Not the way,

“Female shooter is dead, 3 others wounded” according to CNN and assorted other places.

But, yeah, it's awfully hard to resist saying “That is not the way you go viral”.

An abhorrent event, but you might wonder if she was a videoblogger who got slapped down by YT bans in recent days...?

I was only kidding ^ ... then this report:

[express.co.uk...]

Animal rights activist unhappy YT had been filtering her videos...

Maybe she did not realize humans are animals as well.

Another report:

In one online rant, she complained that YouTube censored her content by imposing an age restriction on one of her workout videos because they were too racy. She says the company failed to do the same thing for stars like Miley Cyrus and Nicki Minaj, whose videos, she says, are inappropriate for children.

On her personal webpage, she posted another rant about YouTube saying, “Be aware…there is no free speech in real world and you will be suppressed for telling the truth that is not supported by the system. Videos of targeted users are filtered and merely relegated, so that people can hardly see their videos.”

[nbcbayarea.com...]

targeted users are filtered and merely relegated, so that people can hardly see their videos

Where have I heard that one before?

We need an updated saying of "going postal". The best case scenario for Google would have been domestic dispute. Unfortunately this is far far worse than that. It's a "worst case" scenario but I suppose if all evidence of her motivation are wiped, then we will have nothing to dissect here.

I have no reference point as I have never even considered YouTube as a rev source, but this:

In one image posted on her website she complained about making just 10 US cents from 300,000 video views.

Her father, Ismail, told local US media she had become angry because YouTube had stopped paying her for uploading videos.

The platform "stopped everything and now she has no income," he told NBC news.
[bbc.co.uk...]

10c does not sound like much.

With Facebook taking a reputation hit, and Amazon taking executive flack, is this the event that brings critical attention to Google.

Although, I hasten to add, while we may have critical opinions of the company, nothing justifies violent action against individual employees (at any level).

A well known YouTuber that I watch said his views were up on year by about 4x. However, he said that his income was the same, if not lower. I can do simple math. I know that I can be crushed like a bug when I rely on one corporation for freebies, especially when by law they must make as much money as possible. I would be very curious in her situation, what was her earning level and was it really enough for her to live off of. She cracked, obviously but the degree of demise is part of the discussion.

Historically, monopolies always abuse their dominant position. No exceptions.

Monopolies kill consumer interests. Monopolies kill consumer rights. Monopolies kill legitimate competition, exterminating alternative providers. Monopolies kill people. They are a cancer to a legitimate free market capitalist economy. The damage they do in a free market far outweighs benefits.

Historically, the only way proven to protect society from monopoly abuse is to break them up. Most monopolies resist this successfully by powerful corrupt lobbying.

Nothing new here.

.

Fine, but what is Google a monopoly of, and how would you meaningfully break up that monopoly?

Note: Trading in more that one vertical != monopoly

The only thing they truly dominate is search. How do you make 2/3 of their customers go elsewhere? And what is to stop those customers going back to "real" Google as soon as they realise they have been diverted?

Anti-trust laws prohibit leveraging a dominant position on one market into unfair advantage in another (search vs youtube could be tested here), but doesn't stop you operating altogether.

You could possibly pass a brand new law prohibiting named companies from operating in adjacent markets, but that would be to the detriment of society, as the array of intellectual prowess concentrated in Google would be prohibited from, for example, revolutionising the Smart phone market to make handsets widely available in sub-Saharan Africa. Or pushing the frontiers of AI research. Or Information Architecture.

I don't have the answers, but regulation seems the best way to control big entities where there is no physical infrastructure to break up.

Mod note
This thread has drifted well off topic.

Let's call it a day.