard to see why this should be self-evidently true.
    - wruza 2y ago
      You can offset basically anything with it. It's another way to say "it's just a collection of atoms working by the laws of nature". Most of these proverbs are just selling bs.
  - matwood 2y ago
    A good example is taxes. Many people think the 'rich', including the rich, should pay more. Every tax form in the US has a spot where you are free to write in a larger amount to send, but I wonder how many actually do? Unless the game ends collectively, it doesn't make sense to stop playing. I will continue to pay as little taxes as possible until the game is changed.
- vintermann 2y ago
  I'm sure she was, but I did not personally know her and I'm pretty sure few others here did as well. It's newsworthy for what she was, her role, not really for who she was as a person. I certainly wouldn't mind reading some personal eulogies about what a great mentor her was etc., or about how she influenced your life with her work even if you didn't know her. But I also don't mind reading critical posts about the role she played, I think that's part of the picture for someone who's famous as a business leader. If people weren't willing to speak freely about the dead, we wouldn't have had the Nobel prizes.
- briandear 2y ago
  She censored things because of politics. That’s not “lovely.” YouTube has videos on the dangers of GMO crops, despite the scientific consensus for their safety and utility. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959534/#cit0001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959534/#cit000... YouTube has plenty of videos about electromagnetic sensitivity about which the WHO says: “EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure.” https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/non-ionizing/emf/hypersensitivity https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-hea... And more stupidity: “Eating these foods kills cancer” https://youtu.be/WGbFnp56csg?si=t54Pcr3uqjrXRx9f https://youtu.be/WGbFnp56csg?si=t54Pcr3uqjrXRx9f “12 foods that can fight and cure cancer” https://youtu.be/FdlKCpEzSAE?si=J6rtKs6valWnamBP https://youtu.be/FdlKCpEzSAE?si=J6rtKs6valWnamBP Interview with Robert DeNiro 8 years about his concerns about vaccines and autism and his doubts about the vaccine effectiveness statistics. https://youtu.be/FJ7iPn39i08?si=mRYD3a3y9HdMPMQ8 https://youtu.be/FJ7iPn39i08?si=mRYD3a3y9HdMPMQ8 Covid censorship was political and not from some altruistic “goodness.” And YouTube experienced very significant growth during the pandemic. So that “lovely” soul was profiting because of the lockdowns. Lockdowns that were possible due to fear and a lack of any permissible public debate — partially thanks to YouTube. Would lockdowns have ended sooner if there was more debate on the topic allowed? Definitely. What about school closures? Absolutely. But videos debating these things weren’t allowed. So no, the game and the player in this case are one and the same. I’m not going to respect anyone that supported lockdowns or supported suppressing scientific debate. Curating opinion (and facts) while pretending to not to isn’t worthy of respect. And, YouTube still allows those addictive kid videos where the narrator says “If you love your parents, like and subscribe. If you don’t love your parents, don’t like and subscribe.”
- nailer 2y ago
  The people in this thread and elsewhere online are generally arguing that she was not a lovely soul.
sneak 2y ago
When is there a better time to discuss the works of a famous person than when they are in the news?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tomohelix 2y ago
Maybe I am a callous person, but I have never agreed to this "don't speak ill of the dead" thing. People live and die. It is inevitable. To the grieving family, I can understand why refraining from insulting the dearly departed is necessary. They are grieving and can be irrational. No need to make things worse for them. But between unrelated people? Why can't I discuss the legacy of the dead? We are defined by our deeds in life. It is only natural that in death, people will talk and opine about what we have done. Nothing wrong with it.
- cowsup 2y ago
  I feel like there's an unwritten "recently" in there. If you were to speak ill of Colonel Sanders, nobody would berate you for speaking ill of the dead. But when a CEO like Wojcicki, who made changes that were unpopular to the end-users (but helped turn YouTube into an actual profitable company) dies, it's considered very impolite to use that opportunity to bad-mouth decisions she made. When her son died earlier this year, that would've been a bad time to speak ill of her, as well, even though she herself was still alive. A better phrase may be "Don't say things that will hurt the feelings of those who are grieving," but that doesn't roll off the tongue so easily.
  - meiraleal 2y ago
    > "Don't say things that will hurt the feelings of those who are grieving" I for one would prefer "don't get attached to evil people"
    - nozzlegear 2y ago
      Few people are comically evil enough that you can look at them and say "Ah, yes. You are evil. I will not get attached."
      - meiraleal 2y ago
        Yep. Feathers of the same birds flock together so one is just a little bit worse than the other and nobody feels ashamed.
kubb 2y ago
I’d take it as a time to reflect that no matter how much profit you make, people will remember you for what you’ve accomplished. Think about that when you get to your coveted position of power in the industry.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Those people won’t matter. Your loved ones do and will though, and they won’t measure you by your accomplishments and net worth.
surgical_fire 2y ago
I have no dog in this game - literally no opinion on what kind of person she was. I use YouTube, even though I don't particularly like it, much like every other Google product. Not sure how much of what I dislike on YouTube is her fault or not,and it doesn't really matter anyway. It is not like I hold any hopes of YouTube becoming any better now. But I find this kind of comment curious. Someone noteworthy and controversial dies, critical comments are sure to follow. Happened when people such as Kissinger or Chomsky died. No one was saying "show some respect to the person who died, save your opinions for another day". It would be fairly ridiculous to say so.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  Don't kill Chomsky, he is still alive
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    Oh lol. I thought he was dead. The point still stands
    - quonn 2y ago
      The point doesn‘t stand, because you made a claim about what people supposedly said or didn’t say after Chomsky passed away. And he didn‘t even pass.
      - peterfirefly 2y ago
        A lot of people thought he did die and they did say things about him.
      - mynameisvlad 2y ago
        This is pedantry at its finest. You can remove the name and still have a point left there. Just pretend the comment only said Kissinger, it’s really not that hard.
meiraleal 2y ago
You know that Google has an intranet, right? The CEO of a division that extracts rent from almost every living person doesn't deserve more respect than a homeless person in SF
- polotics 2y ago
  On a 1-10 scale of nefariousness, I would classify Youtube as pretty low, it's a manageable addiction and with a little bit of self control the videos you watch will be worthwhile. I am a subscriber. Then there is Youtube Kids, and whoever worked on that deserves a 9, and good bye.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
nailer 2y ago
[flagged]
- dgacmu 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - philipwhiuk 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dgacmu 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - nailer 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - nailer 2y ago
    [flagged]
hungie 2y ago
Why? If a person has done measurable harm to you, and your community, why is it not acceptable to say, "this person's legacy was one of harm. They chose to hurt vulnerable people"?
peterfirefly 2y ago
I associate her with censorship. Should I respect her for that?
dangcock 2y ago
[dead]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

I'm not a Googler, but would still ask commenters to show some respect for the person who died, and save your opinions about youtube for another day.

by daveed 2y ago

I'm not a Googler, but would still ask commenters to show some respect for the person who died, and save your opinions about youtube for another day.

asah 2y ago

In particular, Susan was a lovely soul and specifically deserves all of our respect. If you want to hate, then hate the game, not the player (especially in this case).

somenameforme 2y ago
This saying never made sense to me as a game is only a game if there are players.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  The point of the saying is that the player is not necessarily in position to change the rules, or at least not in the immediate short term. How far one wants to accept this as acceptable reasoning is a subjective matter.
  - sleeplessworld 2y ago
    Or maybe not that subjective when looked at closer. It may just as well be a saying that the entitled classes use to defend their selfish and less than good behaviour. Beacause the classes of the not-entitled buy this as somehow having reasonable meaning. The entitled classes have no reason to change rules that are clearly stacked in their favour. But it sounds way better to say the rules cannot be changed. But it is hard to see why this should be self-evidently true.
  - wruza 2y ago
    You can offset basically anything with it. It's another way to say "it's just a collection of atoms working by the laws of nature". Most of these proverbs are just selling bs.
- matwood 2y ago
  A good example is taxes. Many people think the 'rich', including the rich, should pay more. Every tax form in the US has a spot where you are free to write in a larger amount to send, but I wonder how many actually do? Unless the game ends collectively, it doesn't make sense to stop playing. I will continue to pay as little taxes as possible until the game is changed.
vintermann 2y ago
I'm sure she was, but I did not personally know her and I'm pretty sure few others here did as well. It's newsworthy for what she was, her role, not really for who she was as a person. I certainly wouldn't mind reading some personal eulogies about what a great mentor her was etc., or about how she influenced your life with her work even if you didn't know her. But I also don't mind reading critical posts about the role she played, I think that's part of the picture for someone who's famous as a business leader. If people weren't willing to speak freely about the dead, we wouldn't have had the Nobel prizes.
briandear 2y ago
She censored things because of politics. That’s not “lovely.” YouTube has videos on the dangers of GMO crops, despite the scientific consensus for their safety and utility. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959534/#cit0001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959534/#cit000... YouTube has plenty of videos about electromagnetic sensitivity about which the WHO says: “EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure.” https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/radiation-and-health/non-ionizing/emf/hypersensitivity https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-hea... And more stupidity: “Eating these foods kills cancer” https://youtu.be/WGbFnp56csg?si=t54Pcr3uqjrXRx9f https://youtu.be/WGbFnp56csg?si=t54Pcr3uqjrXRx9f “12 foods that can fight and cure cancer” https://youtu.be/FdlKCpEzSAE?si=J6rtKs6valWnamBP https://youtu.be/FdlKCpEzSAE?si=J6rtKs6valWnamBP Interview with Robert DeNiro 8 years about his concerns about vaccines and autism and his doubts about the vaccine effectiveness statistics. https://youtu.be/FJ7iPn39i08?si=mRYD3a3y9HdMPMQ8 https://youtu.be/FJ7iPn39i08?si=mRYD3a3y9HdMPMQ8 Covid censorship was political and not from some altruistic “goodness.” And YouTube experienced very significant growth during the pandemic. So that “lovely” soul was profiting because of the lockdowns. Lockdowns that were possible due to fear and a lack of any permissible public debate — partially thanks to YouTube. Would lockdowns have ended sooner if there was more debate on the topic allowed? Definitely. What about school closures? Absolutely. But videos debating these things weren’t allowed. So no, the game and the player in this case are one and the same. I’m not going to respect anyone that supported lockdowns or supported suppressing scientific debate. Curating opinion (and facts) while pretending to not to isn’t worthy of respect. And, YouTube still allows those addictive kid videos where the narrator says “If you love your parents, like and subscribe. If you don’t love your parents, don’t like and subscribe.”
nailer 2y ago
The people in this thread and elsewhere online are generally arguing that she was not a lovely soul.

sneak 2y ago

When is there a better time to discuss the works of a famous person than when they are in the news?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tomohelix 2y ago

Maybe I am a callous person, but I have never agreed to this "don't speak ill of the dead" thing. People live and die. It is inevitable. To the grieving family, I can understand why refraining from insulting the dearly departed is necessary. They are grieving and can be irrational. No need to make things worse for them. But between unrelated people? Why can't I discuss the legacy of the dead? We are defined by our deeds in life. It is only natural that in death, people will talk and opine about what we have done. Nothing wrong with it.

cowsup 2y ago
I feel like there's an unwritten "recently" in there. If you were to speak ill of Colonel Sanders, nobody would berate you for speaking ill of the dead. But when a CEO like Wojcicki, who made changes that were unpopular to the end-users (but helped turn YouTube into an actual profitable company) dies, it's considered very impolite to use that opportunity to bad-mouth decisions she made. When her son died earlier this year, that would've been a bad time to speak ill of her, as well, even though she herself was still alive. A better phrase may be "Don't say things that will hurt the feelings of those who are grieving," but that doesn't roll off the tongue so easily.
- meiraleal 2y ago
  > "Don't say things that will hurt the feelings of those who are grieving" I for one would prefer "don't get attached to evil people"
  - nozzlegear 2y ago
    Few people are comically evil enough that you can look at them and say "Ah, yes. You are evil. I will not get attached."
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      Yep. Feathers of the same birds flock together so one is just a little bit worse than the other and nobody feels ashamed.

kubb 2y ago

I’d take it as a time to reflect that no matter how much profit you make, people will remember you for what you’ve accomplished. Think about that when you get to your coveted position of power in the industry.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Those people won’t matter. Your loved ones do and will though, and they won’t measure you by your accomplishments and net worth.

surgical_fire 2y ago

I have no dog in this game - literally no opinion on what kind of person she was. I use YouTube, even though I don't particularly like it, much like every other Google product. Not sure how much of what I dislike on YouTube is her fault or not,and it doesn't really matter anyway. It is not like I hold any hopes of YouTube becoming any better now. But I find this kind of comment curious. Someone noteworthy and controversial dies, critical comments are sure to follow. Happened when people such as Kissinger or Chomsky died. No one was saying "show some respect to the person who died, save your opinions for another day". It would be fairly ridiculous to say so.

meiraleal 2y ago
Don't kill Chomsky, he is still alive
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  Oh lol. I thought he was dead. The point still stands
  - quonn 2y ago
    The point doesn‘t stand, because you made a claim about what people supposedly said or didn’t say after Chomsky passed away. And he didn‘t even pass.
    - peterfirefly 2y ago
      A lot of people thought he did die and they did say things about him.
    - mynameisvlad 2y ago
      This is pedantry at its finest. You can remove the name and still have a point left there. Just pretend the comment only said Kissinger, it’s really not that hard.

meiraleal 2y ago

You know that Google has an intranet, right? The CEO of a division that extracts rent from almost every living person doesn't deserve more respect than a homeless person in SF

polotics 2y ago
On a 1-10 scale of nefariousness, I would classify Youtube as pretty low, it's a manageable addiction and with a little bit of self control the videos you watch will be worthwhile. I am a subscriber. Then there is Youtube Kids, and whoever worked on that deserves a 9, and good bye.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

nailer 2y ago

[flagged]

dgacmu 2y ago
[flagged]
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dgacmu 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - nailer 2y ago
      [flagged]
- nailer 2y ago
  [flagged]

hungie 2y ago

Why? If a person has done measurable harm to you, and your community, why is it not acceptable to say, "this person's legacy was one of harm. They chose to hurt vulnerable people"?

peterfirefly 2y ago

I associate her with censorship. Should I respect her for that?

dangcock 2y ago

[dead]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]