Naomi Wu seems to upset a lot of people. She makes things, and was accused by the publisher of "Make" magazine of being a fake, with some guy doing the actual work. She replied by posting long, detailed videos of her making stuff. An hour of cutting aluminum extrusions with a chop saw and putting together a frame. Soldering PC boards. Eventually, the guy apologized.
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.
I wonder what fraction of people here commenting disapprovingly about her choice of wardrobe think YouTube should demonetize videos of bodybuilding competitions, male rock stars, or boxing. Because apparently those are super sexy, though I think the bodybuilding thing appeals to more gay men than to het women.
A user (I'll leave them unstated) deleted a reply with a metaphor along the lines of "what do you expect if someone wears a clown suit when speaking at a technical conference?" Well, here's her speaking at a tech conference, in "context-appropriate" attire that is neither skimpy nor a clown suit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt1OLgGIqhc In "She wears skimpy outfits sometimes", sometimes is really the operative word.
If you have the skills, it generally shouldn't matter what clothes you wear.
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?
Don’t forget about the year she spent asking Signal to put a warning in place for Android users that have third-party keyboards. Apparently an extremely common thing in China and something that totally undermines Signal’s security without people realising.
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.
Great summary. She's also one of the only people to help create more parts for someone living with an iron lung[0]. Unlike a lot of people, she seems to actually 'give a shit' about things happening in the world.
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.
Years ago there was a comment here on HN, to the tune of: "when a man fronts a team he's called a leader or a CEO; when a woman does the same she often gets called a figurehead or a fake", and it's one of those things where once I heard it described I started noticing it a lot.
That event brought down "Make Magazine" a dozen notches permanently in my mind in an instant.
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.
Probably most of us reason from stereotypes a lot of the time. I'm ashamed to admit I've recommended not hiring a guy I interviewed for a sysadmin job basically because he showed up wearing a suit and tie.
Yet, when people make jokes about dongles it's also misogynist, because sexuality at the workplace makes women feel uneasy.
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.
As far as I thought, that’s why she does this, her technical skills and her appearance don’t align only if you have a preconceived notion about how she should look
Why is it a problem that she employs people to help with her work? Putting out novel and high quality videos at a constant rate is hard.
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.
Historically though she's done her builds herself, and she's been careful to call out the exceptions where a friend wrote some firmware for her or something. Not sure about video editing, I think she does that herself too. I don't think it's accurate to accuse her of "movie magic".
> 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.)
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.
As someone who loves her videos, her physical appearance turns me off watching for any period of time. I would do the same if it were a half naked man showing me tech too.
>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.
If you disagree with her looks then simply stop watching. Same for the people who try to stop her from doing what she does just because they don’t like how she looks. There is plenty of stuff out there I don’t like. But that doesn’t mean that it is OK to ban/stop them.
I don't really support to ban anything that could be seen as sexual, but if you put it out, some people will always judge you on that merit. It will also net you attention and can overshadow your other feats.
Should she be condemned for that? I don't think so. But the engineering feats alone will never be the focus as a consequence.
We shouldn't accept it though and there is a massive double-standard in the treatment of the merit of women who are also sexy and men who are also sexy. We don’t question the merit of Ronaldo as a footballer because he also uses his body in a sexy way to advertise for example.
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.
This seems like a failure of imagination. Or maybe an expectation of seriousness which can only be associated with certain kinds of people who dress and speak a certain way.
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.
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.
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.
For any Westerners here who seem to have a hard time understanding why this is wrong:
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.
Yeah, sub out boobs with genitals in your argument, and replace men/man with women/woman and see if your argument is still sensible[1] when women complain that they have no wish to see male genitalia.
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!
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.
I address that point that some woman want to wear burkas, just as some women don't want to show their boobs. Just because most men don't want to be tempted by seeing boobs, some women don't want to see boobs either. But regardless of men or women neither should be dictating how some woman want to show their body.
Also, while I use the term "men" I really mean "any person that sexualizes a woman over their physical appearance."
There will always be somebody complaining about everything. That doesn’t mean that it should be banned. I don’t like loud people in restaurants. I don’t like people drinking in the streets. I don’t like noisy souped up cars. I don’t like people playing loud music in their cars. I don’t like rich assholes. So should we ban all of that? Of course not. We all have to compromise to some degree to make society work. It used to be the case that woman were not allowed to show their ankles in public. I am sure back then you would agree with this because conservative types always disagree with anything that changes status quo. Especially when it comes to woman.
Imagine if men or women showed up to work completely naked. For one it might not be the most sanitary, but let’s assume we don’t leave any mess or smell from those lower regions. People would not care because it would become normal. As the previous poster identifies, different cultures have different levels of normal and it is a great comparison of face to boob. In my opinion the fact you hide something makes it more sexual, not less, because then it is no longer normal and it is now rare. From a economic perspective there is not scarcity causing its value to increase.
Why is it always genitals…? I just don’t get this argument. It sounds like a straw man constructed from what would be the part they prefer not to stare at.
"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 one is censoring her, it's just demonization. No one is compelled to pay her for her content. Advertisers aren't the Taliban if they are picky with what content they're associated with. Artists have been complaining about sponsors dictating the terms of art of centuries and its always been just a niche background conversation. I'm not entirely sure why this is different, it's still private corporations doing business at the end of the day. It's get right to dress how she wants, and it's others right to associate with her or not.
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
You are missing the point. The point is one group is forced to accommodate for problems caused by another group. The problem is the forcing.
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.
> It takes a man to do the sexualization, so the sexualization isn't the boob
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.
Neither sexuality or prudeness should be the problem, rather the aggression.
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.
> For any Westerners here who seem to have a hard time understanding why this is wrong
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.
With the exception of India those other places don't speak English. My comment was targeted at the predominantly Western culture of the HN audience, which I myself am a part of.
> 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.
I hear what you’re saying and I understand your points regarding men. At the same time, at least in the US, I think it’s important to acknowledge that a lot of judgmental criticism directed at women comes from other women.
Just want to point out that many Western countries and cultures don't share this hysteria and shaming around nakedness or female empowerment. Which doesn't mean that gendered power structures don't exist or that you see naked boobs everywhere in the summer city.
Showing naked bodies in various contexts on public television is not controversial in many Western countries.
And not all countries share then same culture of embracing nakedness. It's odd how they never get mentioned. Their views are valid as well, whether you agree or not. It's differing social mores. Defining what social rules are acceptable and what aren't (and hint hint it's our rules that are the good ones) seems like another way of dismissing foreign cultures, which unfortunately feels like an an age old coming from the west
> 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.
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.
Ever stop to consider why? What compels people to shun those that don't look like them or adhere to their standards? Perhaps a tradition of oppression an subconscious jealousy about the display of freedom by doing something atypical?
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).
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.
In Canada, indecency laws prohibiting bare breasts in females but not males were found to be unconstitutional. Despite the lack, social mores and cold weather fairly successfully keep breasts covered here.
"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.
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.
I think there must still be some restrictions. Topless nudity is on the verge for me. The only reason why I think there is a case to be made is that so many people around the world DO find it offensive. But that's still a weak argument.
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 here isn't about sex at all or sexualization. Sexualization is given as the reason because that's all men can see breasts as. If you look at it from a dog's point of view, or a baby's point of view, it's a source of food or just another thing and you may start to wonder what the big deal is with making breasts bigger or even showing them.
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)!
I agree with you on the moral part. But it seems odd to me that you're ignoring the fact that we are talking about a faceless amoral corporation here.
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 ...
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.
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.
>"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.
> 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_).
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.
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. :)
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.
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
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?
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).
>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).
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.
> 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 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.
> 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.
>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.
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.
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..
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.)
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.
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.
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)
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.
> 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.
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.
Naomi definitely knows what she has. Her handle is SexyCyborg after all. But that doesn't mean that she should be demonetized. There are two main issues that are worth discussing around this-
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.
Except it's not an USA thing. Here in Europe showing nipples in a public place is also considered nudity and generally frowned upon. It's a cultural thing, no need to attribute ideology to it. And the culture is shifting - just a century ago it was considered not modest if you wore shorts or short skirts, or two-piece swimsuits, now it's normal and accepted.
This. The music industry is continously producing even more sexualized content, basically utilizing the visual model of porn in their "music" videos to get popular and attract viewers, through appealing to the lowest common denominator of our basic needs.
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.
The title ("Naomi Wu Demonetized on YouTube") makes it sound as if her whole channel is demonetized, while it's actually just one specific video of her making a nude bust of herself from cardboard.
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.
Yes, like I mentioned she has pushed the limits before and Youtube is well aware of her. Not saying I agree with it, but having individual videos demonetized isn't the same as having the whole channel demonetized.
Here's a video of a Youtube video getting demonetized automatically after 0 views [0], probably because of previous videos on the channel.
I don't really get why it has to be 'demonetised' anyway, I suppose that's $Company's prerogative, but the 'here's someone else wearing the same top' tweet is a pretty weak argument - if you know that's the issue, then... yes, one person is wearing a top that covers their (yes, smaller) chest, and the other isn't?
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!'.
It is not demonitized it get limited advertisement because of nudity and that is the problem, there is no nudity on her video. Her video is now in adult with nudity content and most big spending advertisers don't advertise on those class of videos.
Readit News
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.
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/
Dead Comment
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?
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.
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.
[0] https://archive.org/details/youtube-4VKZTmTP7oY
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.
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.
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.
Deleted Comment
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.
>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.
Perhaps there is a good balance that we can reach?
Should she be condemned for that? I don't think so. But the engineering feats alone will never be the focus as a consequence.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is actually a common apologetic in defense of Burqas and similar objects of "modesty" for women.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
You mean; seems to get upset by a lot of people.
Deleted Comment
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.
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!
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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Showing naked bodies in various contexts on public television is not controversial in many Western countries.
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!
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.
"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.
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.
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)!
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 ...
That's like thinking that gold is not prized.
Dead Comment
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.
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.
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")
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_).
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
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.
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. :)
Also, in my understanding, youtube only demonetizes PER VIDEO, not your whole account unless you do something serious, is that right?
Which is a hugely touchy subject around here on its own, for some reason
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?
> 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...
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Dead Comment
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 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.
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)
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)
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.
fine, you win, i'll go look her up.
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.
Do you realize how totally subjective this sentence is?
I mean, who else would you make a bust of if not yourself?
If anything, she is punished for looking too good.
Deleted Comment
Shoving your genitals in someones face is definitely aggression. Just showing breasts is not.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
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.
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.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AFVlGnXMsc
Here's a video of a Youtube video getting demonetized automatically after 0 views [0], probably because of previous videos on the channel.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJd7gRAVFbo
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!'.