Did anyone read YouTube's actual policy? They're restricting direct firearm sales and DIY manufacturing instructions. Seems reasonable for any controlled device.
Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub
121–130 of 270 posts
Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with fragmentation is discoverability. If all the videos are on one site you might serendipitously discover that you love shooting videos when you didn’t even know they existed. If cat videos and shooting videos are on totally separate sites then that’s much less likely to happen.
Before Google and the big aggregator silos like Reddit and Facebook existed, people were able to discover content on the web just fine, it just took a bit more effort.
Time to bring back web rings. I'm completely serious.
Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Undoubtedly supressors do decrease gas discharge from the muzzle and increase the safety of the system to the user. However, I feel you've chosen a best case scenario and haven't addressed my other points. Subsonic ammunition is easy to press and real suppressors use closed rubber wipes which are only good for a couple shots. I hadn't intended to make that point a technical critique of suppressive technology so much…
> Subsonic ammunition is easy to press and real suppressors use closed rubber wipes which are only good for a couple shots.
"real"? i don't think any of those are even available for purchase. take a look at thunderbeast arms or silencerco for what "real" suppressors look like.
they're astonishingly effective, and last for forever. (which is important when it takes 12 months to get one.)
> When would I need a suppressor? If I'm not shooting on a range where everyone SHOULD have headgear
ugh, have you ever even stood next to someone setting off a hunting rifle?
suppressors are additive with ear protection (super useful for anyone with hearing damage), and also eliminate the whole-body experience of the blast.
Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
People calling it censorship yesterday (on this forum) don't seem to understand the meaning of the word.
Censorship is the correct term for any organization restricting content. E.g. a parent restricting a child's TV is censorship. The First Ammendment only deals with censorship by the US Government.
OK then the word has no meaning because every community has rules and the right to organize and self moderate.
That is what is happening. You do not get to force your voice on another person's platform.
How is that justice?
Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and we have full discretion to decide we don't like them anymore if they do that. I don't think many people believe YouTube could be sued for First Amendment violation.
You'd be surprised by how many people think their First Amendment rights are trampled on by Twitter/Facebook/Google...
Is that more than the people who think that without Net Neutrality, Comcast, Cox, ATT will trample their First Amendment rights?
Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub
#126So will PornHub rebrand as "FreedomHub" or something or launch a similar site for those running away from YouTube for censorship issues? Now's the shot for someone to really compete with YouTube in an area where they seem to be failing.
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…
> 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.
Is there any serious group of people advocating lawsuits against platforms that allow videos about guns? In the US?
Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub
#127It'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'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.
I don't know. Can you explain, why should private companies be not allowed to discriminate, but allowed not to have free speech? In both cases you can say, well, if you're discriminated by a private company, you can always go to a different one.
I my view, the problem is that we don't want to force people (individuals) to non-discriminate or allow free speech. But institutions, it's another matter. If the institution has enough power, it can impede the rights of people.
So people asking for YT and such to respect freedom of speech are asking for them to be treated as institutions, something that is potentially more powerful than individuals. And they understand that freedom of speech (just like non-discrimination) is beneficial (for society) in any institution, not just government. After all, you can select a government too, by emigrating into a different country.
Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is a common argument, but what are the benefits of cars, vs guns?
Clearly cars offer numerous benefits despite the dangers, whereas guns (in public spaces, rather than hunting or military etc) are just a hobby, a fetish, or a "security crutch". The "defense" argument doesn't really wash (buy better locks, or running shoes), and the "militia" argument doesn't either (can you hit a drone, or pierce tank armor with your full-auto?).
The crazy people who don't follow laws can easily get guns now, since they are generally available. They wouldn't be able to get them if they were generally illegal and only available at shooting ranges etc, unless they were willing (and able) to put in much more effort (and money).
Some crazies might be sufficiently motivated and able to do that, but most won't be. That few are most properly dealt with by specialists, not have-a-go armed citizenry.
Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub
#129It'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.
Agreed. While they aren’t directly related the arguments for NN were basically “you don’t get to decide what the internet is for everyone!” when what they really meant is ”oh we’re totally going to do that”
I think it’s interesting seeing these companies be emboldened in their self-censorship of legal things, in terms of guns it’s all directly linked to one nanny state billionaire who finds the entire gun control “movement”. That won’t play well at polls as it does in canned media responses.
Re: Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub
#130It'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.
Don't think it's a first amendment issue, but the printing press in question is offering to print everyone else's pamphlets for free, but turns down pamphlets that are not compliant with its liberal agenda. I think it is certainly entitled to do so, but I have seen many, even on HN, denying that the Silicon Valley is progressively becoming hostile to non liberal opinions. This seems to be a good illustration.
And this liberal agenda is not a monopoly of the Silicon Valley either. Citi recently did something similar, announcing that it will cease to make loans or provide payment services to businesses who do not comply with its views on gun control. Which I find more problematic than youtube given the regulatory monopoly and lack of competition in the banking industry.