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

Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 270 posts

Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub

#71

Post by maltwhiskey »

scrub_tier wrote: post #35
madengr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hunting parks? Isn’t that like a canned trophy shoot? I’ll be satisfied when I can buy a full auto, short barrel, suppressed, 51 caliber, via anonymous mail order, and paid with crypto currency.

"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." Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? I'm taking a chance here on hacker news with what might have been a troll comment, but please accept my sincere honest intent to understand your po…

> Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country?

The Supreme Court in DC. v Heller [1] determined:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"

The definition of the militia in federal law [2] is not limited to those with membership in a formal organization:

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..."

> We aren't allowed to have indentured servitude, but we legally have the draft in times of crisis.

In my opinion Arver v US was a war-time sham case and the 13th amendment's prohibition of "involuntary servitude" clearly and unambiguously prohibits the draft.

> We have the freedom to speak and share our world views, but I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater

This quote is from Schenck v United States and was written to support the Supreme Court's decision that criticizing the draft was illegal and not protected by the first amendment. Fortunately this was later overturned.

> How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better?

Suppressors have a legitimate purpose in reducing hearing damage to the user by taking the volume of a firearm down from jet engine to lawnmower. As for the 51 caliber, I can only assume the previous poster simply thinks that applying a federal "tax" to barrels over 50 caliber is arbitrary and capricious.

> How did you come to believe you needed this capability?

The police not only have no responsibility to protect anyone, but also no responsibility to even actually show up when you call. We saw in the recent Florida shooting that multiple officers on the scene are perfectly willing to hide and completely ignore the murder of children. On this basis (among others) I see no reason for civilians who are not police officers to have legal access to anything less than what is available to civilians are are police officers. If there were firearm restrictions that applied to everyone I would be intrigued, but I have yet to see any legislation that does not completely exempt police (they are exempt even in absurd cases, e.g. from state laws restricting firearm ownership by people with a history of domestic violence).

[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.... [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub

#73

Post by major505 »

dreta wrote: post #17
HarrietJones wrote: post #10

I can't see PornHub continuing to allow these videos. It's not really in keeping with the core product, and previous stunts give the impression that they tend towards the left wing. I give it a week for them to start removing gun videos.

I'd say PornHub, and porn in general, is more liberal than left-wing, so i doubt they'll have anything against guns. Still, they could deem the content inapropriate for the site. Though, given the kind of seemingly random videos people upload there, and get aroused by, it's not at all definite.

If this become a common thing, they wold problally create a portal just for that. After all, if there is demmand, there is money to be made.

Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub

#74

Post by hungerstrike »

tzs wrote: post #40
cezar2 wrote: post #19

It's really chilling to see these platforms, within a matter of months, go from shouting from the rooftops to promote net neutrality, to censoring and editorializing legal content.

How so? Net neutrality concerns ISPs not interfering with legal content. It has nothing whatsoever to say about or do with what content sites that host or provide content chose to host or provide. Transportation provides a good analogy. Net neutrality is about the roads, not about what goods and services the places you drive to on those roads do and do not offer.

These services own their platform. So, they are justified in doing what they want right?

Likewise, the ISPs own the infrastructure and they can do what they wish as well. The Internet is not made up of public roadways.

So what's the difference? I think it's just that you want the ISPs to not own the roads. If you separate what you personally want ISPs to be from the rest of your argument, I think you can see that the ISPs and these tech platforms are pretty much the same - they both own their product and should be able to do what they want to.

Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub

#75

Post by che_shirecat »

chillwaves wrote: post #49
vinniejames wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could be solved with an aggregate search tool. Independent video providors can submit results to the video search engine. Using an integrated, distributed signon (like Blockstack or uPort), friction will again be reduced to feel like one unified system

This is good but what stops the aggregator from censoring results once it gains critical mass? You literally just described Reddit.

Another aggregator. It could even be a clone (think Voat). It's a free market.

Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub

#76

Post by mbrumlow »

major505 wrote: post #60
pizza234 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that it's an area where YT is failing, as this subject has no winning scenario. If they put restrictions on a sensitive subject, a part of the population is going to complain; if they don't, the other part will. If they wouldn't put those restrictions, in the light of the current gun-related events, they'll just expose themselves to a string of lawsuits. I think this is implicit in content providers with…

Youtube is a private company, and may as well ban all content that they don't like. But nothing of this wold be an issue, if they stop being brick heads, and made a better algorithm to distribute their ads, it would never be am issue. Just ask your sponsors what kind of content they don't want to be associated, and then just don't show this ads in channels with this subjects. There, eberyboth is happy. Now for gun re…

I had typed a whole post but you replied first so I would like to continue on the whole 'Youtube is a private company' issue.

For me this is becoming more and more of an issue. I don't know if I have a good solution for it, or if the analogies running around in my head match up well. But the crux of the issue is that internet companies offering very very very public services are hiding behind being a private company when making any sort of decisions on this sort of level.

To me, they are offing a way for people to do mass communication, to a unspecified and in some cases a specified group or list of people.

Lets play with some analogies for a bit. What if AT&T released a memo that you were no longer able to talk about, guns, or any of the other things on this ban list? People would be freaking out. Same goes if your email provider all the sudden said you can't have a gun related mailing list.

The point I am making is while Youtube is a public company they are more of a utility the net society. They do not create the content, they only host and serve it. So they should on be allowed to follow the laws on the books -- and maybe even the same laws that the FCC already imposes on radio and tv broadcast for any video that is public - without paid subscription (much like how cable works, but some mechanics likely need to be worked out there).

Anyway this is just a thought, but I feel strongly that Youtube or any other service that provides public hosting of any content -- no mater how it is monetized -- should only be allowed to restrict content that is illegal to start off with.

On the other hand if they start limiting what can and can't be hosted then I think they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law every time illegal content is found on their systems. A sort of check and balance system. Either they are responsible, or they are not responsible, they can't have it both ways.

Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub

#77

Post by rwoodley »

DennisAleynikov wrote: post #23
hugh4life wrote: post #4

I'm not saying this is one of those stories, but Pornhub does a lot of PR stunts that exist just to get their name in the news. And since we live in the clickbait economy, outlets will gladly go along with it.

this seems like the most logical solution since pornhub is a poor place to host not porn. weapons had a home on youtubes educational channels and as uninterested as I am in guns I'm sad to see them go. I upload educational videos on youtube and don't look forward to the day I'm banned for teaching the wrong thing.

oh please. stop the hand wringing. What are you teaching, bomb-making? Simple educational videos will never be banned. Guns are a special category obviously.

Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub

#78

Post by hungerstrike »

ebbv wrote: post #44
cezar2 wrote: post #19

It's really chilling to see these platforms, within a matter of months, go from shouting from the rooftops to promote net neutrality, to censoring and editorializing legal content.

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, dude.

It's not absolute. You just didn't think about it enough.

Also, I think you were a bit rude.

Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub

#79

Post by CWuestefeld »

scrub_tier wrote: post #35
madengr wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hunting parks? Isn’t that like a canned trophy shoot? I’ll be satisfied when I can buy a full auto, short barrel, suppressed, 51 caliber, via anonymous mail order, and paid with crypto currency.

"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." Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? I'm taking a chance here on hacker news with what might have been a troll comment, but please accept my sincere honest intent to understand your po…

How does a suppressed destructive device...

A suppressor, aka "silencer", is a SAFETY device. If you believe otherwise, you've been watching too much TV. They don't render the weapon silent or even quiet, they bring the explosive sound down to a range that doesn't pose risk of hearing loss. I've seen the sound of a gun with a good silencer likened to slamming an unabridged dictionary onto a solid table as hard as you can. So the assassin in the next room, or even the guy out in the back yard, is still going to wake up somebody in the bedroom.

So the use of a silencer is to protect the hearing of everyone around you. As such, it's certainly a net-positive for society.

Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub

#80

Post by major505 »

cabalamat wrote: post #9
zaarn wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SESTA/FOSTA and (probably) CLOUD act. I severely doubt this is because of politics on guns, I'm not a pro-gun enthusiast but I do enjoy videos showing safe gun care or historic guns (or just the slingshot channel). Reddit and Youtube have both removed the same kind of content from their platform, this is not limited to gun enthusiasts but also includes various other content. People like Cody, who runs Cody's Lab, hav…

> I do enjoy videos showing safe gun care or historic guns I like Forgotten Weapons. It has serious historical information, and I will be pissed off if Google deletes it. It seems to be that the principle behind net neutrality -- that of a common carrier -- shouldn't just apply to the ip layer, but should also sometimes apply to higher levels of the technology stack, especially when a provider has a large market shar…

Forgoten Weapons, British Muzzle Loaders Cap and Ball C&Rsenal vbbsmyt

Good, informative, and educational channels, that will problally be banned from youtube in the future.

Post reply on HN