Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

231–240 of 270 posts

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

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It quite obviously meant both.

The amendment is quite short and easy to quote; the pro-gun crowd actually hates this one little trick:

> 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.

There is no "obviously we mean our own government" rather than foreign invaders the militias (like the Swiss ones around since pre-revolutionary times) are typically meant to deal with.

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

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It quite obviously meant both. The amendment is quite short and easy to quote; the pro-gun crowd actually hates this one little trick: > 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. There is no "obviously we mean our own government" rather than foreign invaders the militias (like the Swiss ones around since pre-revo…

...The pro-gun crowd are the ones who constantly quote the amendment verbatim. They don't "hate" it.

And yes, it doesn't explicitly say in the text of the amendment what kinds of threats the militia is meant to defend "the security of a free state" from. This is why you need to make obvious deductions based on context. There's certainly no basis, either in the literal text or in contextual deduction, for the idea that the founders only meant it as security against foreign invasion.

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

#233
post #165

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…

"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." I…

Hi!

I agree completely that we should not language shiv out legal problems away lest we destroy ourselves in favorable ambiguity. My question was clearly poorly articulated (smells of irony).

The first clause established a clear goal and intent, while the second is the statement of action.

The more interesting legal question to me (my legalese is super weak, so please excuse), why is any law that would not hamper a militia be considered unconstitutional? Other than Heller seems to have set the definition militia to something frankly disturbing.

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

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That may be true of your grandmother, but what makes you say it's true of grandmothers in general?

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

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 ne…

Hehe, fair enough. May I ask the question this way? What is the intrinsic risk of a land war between the US and another foreign power? I'm currently mobile trying to find the ATF and NRA data on distribution, but my recollection was that most fire arms were concentrated in larger collections. How do you characterise firearms ownership in the larger civilian market? It makes 100% sense to me regardless of law if you l…

There is statistically insignificant risk.

The US shares land borders with only two foreign countries: Canada and Mexico. We have been at peace with the former since 1815, and strong allies since 1940. Relations with the latter have been a bit less cordial, exacerbated by racism and corruption. But there's very little risk of invasion there. So any potential direct attacker would have to come by sea, through the largest navy on Earth.

I think the only way to reasonably do it would be by subverting an entire municipal government and then buying up military hardware through the police department. The force would have to be trained to capture and use military assets already in place. But then what would they do with them? Nothing you could do would be more profitable than just sitting back and running the government you already control just like a corrupt American politician would. And the reason is that suburban Americans would NIMBY a foreign invasion just as strenuously as they would a proposed nuclear power plant, a new Wal-Mart, or some mid-rise apartment blocks. Just think how that go if everyone were allowed to shoot their guns at each other.

Most people do not own firearms. But those who don't mostly live in cities. Everyone in a rural area owns at least one, without exception (hyperbole), even if it's just the one they use for unsalvageable injured livestock and large predators. Suburbanites keep rifles for recreational target shooting and hunting, but for personal defense you're probably better off with a shotgun or a sidearm. A lot of my neighbors carry daily, for no particularly good reason that I can discern. I don't care to know who's packing and who isn't, but you can often tell by looking at the purses or clothing.

I don't have one, but I saw a neighbor shoot a snake on the sidewalk across the street once. That guy's kind of an idiot, but he didn't miss. It wasn't venomous, and he probably didn't eat it, but he didn't have to be afraid of it any more, either. So I guess it wards off the bogeyman?

I'd estimate that 98.6% of rural households own at least one gun, 20% of urban households keep some, and 50% of suburban households. Most people who own any guns at all have no more than one sidearm, one rifle, and one shotgun, and a large number of the total number of guns are found in collections of 20 or more. You have to be rich or inherit antiques to hoard guns like that. Most people would probably stop after a 1911A pistol or .357mag revolver, a Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 or similar 12ga pump shotgun, and a .22LR rifle. Those guns are cheap, versatile, use cheap and widely available ammunition, have plenty of clones, and can serve most gun-owner purposes that's aren't hunting things larger than squirrels. A subset will also get a 5.56 or .223 military-inspired rifle for keeping the king of England out of your face, and a mostly disjoint subset will have one very good larger-caliber rifle and huge chest freezer for hunting deer every November. Hunters and hoplophiles tolerate one another, but they are usually more allies than friends.

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

#236
post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

You might have noticed already but in case anyone else didn't: yes, I partly agree with you on this (and I also to some degree think this behaviour is childish.)

> 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.

It seems to me a majority of HN thinks Youtube is even more "liberal".

> 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?

Many of us (me included) would like more background checks etc.

The problem for me is that a number of people see background checks only as a first small step towards banning guns.

I think there is still room in USA for a European style collaboration between hunters, sports shooters and police.

That would be a win-win. But as long as everyone with a brain can see a ratchet I guess enthusiasm will be limited in the NRA/2A camp.

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

#237
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a fig leaf. The tradeoff is between the relative costs and benefits of suppressors. Given that ear protection is cheap, plentiful, and doesn't increase the probability of someone getting shot, it's hard to justify the legality of suppressors for purely "safety" reasons.

Adding a piece of metal to the end of a barrel doesn't increase the probability of someone getting shot. It doesn't increase the chances of the gun to fire accidentally.

What do you suppose the impact of a suppressor would have been in Las Vegas last fall?

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

#238
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An argument can be made on what is and is not appropriate to censor, and we would probably disagree. But that's not important - what's important is who should decide what is and is not censored. Should YouTube (and Google) be making that decision, or should the government? At least in theory, the government is an extension of the people, and a private corporation is not. We should decide as a society what topics shou…

I think content providers and platforms should be free to make whatever choice they want regarding content on their platform, provided they don't discriminate illegally (i.e., based on membership in a protected group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group ) If you fully ramify your position, you're advocating that the government tell me that if I host videos, I can't prevent people from posting videos that I d…

>If you fully ramify your position, you're advocating that the government tell me that if I host videos, I can't prevent people from posting videos that I don't like. E.g., if I make a cat video hosting platform, and someone uploads a dog video, I can't stop them.

No, I'm not arguing that YouTube should be legally required to permit all legal content. I'm arguing that I ethically expect them to. Or, at least, expecting them to is a valid position.

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

#239
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ev…

Sorry.

I suggested if it is legal, and you are setup in such a way as YouTube to host other peoples content that YouTube should not be able to remove content without forfeiting protections it receives as entity that host other peoples content.

Snuff is illegal, so yeah, nobody should be hosting it, and I don't think anybody was arguing for so.

As far as I know as for being "in-bounds" it's because it is legal in general. Can you name something that ICANN can block that is legal to produce and view?

Now if YouTube does not want to be treated like I am suggesting very little has to change, and one or both of the following would -- to me -- give them the right to control the content.

1) YouTube was a subscription. 2) When you posted a video to YouTube they bought it out right and were now the copyright holder.

The problem I am having is YouTube has found it in the juxtaposition of being both a for profit entity and a public place, if you will a communication or broadcasting facilitator. This is much like power and phone companies found them self's in.

I am also open to the notion that they can curate the videos found on the site, but in doing so they take WHOLE responsibility for ALL content on the site -- not just the ones that fit their current needs. This means though, that should somebody upload some unsavory illicit content, that they are also on the hook legally and financially for the distribution and copying of said content. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Its too much power for any single entity to have.

Also, maybe I am a dick, I don't really care if people are "offended", and I think the notion of "the right to not be offended" is hogwash. If you don't like the content, then don't view it. If you think some content causes people to do things prove it. This is a age old topic. First it was the "damn video games" causing people to kill people. Now its the "damn gun videos" that is causing people to kill people -- only this time video lost.

Note, I am NOT pro gun, or own a gun, or likely will own a gun

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

#240
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Who cares? ToSes should simply be ignored
Post reply on HN