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

111–120 of 270 posts

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

#111

Post by sigstoat »

rwoodley wrote: post #77
DennisAleynikov wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

how about knives, and knife making?

> What are you teaching, bomb-making?

plenty of folks on there doing chemistry experiments of the variety that folks enjoy watching.

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

#112

Post by deelowe »

weego wrote: post #69
clarkmoody wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about the gun-related stuff is that it's 99% perfectly legal (yes, there are videos about illegal mods, but those were not specifically targeted). I don't think they're worried about lawsuits. This is all about political optics.

I think it's also about those channels not being suitable to advertise on / having a bad demographic to advertise to and them being funded by patreons or private shop backers advertising in-video. YT gets very little revenue from that even though they are high-volume channels so it's just a pure cost cutting exercise.

I don't buy it. Cabellas and Bass Pro make a killing. There are plenty of companies out there willing to cater to this market. This is nothing more than a Silicon Valley political thing.

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

#114

Post by scrub_tier »

maxlybbert wrote: post #101
scrub_tier wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Why do voters need to align their preferences with the US Constitution? Even assuming that the second amendment only allows residents to own weapons for militia use, I think it’s reasonable for citizens to say they won’t be happy until that right is expanded. If nothing else, they may mean that they support an additional amendment to carve out more rights.

Hi! Appreciate the feedback.

So you raise any interesting point. I'm only concerned about the law of the land since it's generally more or less the common ground we are forced to live on.

New question, and this is more open to derailment, but let's risk it.

ASSUME your current policy (liberal or conservative) is wrong, what what extent do you have the right to choose it anyways?

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

#116

Post by sangnoir »

legitster wrote: post #56
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…

Except, unless there was some hashtag I missed, that no one was asking Google to do anything. So it was kind of lose-lose. People against guns didn't really care, and people who like guns are pissed.

> Except, unless there was some hashtag I missed, that no one was asking Google to do anything

Advertisers have been asking Google to do something about the the content youtube plays in videos their ads play against for a while now (not just restricted to guns). If the people who like guns are losing Google money and are a political liability in the aftermath of Parklands - well, this is what happens.

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

#117

Post by cobrabyte »

jacknews wrote: post #104
cobrabyte wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I want it. It doesn't affect your life or liberty that I have it. Stop blaming guns for the actions of crazy people.

It does indeed affect my liberty and perception of (and actual) safety. How do I know you're not a crazy person? Or that you won't have crazy moments (like most people do)? Or that you're not crazy, just evil, or megalomanical? Or just the kind of dishonorable person who thinks a gun can win an argument? I don't want to have to arm or defend myself against any of those possibilities, just so you can satisfy your desi…

By that logic, we should limit owning and operating a motor vehicle to special car parks because we're scared of the mental fitness of our fellow citizens. Why take the risk?

I'd much prefer you arm yourself if you are genuinely worried about crazy people. It's precisely why I never leave the house without arming myself. The world is full of crazy people and those people don't follow laws.

It may surprise you to find that lawful gun owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens out there. CCW permit holders, for instance, are 37 times more law-abiding than the population, as a whole, and they're roughly 9 times more law-abiding than our own police officers.

So, no... your irrational fear of people with guns will not keep me from defending myself. The 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms... it ensures that the natural right to bear arms is not infringed upon.

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

#118

Post by chillwaves »

waterphone wrote: post #108
jacksmith21006 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Google is a private company is why it is NOT censorship.

It's censorship, it's just legal censorship because it's not the government doing it.

That's not what censorship means.

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

#119

Post by ballenf »

Buldak wrote: post #84
pavlov wrote: post #25

It's about time people realize that platforms like YouTube are private publishers. They have full discretion to remove or editorialize content, and there's no expectation of free speech. Expecting YouTube to keep hosting something because of First Amendment rights is as absurd as expecting a printing press to print your pamphlets for free.

It does strike me that the free speech and capitalistic impulses of opponents of censorship are in tension with each other. If YouTube could show that hosting certain gun videos would cost them $X in advertising revenue or litigation, and that their decision to ban them was only designed to avoid that loss, would that appease their critics? Or is the suggestion here that large content platforms have some obligation t…

If they held all content to the same rule, probably yes critics would be mollified.

The problem here is that Google's critics feel like the exact opposite is happening.

edited to add: From the article

> It then posted links to YouTube videos on synthesizing meth and other illicit acts.

Kind of hard to imagine that meth instructional videos are good for YT advertising revenue.

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

#120

Post by chillwaves »

adventured wrote: post #61
chillwaves wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People calling it censorship yesterday (on this forum) don't seem to understand the meaning of the word.

Censorship becomes an interesting tag, plausibly accurate, if the US Government regulates platforms further to such a degree that they make competing with them a lot more difficult, due to compliance cost & risk. That is, if the government effectively protects & entreches the existing giant platforms through regulatory action. Then these entities become something a lot closer to regulated broadcast platforms akin to…

Hasn't happened so why speculate?
Post reply on HN