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

151–160 of 270 posts

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

#151

Post by chillwaves »

hungerstrike wrote: post #59
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.

Actually, I think what you meant to say is that the definition of the word censor has nothing to do with the first amendment or even government. Censorship is the "official" capacity of someone to prevent someone else from publishing. The official person could be an official of government or a private company as far as the definition is concerned. define censor - https://www.google.com/search?q=define+censor 1. an of…

Great, but every content platform has rules and censorship. The term doesn't mean much in that context.

A private platform saying "You cannot say whatever you want on my microphone" is not censorship in any meaningful sense when you are free to pick up your own microphone.

No one says you have a right to the users on a specific platform. I can't go on CNN and start ranting, so why should I be able to say anything I want with Youtube not able to moderate the content?

It doesn't make sense. You cannot force private platforms to accept views against their economic interests and call that freedom.

If someone says you will go to jail for saying something, that is censorship.

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

#152

Post by leot »

js8 wrote: post #127
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'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…

They, and you, and all of us, are allowed to discriminate, and we do so all the time.

However, we have made laws that prohibit certain kinds of discrimination against "protected classes", e.g. based on sex and race.

Being an advocate of gun rights is not a protected class.

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

#153

Post by pavlov »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #125
pavlov wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is that common? My impression is that most people are basically worried that lack of net neutrality regulation means they might eventually get charged more for Netflix.

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

#154

Post by cptskippy »

cm2187 wrote: post #130
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.

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 thi…

It has absolutely nothing to do with a "liberal agenda", this is capitalism plain and simple. There is nothing more to it and anyone who says it's a conspiracy by is off their rocker.

YouTube exists to make money. It makes money through advertisers. If advertisers don't want to use YouTube then YouTube loses money.

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

#155

Post by cm2187 »

In the same spirit, Hollywood should be prevented from making any favorable reference to gun violence. Like cigarettes, guns should be digitally edited out of existing motion pictures, and replaced with bananas or sausages. We will achieve a very ethical cinema, compliant with the most rigorous liberal canons, although perhaps slightly boring (and Quentin Tarantino may need go back to VHS rentals to survive).

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

#156

Post by justin66 »

scrub_tier wrote: post #91
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we actually had a Swiss-style militia system, the constitution would be completely unambiguous. Instead, the pro-gun interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it’s first clause is completely meaningless. I’m not sure how they resolve that kind of “being literal only when convenient” hypocrisy in their heads.

While I happen to agree and appreciate your input, let's avoid words like hypocracy for now. It tends to nurture hostility and I'm trying to get some real insight.

I'm not sure he was attacking anyone here. You need to compare (I mean really read) the majority opinion in Heller with the dissenting opinions. "Hypocrisy" is one word that leaps to mind from time to time, particularly in light of the magnitude of the changes and the way the author of the majority decision is supposedly an originalist and strict constructionist.

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

#157

Post by chillwaves »

che_shirecat wrote: post #65
girvo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that’s kind of ignoring the outsized impact these huge companies have on our lives.

Youtube holds a pretty dominating market share of video sharing but there are 10+ other relatively large sites that you could host the content in question on. There's a difference between access and an audience - youtube shouldn't be obligated to give an audience to content they don't like. People are free to migrate to other platforms (case in point - phub) if they so choose.

people are basically complaining about market share through the lens of oppression and it is sickening.

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

#158

Post by bluGill »

ironjunkie wrote: post #88
enzanki_ars wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to solve a couple of problems first. Right now, standing up a web host correctly is difficult. Getting the settings right is troublesome, buying a domain can be expensive and hard to set up, and directing the DNS of that domain to your home's internet (where most homes, at least in the US, are dynamic addresses) is very difficult. Video hosting is a tricky experience. Delivering quickly at multiple bitrates i…

Good point. And all of this is exactly what needs to be resolved. How? I would love to see some initiatives in that area (beside IPFS)

There are two hard parts: security and discoverability. As a programmer I know 95% of what is needed already exists, what is left is security and some ease of use.

plex (https://www.plex.tv/) already has most of what you need. However if I put a video of my kid's first words on plex how does grandma find it?

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

#159

Post by bluGill »

zingmars wrote: post #64
vinniejames wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out Plex

I'm not sure Plex would be a good option for sharing stuff with others. And on that note how many people actually have static IPs these days that allows them to easily host services like that? As the IP shortage worsens expect more carrier grade NATs to pop up.

Side node: if you doin't have ipv6 ask your ISP when it is coming.

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

#160

Post by _jal »

bcoates wrote: post #144
_jal wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Non-nerds don't, as a rule, understand the distinction. I have had to explain why it is a category error so many times that I have it down to a quick patter now, in a couple of forms - one for quick explanation, one as a socratic QA. The latter seems to work better for people who shout loudly about their Constitutional rights.

The non-nerds are right and the nerds are being weird pedants. Going all well-actually and giving people the verbal equivalent of xkcd 1357 lets everyone know you're one of those people.

Law is a pedantic field.

If I'm bullshitting over a beer, no I don't do that. If I'm having a serious conversation about real things, yes; I prefer to talk about reality. I take it you don't?

Post reply on HN