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

131–140 of 270 posts

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

#131

Post by daxorid »

weego wrote: post #69
clarkmoody wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's also about those channels not being suitable to advertise on / having a bad demographic to advertise to and them being funded by patreons or private shop backers advertising in-video. YT gets very little revenue from that even though they are high-volume channels so it's just a pure cost cutting exercise.

> having a bad demographic to advertise to

I don't follow. A full 31% of the US population, most of whom have sufficient disposable income to blow $600-$2000 on a piece of steel and polymer. How is that a bad demographic to advertise to?

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

#132

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

CompanyLaser wrote: post #121

Did anyone read YouTube's actual policy? They're restricting direct firearm sales and DIY manufacturing instructions. Seems reasonable for any controlled device.

They are book burning. If you don’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you.

Almost everything they have removed was 100% legal content that they didn’t like.

IDK about you, but I’ll chose to use sites that want to do their job of hosting, and not my job of choosing what I see/learn.

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

#133

Post by enzanki_ars »

krapp wrote: post #106
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…

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 content is a problem with torrents.

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

#134

Post by _jal »

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...

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.

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

#135

Post by optimuspaul »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #95
Laaas wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it not censorship? It is legal, and they're not violating anything, but it is still censorship, because they are censoring something. It doesn't have to be illegal for it to be censorship.

Because Google is a private company is why it is NOT censorship.

yeah I don't think that the definition of censorship has any caveats to it to indicate the actor must be a public entity.

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

#137

Post by _jal »

Laaas wrote: post #55
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.

How is it not censorship? It is legal, and they're not violating anything, but it is still censorship, because they are censoring something. It doesn't have to be illegal for it to be censorship.

It is a definitional thing. We're talking about law; definitions are important. Here is a somewhat useful starting point:

https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

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

#138

Post by [deleted] »

cobrabyte wrote: post #117
jacknews wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does indeed affect my liberty and perception of (and actual) safety. How do I know you're not a crazy person? Or that you won't have crazy moments (like most people do)? Or that you're not crazy, just evil, or megalomanical? Or just the kind of dishonorable person who thinks a gun can win an argument? I don't want to have to arm or defend myself against any of those possibilities, just so you can satisfy your desi…

By that logic, we should limit owning and operating a motor vehicle to special car parks because we're scared of the mental fitness of our fellow citizens. Why take the risk? I'd much prefer you arm yourself if you are genuinely worried about crazy people. It's precisely why I never leave the house without arming myself. The world is full of crazy people and those people don't follow laws. It may surprise you to find…

[deleted]

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

#139

Post by wlesieutre »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #95
Laaas wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it not censorship? It is legal, and they're not violating anything, but it is still censorship, because they are censoring something. It doesn't have to be illegal for it to be censorship.

Because Google is a private company is why it is NOT censorship.

The word "censor" doesn't exclusively apply to government actions though.

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

#140

Post by cobrabyte »

jacknews wrote: post #128
cobrabyte wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, we should limit owning and operating a motor vehicle to special car parks because we're scared of the mental fitness of our fellow citizens. Why take the risk? I'd much prefer you arm yourself if you are genuinely worried about crazy people. It's precisely why I never leave the house without arming myself. The world is full of crazy people and those people don't follow laws. It may surprise you to find…

This is a common argument, but what are the benefits of cars, vs guns? Clearly cars offer numerous benefits despite the dangers, whereas guns (in public spaces, rather than hunting or military etc) are just a hobby, a fetish, or a "security crutch". The "defense" argument doesn't really wash (buy better locks, or running shoes), and the "militia" argument doesn't either (can you hit a drone, or pierce tank armor with…

We're not going to see eye-to-eye on this topic and that's okay.

We can't uninvent the gun and we can't, realistically, make them illegal.

As for shooting drones and tanks, look to our wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam. It doesn't take much to bog down a well-oiled fighting force like ours.

Post reply on HN