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

161–170 of 270 posts

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

#161

Post by cat199 »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #150
cm2187 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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's not just about "liberal opinions", though, is it? Guns are undeniably a public health issue, with 30,000 "death by firearms" in the USA each year, it's on the same level as traffic fatalities and slightly below the opioid deaths. When you have a category of devices responsible for 30,000 deaths, we move beyond mere opinions, mere he said/she said, into a moral territory where it is incumbent on those in power to…

> Would you fault Google for removing videos promoting unsafe driving practices that endanger lives, or promotional materials or sponsored videos or ads for cigarette brands, or videos demonstrating the means by which fentanyl can be mixed in with heroin?

yes, yes and yes.

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

#162

Post by DennisP »

pavlov wrote: post #32
DennisP wrote: post #31

Earlier 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...

If so they're wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that as users of Youtube, we have an absolute right to exercise our actual First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly, by complaining about Youtube's unsatisfactory service and moving to other platforms. The fact that Youtube has a legal right to do what they're doing is completely beside the point.

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

#163

Post by Slansitartop »

pavlov wrote: post #32
DennisP wrote: post #31

Earlier 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...

There are two relevant concepts here, and it's not surprising people get them a little confused. One is the natural right of free expression, the other is the First Amendment. The latter is a law meant to protect the former against a particularly powerful organization, the US Government. It wasn't even originally part of the constitution because founders thought free expression was an inalienable right retained by the people, so explicitly guaranteeing it was redundant. So, I think it's a forgivable offense when someone complains that their "First Amendment" rights are being violated when their free expression rights are being violated by a particularly powerful organization that's not the US government.

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

#164

Post by leot »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #92
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.

Going to repost my canned response: >The government supports free speech because it's important and a Good Thing. Just because private companies aren't required to do the same doesn't make it any less important and a Good Thing.

"Censorship" is a Bad Word because of Nazi book burnings, Soviet political censorship, Fahrenheit 451, and other notions of "government censorship". Its "Bad Word" status means that we don't want it to apply to the kinds of blocking that we think are legitimate.

But the reality is that censorship is not all, or even mostly, bad. YouTube censors snuff videos. And porn. Is that bad? How about videos showing how to make bombs? What about nuclear bombs? What about anthrax? What about biological weapons?

Clearly, YouTube and other platforms must and will draw lines on what does and doesn't constitute acceptable content.

The question isn't about censorship. It's about where the line should be drawn.

For whatever reason, there's a lot of people who think that instructional videos on guns should be in-bounds rather than out-of-bounds. To the extent people are talking about "censorship" writ-large it is a distraction from having to justify making specific kinds of content widely available.

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

#165

Post by tropo »

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…

"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

Do the people get to keep and eat food, or does a breakfast get to keep and eat food?

It's a matter of English grammar. Again:

"Well stocked libraries being necessary to the development of a sound mind, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Is it only people in libraries that can keep and read books?

If you want a sentence diagram of it: https://imgur.com/vTB11TE

Several state constitutions have parts with similar structure. It wasn't uncommon.

The meaning of law should not change when common language usage changes. At the time of writing, "well regulated" meant effective/functional/working, and militia meant every male from about age 12 to 60.

Trying to reinterpret the 2nd amendment away is an attempt to bypass the proper process for making constitutional changes. There is one legitimate way to restrict guns; simply amend the constitution.

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

#166

Post by fredch »

daxorid wrote: post #149
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.

This is more or less the "argument" I bring to bear in gun control debates. There is no point arguing. My go-to "argument" is a form of the following: I don't argue what should be, only what will be. And this is what will be: If a functionary of the State comes to take my firearms, one of us will die. Period.

Another gun person who thinks he's living in an action movie...

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

#167

Post by leot »

clarkmoody wrote: post #57
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…

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.

So are porn videos. So are snuff videos.

How do you propose YouTube draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable? Because legal/illegal isn't going to work here.

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

#168

Post by leot »

mbrumlow wrote: post #76
major505 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you believe YouTube should be forced to host porn? Why or why not?

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

#169

Post by leot »

jacknews wrote: post #27

Although I'm a firm believer that guns should be illegal to possess outside of licensed shooting ranges, hunting parks, etc, I think enthusiast videos about guns are completely acceptable. This does smack of Orwell, and it's not only gun culture that appears to be being targeted recently. I'm also not a conspiratorialist, but it does seem to me there's a concerted effort behind the scenes to "crack down" on free expr…

Note that FPS Russia etc. are still allowed. YouTube is banning videos that show people how to make and modify guns.

This isn't a debate about censorship. This is a debate about where to draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable content.

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

#170

Post by js8 »

leot wrote: post #152
js8 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't think you understand my argument. I am talking precisely about discrimination against what you call "protected classes" (actually, I don't think the legislation is class oriented, but let's put that aside).

Companies are not allowed to do that, but individuals are allowed to discriminate even "protected classes". I can freely choose not to associate with black people, for instance. And that is a good thing. So even today there is a legal distinction between individuals and institutions.

And in a certain sense, "advocate of gun rights" is a protected class, because you have also non-discrimination (I would assume, like most civilized countries) on the basis of political opinion.

Post reply on HN