【枪击Youtube总部的“#反英雄”？】

免责声明：我们从不鼓励任何暴力及违法行径，单纯究事论事，文字中任何非法行为请勿仿效。

2018年4月3日12时46分在Youtube加州总部，发生了一件重大的枪击事件，一名叫Nasim Najafi Aghdam的伊朗籍女子，只身闯进Youtube加州总部枪击了Youtube3名员工后饮弹自尽。

导致的原因是Youtube在Nasim Najafi Aghdam所经营的YT频道，Youtube采取了“限流、言论审查”让她的曝光度下滑，使得她苦心经营的频道收视锐减，进而直接影响以Youtuber为职业的她让她无法过生活。

坦白说Nasim Najafi Aghdam所经营的YT频道，是那种非主流型态的、言论也有些过激，所以Youtube自然有权将她限流。

而另一层面试想，我们全球几亿人的讯息、阅读、视听，是控制在像Youtube这些少数人的手中，这些人握有生杀大权，这样不成比例又不透明的管理，合理吗？

去年…

由于covid-19所以“Youtuber影像创作营＂选择在线直播，讲师大迟到就暂且不说，但娓娓道来的讲师的课程，屁了堆空话、浪费了许多时间后，其实一两句话就说完的事，却硬撑个一小时的课程。

「一堆废话。」

就是要创作者“靠行经纪公司”，没明的说是…靠行后你的 #流量 才会上涨，这竞然是以这种方式在官方处理、官方发言？

瞎的事还有在我再几年前上的 #Youtuber影像创作营 的课程，印象太深了一个穿着皮卡丘的露肚脐小背心的“生理女”，整个奶是横躺在桌面上的在帮大家上课，这到底是上课还是卖奶还是来交配的？很不懂！

今年这场，是认真多了些，但请到“9妹”（台湾的Youtuber）上课，我是没兴趣的，毕竟…

「我比较欣赏是没有后台支持下，而凭自己的实力拼搏上位的，后头有经纪公司或金主再拱的这些网红，我都不想泿费时间看和关心。」

所以不只9妹不看，阿d也不看（其实我不看的很多~~~ ）

今年这场Youtube之所以认真，是因为亚太区的负责人换了，换成一位印度裔的，新负责人来露脸的而且一脸臭屁的很，而今年的营运重点放在 #shorts ，所以为何大家在今年开始大量的做不到1分钟的短影音，就是这家跨国公司的策略。

但我必须负责又认真的说：「Sorry！Youtube你们把“shorts＂搞的像坨屎一样烂！连个影片Cover都不能改，狗屎都比你Youtube强！」

 

上两个月…

我试了下“Youtube的意见信箱＂，毕竟Youtube不时会发问卷来询问，有没有使用过它们的“意见信箱”？ 我一直不给他们做问卷调查，好像是自己很不上道。

总之…

我去信询问“要怎么做才能将浏量调升？或者是我没做好那个步骤以致于浏量大幅下滑？＂我把一个我I don't give a shit.的问题礼貌性的询问他们，拿来试试它们的问卷回复的效率和方式…结果…还真是一贯Youtube的企业文化就是：「你的意见，我们总是视而不见。」

而另一方面的B站，在客服的处理上，就可以看出高下立见了！

但可惜的是 #bilibili 有其它的烂事，这帐还不用在这篇和他们算。

总之，我们近代的人类文明中，怎会一直在两个烂苹果中选一个不烂的这样的“2选1”？

 

Youtube收视下滑多了，和最旺的2018年比，差太多太多！

我们频道所做的每期内容都会同步在多平台上架，而不是只有选择Youtube，就会发现Youtube的收视率永远是掉车尾的、互动也最差。

如果我只待在Youtube而没有多平台的投放，我可能会认为我怎么做都是错的，而会选择关台，但多平台投放后我才知道，有问题的是Youtube。

Youtube也从一个很COOL很新奇，都为“影音创作者”着想的平台，变成了一个对影音创作者来说是“有毒的平台”，不知创办人 #陈士骏 怎么看他创音的Youtube变成的如今？

 

聊回Nasim Najafi Aghdam，不免好奇，她是受到了什么样的挫折和刺激，让她有了这些行动？

她是否也象征了人们对资本主义、对大倒不能倒还主宰着你我日常的这些科技公司，一个行动上的“抗议”？

而Youtube在它们的经营和管控上真的不成问题吗？

它们是否真的从Nasim Najafi Aghdam的事件上学到教训？

 

这问题我们没有答案，但能确定的是Youtube在复制Facebook的路，已经老态龙钟了。

 

※ 图片撷自nytimes.com

 

 

 

[Shooting at YouTube Headquarters: A "#AntiHero"?]

Disclaimer: We do not condone any violence or illegal activities. We simply report the facts. Please do not imitate any illegal behavior mentioned in this text.

On April 3, 2018, at 12:46 p.m., a major shooting incident occurred at the YouTube headquarters in California. Nasim Najafi Aghdam, an Iranian woman, entered the YouTube headquarters alone and shot three YouTube employees before taking her own life.

The reason behind the shooting was that YouTube had restricted and censored the content on Aghdam's YouTube channel, which had caused her channel's exposure to decrease. As a result, her channel's views plummeted, which directly affected her ability to make a living as a YouTuber.

To be frank, Aghdam's YouTube channel was of a non-mainstream nature and her content was somewhat extreme in terms of language. Therefore, YouTube had the right to restrict her content.

 

On another level, we have the issue of a few individuals, like YouTube, controlling the messages, reading, and watching habits of billions of people worldwide. These individuals hold immense power and influence, yet their management practices are often opaque and disproportionate. Is this reasonable?

 

Last year, due to COVID-19, the "YouTuber Video Creation Camp" chose to hold online live streams. Leaving aside the fact that the instructors were often tardy, the courses were filled with empty talk and wasted time, stretching out topics that could have been summarized in just a sentence or two into hour-long lectures.

 

"It's a bunch of nonsense."

 

The creators are told to rely on their talent agencies to increase their traffic. Is this really the way that the official channels should be dealing with and presenting themselves?

 

I still remember a few years ago, during the "YouTuber Video Creation Camp" course that I attended, there was a "biological woman" wearing a Pikachu cropped top, her entire chest was lying on the table while she taught the class. Was she here to teach or sell herself or find a mate? I really didn't understand!

 

This year's course is a bit more serious, but I'm not interested in taking classes with "9 Meow" (a Taiwanese YouTuber). After all...

 

"I prefer those who have made it on their own without any backstage support and have fought their way to the top based on their own abilities. As for those internet celebrities who have been pushed up by talent agencies or wealthy patrons, I don't want to waste my time watching or caring about them."

 

So not only do I not watch "9 Meow," but I also don't watch "Ah D" (in fact, I don't watch many YouTubers at all~~~).

 

This year's Youtube is more serious because the head of the Asia-Pacific region has been replaced by an Indian, and the new executive is arrogant. The company's focus this year is on #shorts, which is why so many people are making short videos under one minute. However, I must say seriously that "Sorry! Youtube, you have made 'shorts' so crappy that even dog poop is better than Youtube."

 

Two months ago, I tried the "Youtube Feedback Form." After all, Youtube occasionally sends out surveys to ask if we have used their "feedback form." Have you used it? I have always avoided their surveys, feeling that it's not very helpful. Anyway, I wrote to them asking how to increase views, or if I missed something that caused a significant drop in views. I politely asked them a question that I don't give a shit about, just to test their efficiency and response style... and the result was exactly what I expected: "We always ignore your feedback," which is typical of Youtube's corporate culture.

 

On the other hand, Bilibili's customer service is much better. However, unfortunately, Bilibili has other problems, so I won't discuss them here. In modern human civilization, why do we always have to choose between two bad options?

 

Youtube's views have dropped significantly compared to 2018, the peak year. We upload each episode of our channel to multiple platforms simultaneously, not just on Youtube. If we only stayed on Youtube and didn't use other platforms, I might think that I'm doing something wrong and would choose to close the channel. However, after using multiple platforms, I found that the problem was with Youtube. Youtube has gone from being a cool and innovative platform that considers "video creators" to a "toxic platform" for video creators. I wonder what Youtube's founder, @Steve Chen - YouTube, thinks of what Youtube has become.

 

Regarding Nasim Najafi Aghdam, I can't help but wonder what kind of frustration and stimulation she experienced that led her to take such actions. Does she also symbolize people's "protest" against capitalism and the big tech companies that dominate our daily lives? Is Youtube really not problematic in its management and control? Have they really learned any lessons from the Nasim Najafi Aghdam incident?

 

We don't have the answers to these questions, but what we can confirm is that Youtube is following in Facebook's footsteps and has become outdated.

 

※ Image from nytimes.com