Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 763 posts

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#131

Post by [deleted] »

geowwy wrote: post #108
sp527 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NRA/Republican Party's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a total fabrication. The amendment was meant to apply to a standing militia organized by a state (potentially in opposition to the federal government). The Founders weren't stupid. They did not intend for any random nut to have the right to carry a gun. The lethality of weapons available at the time the 2nd amendment was introduced is not even remotely…

> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. IANAL but it seems like it applies to people not militias Wikipedia gives some historical context which makes it seem more clear that it's about people not state-run militias: > Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution: "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infrin…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#132

Post by aaron-lebo »

kevhito wrote: post #125
Rebelgecko wrote: post #15

This is very dismaying to see I have used Youtube in the past for seeing how to install gun accessories, put guns together, how to fix malfunctions, etc. Watching those videos has made me a more knowledgeable, and hence more responsible gun owner. This is an especially large blow for people who are part of niche communities, like reloading ammo for 100+ year old rifles. A lot of historical content will be lost. The n…

Please weigh your own personal hobby against our society's clear dysfunction when it comes to gun violence. Does the pleasure you get from learning about "reloading ammo for 100+ year old rifles" does not outweigh my desire for my son to not be shot at school? There are more important things than the issues you cite. If losing historical content and "niche communities" having to go find new hobbies means just a coupl…

I actually had this discussion with someone who is very pro-gun earlier. To me the reasonable position is it's absurd when people can buy weapons made to kill (the AR-15, for example) for funzies. The Parkland shooter was 19, clearly off his rocker, and had multiple semi auto rifles. If you listen to the shooting, you're talking weapons that can fire killing/maiming shots every second. These are essentially the same assault weapons (trivially modified) that were designed by the Germans in WW2 to assault positions. They aren't toys. The only reason they aren't full on assault rifles is because of law, but that didn't stop the NRA from crying like the Constitution was getting pissed on.

That you can't ask "why does someone need to own 3 semi auto rifles?" without the NRA freaking out or unwilling to even discuss it over some absurd slippery slope like "if the government tries to attack its own people and they are dying in the streets, we need our weapons" is absurd. That doesn't give me any comfort. How about you not let your country turn into a hellhole and then you don't need that. But right now people are dying, why do people need those guns again?

Anyway, while I'm inclined to agree with what you are saying, you also gotta be realistic in that nobody is shooting up schools with 100 year old weapons and people discussing that isn't the same thing. That's an extreme position. Practice what you preach.

I can't tell who I pissed off, but based on you getting downvoted as well, I'm guessing it's the pro gun people. You're right, you can't discuss this reasonably... It's behavior like that which makes it hard to give the pro gun people the benefit of the doubt. People are more important than guns, that should be obvious.

My family is a victim of gun violence. You never get the victims back.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#133

Post by Turing_Machine »

yequalsx wrote: post #82
ameister14 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions…

And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it. According to Wikipedia: In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent up…

"They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. "

They also had no vision of the Internet.

So, obviously, the First Amendment only applies to quill pens and manually-operated printing presses. Right?

"The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia...""

If the First Amendment had read "A well-educated legislature being essential to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" you would argue, what? That only well-educated people should have books? That only the legislature should have books?

No, you wouldn't. Neither would anyone else, because that would be a contrived and nonsensical interpretation of the language.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#134

Post by grzm »

CaptSpify wrote: post #130
grzm wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want software updates, you can get those through your computer rather than connecting to Apple directly. I'm not sure what would be involved in opting out of Apple's iMessage system. Edit to add: looks like that's an option as well in the settings. ( https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6430569 ) Are you asking rhetorically? For someone who repeatedly, adamantly, and assuredly posts about Apple and security, I…

I mean most of the apps, like Maps, Email, GPS, etc. And I don't know the answer to that, because I haven't used an Apple product since the original iPhone. If I'm misunderstanding how they work, then, please, inform me as to what I'm missing. I'm very willing to admit I was mistaken if they don't work the way I think they do. I try to keep up with the basics of how they work, I have my friends show me things, etc. B…

Then perhaps dial back the anti-Apple rhetoric, or at least post something more substantial and thoughtful when you do. You’ve seen enough responses from people to anticipate objections. It’s tedious and boring to see the same arguments again and again.

Mail is a mail client: if you use an Apple domain, you’ll use their servers. If not, then not. And you don’t need to use the built-in mail client. If you use Apple Maps, yeah, you’re using their service. You can use Google Maps or Waze or other alternatives if you choose. GPS is a radio: it doesn’t involve any service provider other than the satellites it receives information from, same as any other GPS radio.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#136

Post by walterbell »

kungtotte wrote: post #112
walterbell wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple devices can be used without iCloud.

Yes, just like you can use a car without gas.

Incorrect. You can use apps which have other synchronization mechanisms, including competitors to iCloud. With "document provider" apps, you can use SSH as a transport mechanism for files.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#137

Post by walterbell »

CaptSpify wrote: post #121
walterbell wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple devices can be used without iCloud.

Can it work without any connections to apple? It's not just iCloud.

If you want to block all connections to Apple, configure an always-on VPN to intercept all network traffic, then use a firewall to stop all Apple connections.

If you want to minimize connections to Apple, don't use Apple apps or services. Wire replaces iMessage. 2doapp replaces Notes.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#138

Post by emusan »

yequalsx wrote: post #82
ameister14 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions…

And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it. According to Wikipedia: In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent up…

While the military arms at the time were muskets and bayonets, that was not the only technology available. Many colonial troops had rifles of their own that they used. These rifles were superior to the British musket in many regards and helped the colonial troops win.

Surely the founding fathers were aware of this and knew that the second amendment would allow citizens to have weapons that were more deadly than the standard military firearm at the time. In fact, this trend even continued well into the Vietnam war. It was really only in the past 50 or so years that the military has eclipsed the citizens in terms of standard issue firepower.

So no, the founding fathers were not aware of the M-16 and AK-47[0], but they also had more than muskets and bayonets, and were perfectly content to have a citizenry that outgunned the military.

[0] - I should note that the M-16 and AK-47 are essentially illegal in the US at this point, along with any weapons of similar firepower, so that point seems moot anyway. The only people able to acquire them are incredibly rich collectors.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#139

Post by dingo_bat »

guelo wrote: post #104
collias wrote: post #51

This is the 21st century equivalent to burning books.

No, it's more like a bookstore not selling books they don't like.

Only if that bookstore is the world's only reasonable choice to buy books.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#140

Post by dragonwriter »

yequalsx wrote: post #82
ameister14 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions…

And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it. According to Wikipedia: In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent up…

The Second Amendment did not limit the type of arms it applied to, and the reason that it's preamble referred to the dependency of the security of a free state on a well-regulated militia was because it was in the context of the best universal opinion at the time that large standing professional armed forces for either internal security or international conflict were a mechanism of tyranny, and that having a free country absolutely required a dependency on avoiding those and instead relying on mobilizing the armed populace (with all the weapons of war) to deal with internal and external threats.

Leaving aside gun laws, we've long since completely abandoned the premise of the second amendment on a far more fundamental level with our professional militaries and paramilitary police forces.

Post reply on HN