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

141–150 of 270 posts

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

#141

Post by sb057 »

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.

>YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don’t allow content that... links to sites that sell firearms or certain firearms accessories.[1]

This effectively cuts off any revenue stream other than crowdfunding, as practically every sponsor would sell guns or accessories. Furthermore, direct firearm sales and instructions on how to make (and indeed, actually making) firearms are entirely legal.

[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605

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

#142

Post by jbigelow76 »

cm2187 wrote: post #130
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.

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…

lack of competition in the banking industry

I can think of 11 banks off the top of my head, some are big banks, a couple credit unions, a brokerage with banking services like Schwab. If I googled for "local banks" I would get a lot more. What is the lack of competition you are referring to?

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

#143

Post by wlesieutre »

chillwaves wrote: post #118
waterphone wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's censorship, it's just legal censorship because it's not the government doing it.

That's not what censorship means.

Here's what Merriam Webster says censorship means:

>1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring

>"They oppose government censorship."

The example use calls out government censorship as a specific type of censorship. If "censorship" meant "the government censoring things" you would not need to specify "government censorship" in that sentence.

Yes, I know that dictionary definitions are not necessarily the final word on what something means, but they're absolutely correct here. It is a broad word and it is widely used in other contexts. People other than the government can censor things.

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship

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

#144

Post by bcoates »

_jal wrote: post #134
pavlov wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The non-nerds are right and the nerds are being weird pedants.

Going all well-actually and giving people the verbal equivalent of xkcd 1357 lets everyone know you're one of those people.

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

#145

Post by pishpash »

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.

Most consumer internet contracts contain clauses that prohibit hosting. Independent ISP's 20 years ago didn't have such clauses.

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

#146

Post by leot »

cm2187 wrote: post #130
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.

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…

"Liberal agenda" I don't know what you mean by that. Please explain.

(EDIT: Legitimately don't understand the downvotes here.)

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

#147

Post by pps43 »

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.

Not just "direct" firearm sales, but content that "intends to sell firearms". This can mean any review, unboxing, etc.

Also "instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition" are expressly prohibited, even though if it is legal for you to possess a gun or ammo, it is also legal to make it for personal use (and with appropriate licence even for sale). There are plenty of gunsmithing and reloading videos that are now going away.

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

#148

Post by zeveb »

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?

According to 10 U.S. Code § 246[0]:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, the majority of male Americans belong to the militia of the United States, and the vast majority of those belong to the unorganised militia (arguably, this section of the U.S. Code should be extended to cover women as well). Bearing private arms is simply arming oneself as a member of the unorganised militia.

> How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better?

A suppressor is simply a safety device to save hearing; it's not a magical silencer.

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

An armed populace is better able to suppress insurrection, e.g. during the LA Riots back in the 90s.

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

It shouldn't be. We reasonably prohibit firearms to felons, domestic abusers, the mentally ill &c. Honestly, if the Second Amendment were treated like the First is, the New York Times would publish op-eds urging that concealed-carry be mandatory …

0: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

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

#149

Post by daxorid »

cobrabyte wrote: post #81
jacknews wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hunting parks as in designated/licensed areas where you can hunt with guns. Not Manhattan, for example. Full auto etc, for what purpose?

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.

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

#150

Post by WhompingWindows »

cm2187 wrote: post #130
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.

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 do something.

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? I'm not saying these are perfect analogies, but rather where do we expect massive companies to draw the line when it comes to distributing potentially harmful content?

Does SV/Google have the right answer to reduce gun deaths? I don't know, but do I fault them for trying something when deaths are occurring minute by minute? Certainly not, something must be done to curb the tragic number of deaths we are shrugging off.

Post reply on HN