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

221–230 of 270 posts

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

#221

Post by enzanki_ars »

jpindar wrote: post #214
enzanki_ars wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is it about torrents that are specifically difficult for grandmothers? I've used several torrent clients and none of them asked me my age or gender, much less whether I had grandchildren.

The problem is that you need to show them how to transfer the video to their computer, how to create a torrent for it, and how to send out the magnet or torrent link/file. I would never be able to get any of my grandparents to follow and remember any of those steps, let alone teach them why they need to leave their computer on for me to access it. The entire process is painful. I can teach them to upload to Facebook or YouTube easily. Torrents, not so much.

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

#222

Post by alethiophile »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #210
alethiophile wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of the time when it was written, "militia" meant the entire male population of military age. You can look up period law codes and find this kind of definition. It wasn't a legal fiction, either; that was the only civil defense most communities had, and threats were fairly common (e.g. Indian raids). The plain meaning of the second amendment, in this context, is that _anyone_ is allowed to own arms, bec…

Yes, even if you take the period definition of militia, that doesn't mean the clause is meaningless today, it just means the context of the amendment is archaic. The fact that the meaning is still twisted: > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State to mean tyrannical impositions by a standing army of the same state, as opposed to a foreign state, is categorically ridiculous.

It quite obviously meant both. The British army, against whom the people who wrote that clause had just finished fighting a revolution, was an army of "the same state" when the fighting was happening.

Any attempt to deny that the founders were very worried about tyranny imposed by the government of the country in question, and intended the second amendment (among other things) to allow the citizens to resist against the army of that government, is outright ahistorical.

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

#223

Post by madengr »

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…

>Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country?

Individually, not much, but like vaccines and herd immunity, it works well when large number do.

>How does your right contribute to the security of the state?

"in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"

http://www.billofrights.org/

>How did you come to believe you needed this capability?

History makes a fine lesson. Maybe 100 million killed by democide in the 20th century.

>Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?

Yelling "fire" in a movie theater has nothing to do with "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers". Neither does slander, verbal assault, etc.

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

#224

Post by ropeadopepope »

tropo wrote: post #177
mason55 wrote: post #29

Earlier 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.

If cat videos and shooting videos are on totally separate sites, where do we put the videos that are both? a. The cat has a gun. b. The cat is shot at. c. The cat is fired out of a cannon, as a circus performer. d. It's a hunting cat. It fetches things that have been shot. e. Cats like sitting on warm things. Guns get warm. f. Cat fur gets into everything. Picture a cleaning video with a gun jammed up by fur.

4chan. Obviously.

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

#225

Post by leot »

js8 wrote: post #213
leot wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Though I deeply disagree with political affiliation being a protected group I was born in a totalitarian country, and so I don't find "you can choose your political views" very convincing. What about religious views? You can choose these as well.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of religion actually being a protected group. It probably is there for historical reasons, when it was harder to "get out" of one's religion.

Freedom of speech and political expression is very different from your right to not be discriminated against for expressing your political views. I will defend your right to say "poor people should not be able to get healthcare", but having this political opinion provides important information on your character, which seems very legitimate to consider when making, e.g., a hiring decision.

There aren't easy answers here, and laws and policy are blunt instruments that will usually have some unintended and undesirable consequences.

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

#226

Post by dragonwriter »

reitanqild wrote: post #217
leot wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Liberal agenda" I don't know what you mean by that. Please explain. (EDIT: Legitimately don't understand the downvotes here.)

That the big tech companiea are liberal seems to be one of the things most "conservatives" and "liberals" on HN agree on :-) As for why it was downvoted I guess a number of people on both sides found it to be plain false and maybe also someone though it was a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation.

> That the big tech companiea are liberal seems to be one of the things most "conservatives" and "liberals" on HN agree on

The big tech companies (in terms of direction from the top) are mostly center-right neoliberal in orientation, straddling the US partisan divide (Microsoft has historically been attached to the Republican Party, which paid off big when the Bush Administration took over from the Clinton Administration at the end of their antitrust trial, most of the rest of the big firms have been closer to the neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party.)

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

#227

Post by scrub_tier »

maltwhiskey wrote: post #71
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…

> Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? The Supreme Court in DC. v Heller [1] determined: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" The definition of the militia in federa…

Interesting, I appreciate your feedback.

Why does equality if availability with local state institutions appeal to you?

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

#228

Post by leot »

reitanqild wrote: post #217
leot wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Liberal agenda" I don't know what you mean by that. Please explain. (EDIT: Legitimately don't understand the downvotes here.)

That the big tech companiea are liberal seems to be one of the things most "conservatives" and "liberals" on HN agree on :-) As for why it was downvoted I guess a number of people on both sides found it to be plain false and maybe also someone though it was a deliberate misrepresentation of the situation.

First, I think the entire "liberal" v. "conservative" distinction does far more harm than good to productive public conversation. It causes people to pay more attention to where ideas come from rather than to the ideas themselves.

Second, it is a kind of ad hominem fallacy to claim that there exists some kind of unspecified (and no doubt nefarious) "liberal agenda" to which advocates subscribe. Especially given that 97% of the US supports universal background checks, how can the o.p. be so sure that this is the product of a "liberal agenda" and not instead a sensible response to an epidemic-level problem?

When people refuse to describe the entities they claim to exist (again: where and what is this "liberal agenda"?) there's good reason to be skeptical of both the people and the entities. Often it's scary packaging for something that's reasonable if you take the time to look at it.

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

#229

Post by tmaly »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #41
prepend wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortuneately we have a distributed network of computers all over the world. With the rise of home fiber and raspberry pi type cheap boxes we can do it with data local and software free. I’m not sure what the business model is. I’m looking to porn and privacy for early examples. This worked for the Internet. AOL chat/porn was a huge use case for early chat/messaging. Music piracy and video piracy before Netflix/Apple…

It’s funny that you say that. 20 years ago nobody had a problem running their personal website or FTP server on an ISDN line into their garage. Today I have 100Mb fiber to my house. I’m pretty sure that’s enough to handle a personal video website for somebody with a modest following. Yet we live on these massive centralized platforms.

I have the high end speed of internet from Comcast, but if you read their Acceptable Use Policy for XFINITY® Internet,

Technical Restrictions:

use or run dedicated, stand-alone equipment or servers from the Premises that provide network content or any other services to anyone outside of your Premises local area network (“Premises LAN”), also commonly referred to as public services or servers. Examples of prohibited equipment and servers include, but are not limited to, email, web hosting, file sharing, and proxy services and servers;

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

#230

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Shish2k wrote: post #109
dreta wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say PornHub, and porn in general, is more liberal than left-wing, so i doubt they'll have anything against guns. Still, they could deem the content inapropriate for the site. Though, given the kind of seemingly random videos people upload there, and get aroused by, it's not at all definite.

> they could deem the content inapropriate for the site In before the gun channels continue exactly as they were, except for the one change that their hosts are now nude

Having some 4'11 woman as a regular guest on C&R Arsenal or Forgotton Weapons would be useful for discussing ergonomics and arguable less controversial than some 14yo.
Post reply on HN