Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 763 posts

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#151

Post by beckler »

kevhito wrote: post #125
Rebelgecko wrote: post #15

This is very dismaying to see I have used Youtube in the past for seeing how to install gun accessories, put guns together, how to fix malfunctions, etc. Watching those videos has made me a more knowledgeable, and hence more responsible gun owner. This is an especially large blow for people who are part of niche communities, like reloading ammo for 100+ year old rifles. A lot of historical content will be lost. The n…

Please weigh your own personal hobby against our society's clear dysfunction when it comes to gun violence. Does the pleasure you get from learning about "reloading ammo for 100+ year old rifles" does not outweigh my desire for my son to not be shot at school? There are more important things than the issues you cite. If losing historical content and "niche communities" having to go find new hobbies means just a coupl…

You should be deeply concerned that any topic could be banned without much oversight, as a lot of the banned subs were never informed ahead of time, and were never given an opportunity to comply with the new rules. I think stuff like this is easy to turn into a slippery slope. If we ban firearms outright, should we also ban the simulation of firearm usage? If so, you could go ahead and ban /r/gaming. What about movies with gun violence? Where is the line here, and where is it moving?

This is why I honestly think this move is not really about protecting a community, I think it's about image for advertisers. Facebook is getting reamed for it's lack of data control, so lets ban some hot topics and make it look attractive for advertisers looking for somewhere else to go.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#152

Post by sologoub »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #132
kevhito wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please weigh your own personal hobby against our society's clear dysfunction when it comes to gun violence. Does the pleasure you get from learning about "reloading ammo for 100+ year old rifles" does not outweigh my desire for my son to not be shot at school? There are more important things than the issues you cite. If losing historical content and "niche communities" having to go find new hobbies means just a coupl…

I actually had this discussion with someone who is very pro-gun earlier. To me the reasonable position is it's absurd when people can buy weapons made to kill (the AR-15, for example) for funzies. The Parkland shooter was 19, clearly off his rocker, and had multiple semi auto rifles. If you listen to the shooting, you're talking weapons that can fire killing/maiming shots every second. These are essentially the same…

We are still not addressing root issues - mental health and inaction of law enforcement on credible tips.

Taking guns away helps reduce damage, but those intent on doing harm will still find ways to take at least one life (or at least attempt to). One too many for my taste.

I really wish we could get people help before we have to worry about them picking up weapons of any kind. Probably wishful thinking.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#153

Post by fwgwgwgch »

CydeWeys wrote: post #23

Great, so /r/gundeals, which was nothing more than a sales aggregator for law-abiding online retailers, is gone, but /r/the_donald, a vile, rampantly bigoted, conspiracy-theory-peddling shithole, is allowed to stay?

> conspiracy theory

Like the Russia collision which has been dismissed by the intelligence committee?

And Mueller managed to indict 13 russians that had nothing to do with trump?

Or that the dossier was fabricated?

Or that the fisa request was illegal and given based on evidence manufactured by Dec and Clinton campaign

> vile

You mean calling illegal immigration wrong, same as what oba and Hillary have done in the past? (YouTube is your friend)

> rampantly bigoted

Example please.

Crickets?

Also I'm okay with losing 5 points over this lol. But everything I've said is factual so flag all you will and nothing will come out of it. Mods can you van the flaggers for the upcoming false flags?

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#154

Post by Mononokay »

CaptSpify wrote: post #130
grzm wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want software updates, you can get those through your computer rather than connecting to Apple directly. I'm not sure what would be involved in opting out of Apple's iMessage system. Edit to add: looks like that's an option as well in the settings. ( https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6430569 ) Are you asking rhetorically? For someone who repeatedly, adamantly, and assuredly posts about Apple and security, I…

I mean most of the apps, like Maps, Email, GPS, etc. And I don't know the answer to that, because I haven't used an Apple product since the original iPhone. If I'm misunderstanding how they work, then, please, inform me as to what I'm missing. I'm very willing to admit I was mistaken if they don't work the way I think they do. I try to keep up with the basics of how they work, I have my friends show me things, etc. B…

You can sideload .IPAs. It's a bit inconvienient but it's better than nothing.

If you're jailbroken, there's always Cydia, which is a Linux-like package manager.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#155

Post by jakeogh »

yequalsx wrote: post #75
4d66ba06 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This podcast episode on the Second Amendment was fascinating as it discusses how the US Courts interpretation of the second amendment changed http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect...

Thank you for the link. I'll listen to it later.

Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008) for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#156

Post by aaron-lebo »

sologoub wrote: post #152
aaron-lebo wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually had this discussion with someone who is very pro-gun earlier. To me the reasonable position is it's absurd when people can buy weapons made to kill (the AR-15, for example) for funzies. The Parkland shooter was 19, clearly off his rocker, and had multiple semi auto rifles. If you listen to the shooting, you're talking weapons that can fire killing/maiming shots every second. These are essentially the same…

We are still not addressing root issues - mental health and inaction of law enforcement on credible tips. Taking guns away helps reduce damage, but those intent on doing harm will still find ways to take at least one life (or at least attempt to). One too many for my taste. I really wish we could get people help before we have to worry about them picking up weapons of any kind. Probably wishful thinking.

I don't see why we can't do both. Mental healthcare is one of the main needs in this country, but the Las Vegas shooter was also not classically mentally ill, just nihilistic and evil. He also had 23 guns, some of them full on assault, some of them modified.

That's absurd. Why does it always have to be a dichotomy? Surely a nation of 300 million people can address multiple issues at once? All we've got going on is people doing this tribal bullshit while we kill each other.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#157

Post by jakeogh »

sp527 wrote: post #100
zombieprocesses wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Societies evolve and social views change. That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change. I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment. The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is rea…

The NRA/Republican Party's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a total fabrication. The amendment was meant to apply to a standing militia organized by a state (potentially in opposition to the federal government). The Founders weren't stupid. They did not intend for any random nut to have the right to carry a gun. The lethality of weapons available at the time the 2nd amendment was introduced is not even remotely…

The reasons are clearly enumerated as to why it is an individual right in Heller vs DC: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...

If "inalienable" means "when you have met some specific requirements" then the term is meaningless btw.

I hope the NRA folks also take a look at GOA.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#158

Post by flounders »

themihai wrote: post #126
lettergram wrote: post #120

There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... If I take my car (a Jeep Grand Cherokee) and ram it into a crowd - I'm confident that can take out more people than I can with a gun, knife, probably even bomb. Point being, I understand not facilitating trade, but for the love of god, videos? You really want to push the right over the edge? We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of t…

>> There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... Yeah but guns are "cool" while ramming a car into a crowd it's not that cool. I believe people should be allowed to bear arms but that doesn't mean the guns should be sold and advertised as lollipops.

Guns are glorified in TV shows, movies and video games which is what has made them cool. I doubt guns would be viewed as cool if it weren't for those things. Growing up I felt they were cool too, until I had some responsible adults teach me that firearms are not toys, they can be fun to shoot, but they are very lethal and should be treated with the appropriate care and respect to ensure no one is killed or injured while handling. Sadly I think a lot of people haven't had the benefit of responsible adults, but I think a good many of us have.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#159

Post by HyperTalk2 »

kadenshep wrote: post #88
superkuh wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to be the change you want to see. I have no problem with other people holding views which I think are disgusting. The only thing I have a problem with is censorship. H. L. Mencken quote is applicable here, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at…

I think we need more censorship quite frankly.

Maybe you do.

If you dislike the first amendment, there are plenty of countries you can move to that don't have it.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#160

Post by withdavidli »

hartator wrote: post #122
alsetmusic wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself. This is an absurd comment. The parent stated that four units were returned state-wide. Asserting the ability to manually decommission them attempts to give the appearance of undermining the parent’s statement without actually addressing the issue. I don’t think anyone here, even you, likely believes that even a majority of these were destroye…

Parent makes it sounds that most gun owners are not law abiding when they are. A gun ban will effectively confiscate guns from good people. Like it did in other countries.

Law abiding to not law abiding if new law / repeal of amendment happens, and they gave an example of a relavent instance.

Is your argument that you believe most/all law abiding citizens that currently own guns will willing destroy/turn over their guns of new laws pass against ownership?

Looking at reports on Australia it seems the effectiveness on turning in guns was anywhere from 40-80 percent. Effectiveness for prohibited guns was at 70%, so ~30% went from law abiding to not law abiding.

Page 11 of 36 is most of the stats for this: http://faculty.publicpolicy.umd.edu/sites/default/files/reut...

Post reply on HN