There are links to her (4?) youtube accounts, which have all been terminated. There's a link to her instagram, which has also been terminated, however there is a cached-copy here http://www.pictame.com/tag/yesilnasim
It's a pity that Google terminated those accounts - I don't know what scrutiny scares them.
As for the lady, she seems to genuinely believe in veganism and fitness. Whatever weird things she did to propagate that seemed to be working (330K views?!!).
> Why she resorted to gun violence is much awaited.
My theory is this: I went through some of her past images. One of them showed a picture of a dog that was being mutilated (alive). She states that dogs in China are skinned alive because they believe that it makes the meat taste better.
Well, that is going to invoke strong feelings, especially if that's part of your core cause (to expose the mistreatment of animals to the world). When YouTube censors that, they might as well be part of the problem, from her perspective.
BE AWARE! Dictatorship exists in all countries but with different tactics! They only care for
personal short term profits & do anything to reach their goals even by fooling simple-minded people,
hiding the truth, manipulating science & everything, putting public mental & physical health at risk,
abusing non-human animals, polluting environment, destroying family values, promoting materialism &
sexual degeneration in the name of freedom,..... & turning people into programmed robots!
"Make the lie big, Make it simple, Keep saying it, And eventually they will believe it" Adolf
Hitler... There is no free speech in real world & you will be suppressed for telling the truth that is not
supported by the system. Videos of targeted users are filtered & merely relegated, so that people can
hardly see their videos!
Yeah I think you’re onto something. I’m also sure that pictures of animals a lot of people in Youtube’s major markets see as pets being mutilated, generated scads of complaints. When you’re dealing with many millions of people, it is not unusual to respond to large concentrations of complaints. We should probably talk more about how thst works, and how it sometimes allows for careless or bad actors to silence people. Still, it’s understandable in a context other than attempting to be a censor, and just acting like a business. She comes across as angry and rigid in her views, but that describes quite a lot of people. Still, if someone “knows” something and is very angry, it can be hard to reach them.
> It's a pity that Google terminated those accounts - I don't know what scrutiny scares them.
Because they don't want to encourage people to gawk at the death spectacle? This includes all the times a suicidal killer leaves behind a manifesto that could serve to inspire copycat killers.
The Elliot Rodgers videos are still up on YouTube, though. On the balance, it’s probably more helpful to allow people to understand what led up to these events rather than suppressing the shooter’s words for the sake of some theoretical safety benefit.
Although this is negated by the strong positive correlation between media coverage of a shooting and an uptick in following shootings (which I'd suggest is more than "some theoretical safety benefit".)
Google can censor someone as effectively as any government. This is, in effect, the same as the government banning a book. It's not something I'm ever comfortable with, and I'm especially uncomfortable with it when it's an unaccountable company in charge.
To be fair, YouTube/Google just had an active shooter on their campus. If there's anything that justifies terminating someone's account, it would be opening fire on the company directly and injuring people.
You made me scroll through the youtube TOS to see if that was considered a violation.
As far as I can tell it's technically not... in fact, I can't even find a blanket "YouTube reserves the right to remove any content, for any reason, whatsoever" statement. They don't actually need to state that in the TOS, because they do have that right, but, still.
That's indeed quite telling about the TOS nowadays: two people from HN double/triple checked the TOS to find a simple statement and couldn't find it. Yet, it's there.
I saw those, but the first is couched within the copyright violation rule, so I assumed it was associated. I.e. we can remove it for copyright violation at anytime.
For the second, I assumed that "if your content was removed for a reason we justified here, we don't have to warn you beforehand."
I'm no lawyer though and I'm sure in court those clauses would be summarily smacked across my face one way or the other.
You made me scroll through the TOS again and triple check. Indeed, there is no clause for wholesale termination, but they do require you to follow the community guidelines. Those guidelines do say that you can't promote violence -- and while committing an act of violence isn't necessarily promotion, it could be interpreted as such.
Still interesting to see that there's no blanket termination policy, though. I stand thoroughly corrected.
If they left it up, it would get millions of hits due to the media coverage and associated buzz. They can't let her create a precedent where "1. Film an angry rant, 2. Shoot up YouTube HQ" is seen as a guaranteed way to reach large numbers of people with your message.
"people like nicki minaj, miley, many others who have sensual things so inappropriate for children to watch, don't get age restricted. But videos, my workout videos, get age restricted."
Very valid points. Has coherent thoughts, and from her videos doesn't appear to be mentally crazy.
We're obviously thinking about this in light of the fact that she just went on an attempted killing spree. I can see how that might prejudice our thinking.
But I personally have had quite a bit of experience interacting with mentally-ill individuals both as a volunteer and through visiting family members who are in institutional care.
I am in no position to diagnose anyone, but I'd be very surprised if it does not come out that this woman had long-standing mental issues for which she refused any intervention or treatment.
Because from a game theoretic POV it creates the biggest impact. The media cycle will after every shooting will surely keep her message in the spotlight for weeks to come.
I have never met her but my guess is that she is orthorexic with a narcissism disorder and few friends. Maybe many thousands of 'Facebook friends' which is no replacement for family and a small handful of real friends.
I've never heard of othorexia until today. Funny that in a country with an obesity epidemic whose number one killer is heart disease that obsessing about eating healthy food is considered a mental illness.
>that obsessing about eating healthy food is considered a mental illness.
Mental illnesses, at least in present times, are defined and diagnosed when they are an impediment to functioning in a normal manner in society. A lot of people like to say, for example, that they "have OCD" but a psychiatrist would only diagnose you as having OCD if it cripples your life, not just if you have a mild obsession like double checking if you closed your door before leaving home.
In the case of something like orthorexia, it would be a mental illness when it reaches the point where you think of it for a large % of your days, that you would argue and get angry at people for not sharing your views on food, that you would get paranoid and be unable to participate at a family dinner and many other things that add up and make a person maladjusted in society. Can you really say she was not a mentally ill person ?
>"my car attacked by anti vegan animal business supporting criminals"
Her obsessions ran deep into paranoia that people who were not vegans were out to get her. This is the true face of mental illness. Let's not downplay the realities of it. Someone "obsessed with healthy food" as you put it can be more mentally ill and dysfunctioning in society than someone who's fat and eat fast food stuff on a daily basis. It all depends on how deep your obsession runs. The fat person might still be able to not think about food much of the day and function, work, have hobbies outside of food.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
Can we honestly and objectively say that being extremely health conscious is a sickness while habitually eating extremely unhealthy food to the point of obesity is not?
>>"my car attacked by anti vegan animal business supporting criminals"
>Her obsessions ran deep into paranoia that people who were not vegans were out to get her.
So anyone who suspects their car was vandalized by someone who disliked a controversial bumper sticker on it is mentally ill?
That's kinda what I thought, but I figured I'd give twenty spot the opportunity to say what the signs are. I've not spent a lot of time around schizophrenics, so I wouldn't know what to look for. I have, however, spent a lot of time around Aspies and would have a gut feeling for that after watching for an hour, so it doesn't seem implausible to me that he sees something I don't.
That’s a style of web design I’ve seen before - lots of colors, different font sizes, wall of text rants... something about it screams mental instability. See Time Cube for an extreme example.
No, there is a certain distinct style that is different from those other subcultures you have listed. One that is definitely linked with mental instability.
See timecube and "blacks for trump" as a reference.
I'm sorry to report that in my experience something like a 'schizophrenic aesthetic' does exist, at least in video.
I worked for years in the film industry, in a position where people would send videos over-the-transom to try to get financing and publicity for their projects.
Several of Ms. Aghdam's videos (i.e. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x39ovcb) look alarmingly similar to some that I received from people who were clearly not well.
To be fair we were pretty crazy back then, this was before the medication boom. Thankfully we got treatment, now our moods are even and flat like our UI design.
I like this style, and wish more people followed their own instincts when designing their blogs, rather than reverting to the standard corporate web-style we see so often these days.
I think you should consider her age. She is 39 (old) so it is hard to keep up with the new trends in web design and movie making, plus she doesn't look very smart.
I am not trying to insult her but I saw that "style" of making youtube videos and web sites in other people most of them are above 30 and not to bright. I saw similar videos from one old man that likes to talk about demons and how to save our souls from satan and he makes this videos with demons and people in some kind of old graphics.
They all think that what they do is nice and beautiful and nothing wrong with what they say or do. And I also remember hi5, they let you change color of your page and usually the people that were not that smart used a lot of ugly colors similar with these websites.
There is a video in which she's edited footage from "America's Got Talent" with footage of her performing a cringey act. Can't tell if it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek parody or if she's being delusional about being TV famous: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5dax32
http://www.nasimesabz.com/index.html
There are links to her (4?) youtube accounts, which have all been terminated. There's a link to her instagram, which has also been terminated, however there is a cached-copy here http://www.pictame.com/tag/yesilnasim