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

181–190 of 270 posts

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

#181

Post by dsfyu404ed »

cptskippy wrote: post #154
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 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.

If this was in direct conflict with the politics of the average YouTube employee they'd be dragging their feet about it.

Politics/agenda are certainly involved.

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

#182

Post by js8 »

leot wrote: post #176
js8 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. S…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group Actually, political opinion is not protected against discrimination. Otherwise I could create a political party that advocated, say, the extermination of a particular group, and then if you refused to hire me (because I'm obviously an asshat if I hold this view) I could sue you.

Ah, thanks, I didn't know that. However, it appears that some U.S. states do actually protect based on political affiliation.

This is decided in court anyway, so the scenario you point out, while plausible, is only theoretical.

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

#183

Post by leot »

mbrumlow wrote: post #173
leot wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think my post already covers that... Do you think the power company should be able to stop delivering power to porn providers? Should DNS servers not serve dns request for porn sites? Should ICCAN not allow you to register porn domains?

If your post covers it, it should be easy for you to answer the question:

Should YouTube be forced to host porn and snuff videos? Why or why not?

In answer to your question: the porn thing was a dicey question of tradeoffs, and in the US was adjudicated by the legal system decades ago. This is an explicit example of a debate about where to draw lines (a debate that continues), and porn has (for the most part) been evaluated to be in-bounds as concerns ICANN and power companies. For now, at least.

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

#184

Post by Spivak »

kodablah wrote: post #178
cptskippy wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So they would turn down no advertiser and will capitulate to any advertiser's wishes if it made them more money? Of course not, so it's not capitalism plain and simple. To say it is ignores that humans can make decisions and changes the discussion point. It might be that the advertisers are the ones pushing a certain agenda. It might not. But don't kill the discussion about how things slant by saying it's only about…

Just because a company would turn down a short-term gain doesn't mean they aren't profit focused. Any popular site that runs ads is overflowing with offers to run sketchy ads for big money but actually running them would only hurt their brand in the long run. This doesn't necessarily mean that site is editorializing.

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

#185

Post by leot »

js8 wrote: post #182
leot wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group Actually, political opinion is not protected against discrimination. Otherwise I could create a political party that advocated, say, the extermination of a particular group, and then if you refused to hire me (because I'm obviously an asshat if I hold this view) I could sue you.

Ah, thanks, I didn't know that. However, it appears that some U.S. states do actually protect based on political affiliation. This is decided in court anyway, so the scenario you point out, while plausible, is only theoretical.

Yeah. Though I deeply disagree with political affiliation being a protected group (at least in part because you get to choose your political views).

In any case, there isn't yet a gun-rights-maximalist party against which YouTube could be prohibited from discriminating.

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

#186

Post by logfromblammo »

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…

"You cannot invade the mainland United States; there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." --unprovably attributed to Admiral Yamamoto

"Wolverines!" -- Hollywood movie Red Dawn

There are enough guns in the US for every man, woman, and child to carry one, and enough mulish stubbornness to carry on guerilla warfare for a long time. Americans shoot at each other constantly, and have been intensively studying next-generation warfare overseas for decades. We would certainly not hesitate to convert school shootings into checkpoint shootings, and random/racist bombings into vichy collaborator bombings.

Any nation with experience occupying Afghanistan should consider it before attempting to occupy the US. Those without it should consult with any allies that have it.

It doesn't contribute to the security of the state, but it does increase the security of the country. Except insofar as potential invaders decide that a standard invasion is infeasible and instead nuke every city and military base, I guess.

> I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater...

Mr. Ken "Popehat" White would like to have a word: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

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

#187

Post by deevolution »

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 plenty of other platforms out there for the people who believe their first amendments are being violated. Youtube is going to do whatever it must to protect itself from losing money and consumers. If it turns out the majority of the population is disgusted by gun rights propaganda, and that content starts littering youtube, people are going to start moving away from the platform. Logically, they are going to remove the content that reduces their revenue. This is just a hunch though.

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

#188

Post by def_true_false »

enzanki_ars wrote: post #133
krapp wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why host videos rather than torrent them?

I should have expanded on this in my post, but I judge the level of difficulty on whether someone's grandmother would be able to upload a video from their iPhone/iPad/Android, for example a cute video of their grandson/granddaughter. It might be easy for us to upload a torrent, but to most others, it is extremely hard, if not impossible. The other problem with torrents is that it relies on reseeding. Preservation of…

How is that a problem? Nothing is stopping people from seeding their content themselves or archiving it...

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

#189

Post by Spivak »

hungerstrike wrote: post #74
tzs wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The difference I imagine is that YouTube is not infrastructure, they are a publisher that takes full responsibility for the content present on their site. It's not 'X's videos are hosted on YouTube' it's 'X is a YouTuber'.

I think you would have a much stronger argument if someone like Amazon said you couldn't host gun videos on AWS.

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

#190

Post by kodablah »

Spivak wrote: post #184
kodablah wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they would turn down no advertiser and will capitulate to any advertiser's wishes if it made them more money? Of course not, so it's not capitalism plain and simple. To say it is ignores that humans can make decisions and changes the discussion point. It might be that the advertisers are the ones pushing a certain agenda. It might not. But don't kill the discussion about how things slant by saying it's only about…

Just because a company would turn down a short-term gain doesn't mean they aren't profit focused. Any popular site that runs ads is overflowing with offers to run sketchy ads for big money but actually running them would only hurt their brand in the long run. This doesn't necessarily mean that site is editorializing.

Sure. And I'm saying that just because they are profit focused doesn't mean it's only about profits and there aren't human decisions involved which is what I took GP's comment as saying.
Post reply on HN