Dear DJI - in recent days I have come under attack on the internet from people who may well be associates of your company.  If you have any influence over them, I would be glad if you could get them to adhere to DJI's own high standards of interactions with others on the internet, or even better, cut any ties you have with them.


This started when I created a YouTube video recommending a certain 3rd party case for the Pocket 3.  I actually posted a link to it here, because it related to discussions already in progress.  Here is the link to the post concerned - https://forum.dji.com/forum.php? ... =305312&pid=3228113

As you can see, this featured a thumbnail including the face a young woman clearly out of her teens, looking pleased about something.  When quickly scrolling through the templates of the Canva site where I had chosen it, those featuring happy women were more numerous at the top of the list than happy men.  Personally I don't care at all what the sex and age of the person in the thumbnail is, so long as they look happy and can be chosen quickly.  And why shouldn't a woman be pleased about a Pocket 3 accessory - don't women use that camera as well as men?


That post here drew no comments at all from anyone, which is fine because people don't have to respond to anything, and anyway the subject concerned had been discussed enough.


However, in the YouTube comments I received for that video,  there was an offensive attack from a person I can identify as "Ash", whose channel DJI has promoted at the top of these forums for several years.  The initial comment was "An old man using click-bait thumbnails with young girls - that's really creepy."  The implications in that ageist and grossly inaccurate remark might well be legally actionable, but I wouldn't waste the money.  


I responded by calmly pointing out that "It's just a Canva thumbnail generator download - watermarked even - the young woman created the original herself for public use.  Hardly worth a comment, but I'm sorry if it somehow offends you.  There's not many on the Canva site which feature "old men" for some reason..." I finished by adding a humorous remark about realising who he ("Ash") was.  He has occasionally participted here in the past.


At this, "Ash" doubled down on his remark with a further comment which repeated that he considered that I was using a "young girl" as click-bait, which would hinder progression of my  channel as viewers just wouldn't click.

I then felt it necessary to point out that I would judge the age of the young woman (not a "young girl") to be comfortably into her twenties, and observed that he himself had included an image of a young woman in the thumbnail of one of his own videos.  I also pointed out that his assertion that progression of my channel would be hindered because viewers wouldn't click was clearly incorrect, as out of the most recent ten videos on my channel, the three most viewed have featured women in the thumbnail.  The 4th and 5th featured men.  (Of course this could be because of the content of the videos, not the content of the thumbnails - indeed, I would very much hope so).  I also commented that while we were discussing YouTube video uploads, many parents would be aghast at the content of one of his channels and of its thumbnails, (which includes facial images of a child, possibly his own - I haven't watched), and I felt that he might care to think twice before making these kinds of comments on others' channels.  Yes, my temper was a little roused.

This response caused "Ash"to post an even more disgraceful comment - "and what's even worse is that you even state that your most popular videos "feature women on the thumbnail", talk about sexualising YouTube...it's gross buddy. Focus on good content and you won't need to use photos of young women (a third of your age) to boost your views..."  


At this I responded "Groan... You said that if I use thumbnails featuring young girls (as you describe them, I wouldn't) then people will not watch the videos. I pointed out that there is no evidence to support that advice you kindly offered. How you get from that to suggesting that I am sexualisating you tube mystifies me. "  I went on to thank him for giving me a great topic for a future video in which I might discuss what constitutes "sexualising YouTube" and the nature of "clickbait".  I didn't bother to comment on his obsession with my age and the age of the smiling woman in the thumbnail - I really don't begin to understand that kind of thinking.

But wait - it gets worse.  


There is a popular FaceBook private user group in which DJI staff often post responses to others' comments and problems.  It is called "DJI OSMO POCKET / POCKET 2 / POCKET 3 User Group".  I have seen it suggested - rightly or wrongly - that this is one of a number of such groups in which DJI has a management role.  In any event, their participation there should perhaps be reconsidered in the light of the further attack I received there.  

This took the form of two posts of mine being removed by a moderator.   One included a link to the YouTube video I have already mentioned, and another concerning the recent firmware update, which again featured a Canva-generated thumbnail of a different young woman (in completely non-provocative dress, probably in her early twenties), making an appropriate appreciative gesture alongside a description of the video.  I chose this for the gesture, not the age and sex of the person, which does not concern me at all.


The moderator required me to edit the post to meet the standards of the user group, and was couched in the following words - "An old man using click-bait thumbnails with young girls...that's really creepy - think carefully about your content, and how this is perceived by the end-user/viewer, it's pretty perverted."

I used to be a paid moderator on the Adobe forums for some years.  If I had posted a remark like that to one of their forum members, I would have been sacked on the spot.  Once again, there is the obsession with "young girls", an "old man", "click-bait thumbnails", and an allegation that my post was "creepy" and "pretty perverted."  And it's remarkably similar to the YouTube comments by "Ash" - does he act as moderator (if that's the right word) of that DJI-participated user-group?  I don't know.  Did some other person pick up on his YouTube comments?  Who can tell - the moderator didn't have the courage to identify himself.  Or herself.  It all seems both deeply offensive on the one hand, and just bizarre on the other.  A moderator posting messages clearly in breach of the rules of the user group being moderated.  Really?


Anyway, that prompted me to post there that I would have nothing further to do with that forum again, if that's the standard of "moderation".  That is a pity, because I think I was helpful and informative there, and I enjoyed the interactions with other Pocket camera users, some of whom may be participants here too.  My membership there was rapidly terminated by the group admins.  

After this experience, suffered by someone who has tried for some years to be helpful and polite here (as well as learning a lot), I would request DJI...

- to cease co-operation with the Facebook user group ""DJI OSMO POCKET / POCKET 2 / POCKET 3 User Group" unless they require the termination of the moderator status of whoever posted that message and

- to cease promoting the YouTube channel operated by "Ash" under the name of "Droning On" at the top of this forum

so that the reputation of DJI is not linked to the conduct of their associates that I have described.

Hi there, I am sorry for any issue you encountered. Just to double-confirm, the person you mentioned is from a Facebook group, right?
Kindly understand that DJI OSMO POCKET / POCKET 2 / POCKET 3 User Group is not DJI's official group and is not associated with DJI. You may try to report it to the other admin of the group. And the official DJI Osmo series Facebook Group is this one: OFFICIAL DJI POCKET, OSMO MOBILE, OSMO SERIES OWNERS GROUP.
Thank you for your understanding.

OK. DJI Susan,  thanks for that clarification.  I'll explore the official Facebook forum you mention.  The other connection "Ash" has with DJI is via the "Droning On" YouTube channel, whose videos about the Pocket 1 are promoted at the top of this forum.  ("Osmo Pocket Review by Droning On").  Regardless of the offensive nature of this person, I'm not the first member here who has wondered whether a more up-to-date YouTube video should be featured there,  (Not one by me, I hasten to add!).  There are I think a few very comprehensive user guides to the Pocket 3 and all its menus which have been created by some gifted people on YouTube.  One or more of those might be useful to have featured in the forum heading.

fansfe82067d Posted at 2-3 03:48
OK. DJI Susan,  thanks for that clarification.  I'll explore the official Facebook forum you mention.  The other connection "Ash" has with DJI is via the "Droning On" YouTube channel, whose videos about the Pocket 1 are promoted at the top of this forum.  ("Osmo Pocket Review by Droning On").  Regardless of the offensive nature of this person, I'm not the first member here who has wondered whether a more up-to-date YouTube video should be featured there,  (Not one by me, I hasten to add!).  There are I think a few very comprehensive user guides to the Pocket 3 and all its menus which have been created by some gifted people on YouTube.  One or more of those might be useful to have featured in the forum heading.

You worry too much, ignore the comment and move on or, just block the user on YT
The initial comment wasn't overly creepy in my opinion, it was a wee rant about click bait, thats all, sound like its all blown out of proportion and to be fair, i didn't read all of your post, I'm sorry it was just too long winded, once i read the initial complaint, that was enough.

Also, i highly doubt that person "Ash" is anything to do with DJI at all, just another person from Joe Public, shake it off and move on.

Bashy Posted at 2-3 04:37
You worry too much, ignore the comment and move on or, just block the user on YT
The initial comment wasn't overly creepy in my opinion, it was a wee rant about click bait, thats all, sound like its all blown out of proportion and to be fair, i didn't read all of your post, I'm sorry it was just too long winded, once i read the initial complaint, that was enough.

A wise tuber once said comments are more about what the commenter is going through and sometimes  very little about the poster. Roll away the dew.

Good advice - thanks.

Blellow Posted at 2-3 07:59
A wise tuber once said comments are more about what the commenter is going through and sometimes  very little about the poster. Roll away the dew.

Yep, exactly Our mood plays a big part in how we comment.

The commentators are absolutely right.
It is more the rule that you use your own images or images of people that are directly related to the videos in the thumbnails.

You say the girl isn't young at all... well... compared to you, she could probably be your great-granddaughter.

You say you don't care at all what the sex and age of the person is? Very good! Then work with your own pictures. Or why shouldn't an old man use a DJI Pocket 3 camera?

By the way, here's a thumbnail from another of your videos, which YouTube suggests directly. No, of course there is no particular reason why this frame is being used as your thumbnail...



Do the girls know that you secretly filmed them, followed them, zoomed in on certain parts of their bodies in the video and then used the image as a thumbnail for your video?  
It's disgusting, but it shows very clearly what's going on in your head.

Timestamp in the Video is t=929



And now you are demanding that DJI should stop working with this person because they have publicly and yet politely expressed their own opinion to you?  So you seriously think it would be appropriate to penalize the person with possibly enormous monetary disadvantages?

As a result, I am of the opinion that i should report all your videos with strange and misleading images. Who knows, maybe your YouTube account will then be completely blocked after that?

JustName Posted at 2-4 03:02
The commentators are absolutely right.
It is more the rule that you use your own images or images of people that are directly related to the videos in the thumbnails.

I hardly know where to begin,,,

Firstly, this constant playing of the ageism card is really so unfortunate, and offensive.  My age does not matter.  The age of the person in the image provided for the purpose by the thumbnail generating system which I suspect is one of the most used does not matter (if there is absolutely no possiblity of exploitation).  The sex of the person does not matter.  It is a pleased looking person.  IF you are saying that older people should only include thumbnail images of older people, would you also say that (for instance) people from Nigeria should only include thumbnail images of other people from Nigeria?  This obsession people have that somehow a picture of a young woman has some kind of improper connotation really troubles me. The woman in the picture is probably 25.  My oldest granddaughter is 17.  Great granddaughter?  Do the maths.  And if she was - and is in her mid twenties - so what?

You say I should work with my own images.  Are you living in the dark ages?  Great swathes of YouTube videos have thumbnails incorporating highly sexualised images of AI-created women.  Why this sudden obsession with one video which has the head and shoulders of a woman without the slightest connotation of sexualisation?  The wording of the thumbnail included nothing other than descriptive materail about the content of the video.  Any number of videos out there have wording which has almost nothing to do with the content or which encourages the viewer to think that something will be shown which isn't.  Why this fascination with this particular thumbnail which wouldn't rank as even one out of ten in the "clickbait" scale.  Would anyone really watch it in the hope of seeing the happy person on the picture, in the video?  This is so ridiculous.

And then we come to the thumbnail from the shopping mall (one where photography is permitted).  The young women in that thumbnail are in the video.  So by your standards, it's fine.  They were not exactly hiding themselves as they wandered through the mall.  The shot wasn't taken through the window of a private house.  People watching videos are all over YouTube, sometimes just as that, sometimes in the form of "city walks".  Why suddenly latch onto this one, which was intended to establish whether that particular camera could be used for that genre of video?

As for the original complainant, and the Facebook group moderator, "politely" expressing their opinion on the matter, using grossly incorrect statements about a "young girl", calling me an "old man" which is not something anyone who knows me would dream of describing me as, using words like "creepy", "gross", and in the case of the moderator, "perverted" - you call that "politely"?  

If you wish to report "all my videos with strange and misleading images", go for it.  If YouTube took those down, if they found any there which did did not comply with their published standards, they would first have to take down the millions of others which would fail to meet your bizarre standards, and I can't begin to imagine that happening.  Please, spend a bit of time trawling around YouTube and get real.  Either you have no idea of what is out there, or you spend all your waking hours commenting on people's video thumbnails which do not happen to meet your personal standards, or you have some reason for pursuing this matter in order to... what??

fansfe82067d Posted at 2-4 06:06
I hardly know where to begin,,,

Firstly, this constant playing of the ageism card is really so unfortunate, and offensive.  My age does not matter.  The age of the person in the image provided for the purpose by the thumbnail generating system which I suspect is one of the most used does not matter (if there is absolutely no possiblity of exploitation).  The sex of the person does not matter.  It is a pleased looking person.  IF you are saying that older people should only include thumbnail images of older people, would you also say that (for instance) people from Nigeria should only include thumbnail images of other people from Nigeria?  This obsession people have that somehow a picture of a young woman has some kind of improper connotation really troubles me. The woman in the picture is probably 25.  My oldest granddaughter is 17.  Great granddaughter?  Do the maths.  And if she was - and is in her mid twenties - so what?

There is a lot of text, but still unanswered questions.

Do the girls know that you secretly filmed them?  
Do they know, that you followed them with a hidden cam, zoomed in on certain parts of their bodies and then used the image as a thumbnail for your video?  

Read the video description.  And note that there is not a single frame which does not show them head to toe.  Your statement that I "zoomed in on certain parts of their bodies" is an obvious gross exaggeration, and a rather questionable perception.  If you want to discuss these matters, please do so rationally and without insults and exaggerations. When I woke up this morning I suddenly realised what encounter in recent weeks has triggered this vendetta.  As it relates to a mental health issue, I will not discuss that further.

The idea of ‘people watching on the mall’ seems a bit tacky. I can see that general videoing of the mall itself where people walk in and out of a shot as you video doesn’t seem so bad, but using a camera with the sole purpose of watching people is kind of strange and feels a bit risky to me. The public have the choice to walk away from your camera in general videoing of the mall, but not when you are actively tracking them.

I’m guessing that should a passerby see what you are doing you would claim that you are in a public space and so are allowed to include them in the video, but you aren’t just including them, but featuring them and you could be in a grey area.

I’m not sure that is a great idea to be honest.

In the UK, we aren't allowed to video in a privately owned shopping mall, although people do and don't get stopped. I was stopped once at Christmas, videoing the decorations and my wife and daughter on an escalator. Security stopped me. Even though I was videoing my wife!

I would be very careful doing this.

Iancraig10 Posted at 2-4 14:29
The idea of ‘people watching on the mall’ seems a bit tacky. I can see that general videoing of the mall itself where people walk in and out of a shot as you video doesn’t seem so bad, but using a camera with the sole purpose of watching people is kind of strange and feels a bit risky to me. The public have the choice to walk away from your camera in general videoing of the mall, but not when you are actively tracking them.

I’m guessing that should a passerby see what you are doing you would claim that you are in a public space and so are allowed to include them in the video, but you aren’t just including them, but featuring them and you could be in a grey area.

Good points, politely expressed.  I should explain that I have worked with Chinese videographers in the past, and there there seems to be no inhibition at all about making videos of people in the malls and streets, sometimes featuring only fashionable young women with lingering shots.  It's simply a different cultural norm, and in fact there are some city locations where groups of cameramen (and a small number of camerawomen) shoot the women as they pass - and it's evident that many of the women go there to achieve online fame.  But of course what is acceptable in one country may not be acceptable elsewhere.  Yet the internet coverss the world.  Well, I have no plan at all to shoot anything further of that sort anyway.  It's not partciularly my thing.

fansfe82067d Posted at 2-4 13:38
Read the video description.  And note that there is not a single frame which does not show them head to toe.  Your statement that I "zoomed in on certain parts of their bodies" is an obvious gross exaggeration, and a rather questionable perception.  If you want to discuss these matters, please do so rationally and without insults and exaggerations. When I woke up this morning I suddenly realised what encounter in recent weeks has triggered this vendetta.  As it relates to a mental health issue, I will not discuss that further.

And still... my questions are not answered.
Do the girls know that? Do they know that you show their butts in the center of the picture and use it as a thumbnail for your video?

What you are doing is very disgusting behavior and I am sure also in your country there would be legal consequences for such filming.

Would you feel comfortable if someone did the same with your wife and/or daughters? Would you be comfortable doing the same if the women were wives or daughters of close friends or relatives and you knew they would come across these on YouTube? Personalize the questions for a different perspective.

If my daughter was as proud of her appearance as these young women were, and dressed in a very unusual style (for this city) to show off their beauty, she and I would probably be entirely happy that someone featured them and endorsed their self-presentation in a shot taken in a public place where anyone could see them. But probably nobody would take a great deal of notice as there are tens of thousands of such thumbnails all over YouTube which don't seem to give rise to any comment at all.  Mine, however, causes all this fuss, for reasons to which I have alluded.  I know what this is all about.

I hope those participating in this vendetta will bear in mind the original simple image of the head and shoulders of a woman in her mid twenties which was provided by a female creator for use in YouTube thumbnails.  It was not worthy of any comment, but the complainant is using it to pursue an agenda of which I am now aware.  The original complainant runs a channel where small children feature in the video thumbnails.  Many parents would be horrified by that.  If we are going to talk about my daughter in relation to this matter, I sure as hell  wouldn't have put her in a thumbnail of a public video when she was way too young to give informed consent.  So it's very easy to go to someone's channel and start picking on all sorts of things that you might take exception to - but boy, you'd have to have a lot of time on your hands and a strange mindset to want to do that, day after day.

fansfe82067d Posted at 2-5 14:00
If my daughter was as proud of her appearance as these young women were, and dressed in a very unusual style (for this city) to show off their beauty, she and I would probably be entirely happy that someone featured them and endorsed their self-presentation in a shot taken in a public place where anyone could see them. But probably nobody would take a great deal of notice as there are tens of thousands of such thumbnails all over YouTube which don't seem to give rise to any comment at all.  Mine, however, causes all this fuss, for reasons to which I have alluded.  I know what this is all about.

I hope those participating in this vendetta will bear in mind the original simple image of the head and shoulders of a woman in her mid twenties which was provided by a female creator for use in YouTube thumbnails.  It was not worthy of any comment, but the complainant is using it to pursue an agenda of which I am now aware.  The original complainant runs a channel where small children feature in the video thumbnails.  Many parents would be horrified by that.  If we are going to talk about my daughter in relation to this matter, I sure as hell  wouldn't have put her in a thumbnail of a public video when she was way too young to give informed consent.  So it's very easy to go to someone's channel and start picking on all sorts of things that you might take exception to - but boy, you'd have to have a lot of time on your hands and a strange mindset to want to do that, day after day.

Vendetta? Calm down. There are just some people who disagree with you on this. There is no "vendetta". You posted all of this here and now you can't accept any criticism.

I used to wonder why old, white men were portrayed so critically. Now I know why...

Let's summarize: An old man uses pictures of young women as teasers for his videos. Knowing full well that most people will click on the video not because of the content, but because of the photo.
In the same way, he stalks very young women in the shopping center with a hidden camera, follows them and points the camera at their buttocks and uses a screenshot of them as a preview image for his video.
When it is pointed out that this is not okay, he feels persecuted and demands that uninvolved parties punish those who have pointed this out.

DaveSp Posted at 2-5 14:13
Vendetta? Calm down. There are just some people who disagree with you on this. There is no "vendetta". You posted all of this here and now you can't accept any criticism.

Criticism I can take.  Abuse and lies is something else.  Ageism I will not accept.  What has my age got to do with anything?  If I was in my twenties, the content of my thumbnails and videos would not cause these ccomments?  Racism expressed in the post following yours (which I wll not dignify with a response) I will not accept - what has the colour of my skin got to do with this??.  I raised this here because it appeared that these disgraceful allegations were originated by DJI associates (correct in one respect, incorrect in the other).  The result has been even more appalling attacks.

The content of my channel and the thumbnails used are nothing compared with tens of thousands out there, where every video is full of suggestive videos of scantily dressed women, with thumbnails to match.  Is the originator of this campaign posting on all their videos too??  Heck, he'd be a busy man. Ask yourself why a head and shoulders image of a fully dressed mature woman should give rise to all this focus on my channel and effectively terminate my membership of a substantial Facebook group to which I had made significant contributions over many month.  If you don't think that's a vendetta then I have to disagree.  Because this is related to a mental health issue suffered by someone else, I'm not going to set out the reasons for it, but vendetta is the only way I can describe it.