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

201–210 of 270 posts

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

#201

Post by alethiophile »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #68
1787 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of established case law, we have from the very first page of Heller [1]: > The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia... [2] The Constitution encodes a value judgement about the rights it protects; these rights are presumed to be protected unless it can be shown why they aren't in some specific case. That is to say, to ask someone "how [their]…

If we actually had a Swiss-style militia system, the constitution would be completely unambiguous. Instead, the pro-gun interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it’s first clause is completely meaningless. I’m not sure how they resolve that kind of “being literal only when convenient” hypocrisy in their heads.

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, because everyone is expected to take responsibility for defending themselves and the community. There's also another layer; "militia" is as opposed to "standing army", and "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" thus means that the militia (that is, the population at large) needs to be armed well enough to resist tyrannical impositions by a standing army.

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

#202

Post by ironjunkie »

leot wrote: post #193
ironjunkie wrote: post #21

I think the news from the last couple days, make it clear that the next step is to MOVE OUT of all those platforms. History is repeating. As soon as they got enough power, they use it to exercise their own view of the world, deleting data//videos they don't like or reselling it to 3rd parties. We need to come up with a better solution for non-technical users to post content outside those platforms.

> "History is repeating" How so? This is not about blocking political speech from these platforms. It's about a specific issue: whether YouTube should make it easy for people to find instructional videos on how to make and modify firearms. Would you be upset if platforms blocked content showing how to make bombs? Biological weapons? Why not include the blocking of firearm modification videos?

Well it is the same thing.

I'm not a pro-gun at all. But this is a political move as an after effect of the school shootings, pushed by a left agenda for banning guns (which on a personal level I agree btw).

The issue is that you have a private company taking a political position and therefore forbidding specific videos based on that position.

This is something we saw in the past on other political subjects. They are abusing their power as platform as they know they are the de-facto platform used for video. It is about freedom of speech.

How would you feel if they suddenly decided to remove videos about evolution and darwinism? Or videos about abortion rights ? (this will never happen as youtube leans super left, but it gives you an idea how the other side sees it)

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

#203

Post by mrguyorama »

leot wrote: post #169
jacknews wrote: post #27

Although I'm a firm believer that guns should be illegal to possess outside of licensed shooting ranges, hunting parks, etc, I think enthusiast videos about guns are completely acceptable. This does smack of Orwell, and it's not only gun culture that appears to be being targeted recently. I'm also not a conspiratorialist, but it does seem to me there's a concerted effort behind the scenes to "crack down" on free expr…

Note that FPS Russia etc. are still allowed. YouTube is banning videos that show people how to make and modify guns. This isn't a debate about censorship. This is a debate about where to draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable content.

While I agree with your first statement and generally am okay with YouTube's intention here, I'm willing to bet that their implementation is going to be another shitty algorithm that just blocks completely unrelated videos

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

#204

Post by leot »

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…

> Suppressors have a legitimate purpose in reducing hearing damage

Flame throwers have a legitimate use as a brush clearing tool. Fortunately there are straightforward and safer alternatives.

The best way to prevent hearing damage from a gun is with ear protection.

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

#205

Post by leot »

ironjunkie wrote: post #202
leot wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "History is repeating" How so? This is not about blocking political speech from these platforms. It's about a specific issue: whether YouTube should make it easy for people to find instructional videos on how to make and modify firearms. Would you be upset if platforms blocked content showing how to make bombs? Biological weapons? Why not include the blocking of firearm modification videos?

Well it is the same thing. I'm not a pro-gun at all. But this is a political move as an after effect of the school shootings, pushed by a left agenda for banning guns (which on a personal level I agree btw). The issue is that you have a private company taking a political position and therefore forbidding specific videos based on that position. This is something we saw in the past on other political subjects. They are…

I'm not sure I see your point. You're saying that, because there is advocacy on behalf of changing company policies in a particular direction, for a legitimate reason, the companies should avoid changing their policies?

Under what circumstances would you want to see companies revise their policies?

EDIT: missed a word

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

#206

Post by leot »

mrguyorama wrote: post #203
leot wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that FPS Russia etc. are still allowed. YouTube is banning videos that show people how to make and modify guns. This isn't a debate about censorship. This is a debate about where to draw the line on what is and isn't acceptable content.

While I agree with your first statement and generally am okay with YouTube's intention here, I'm willing to bet that their implementation is going to be another shitty algorithm that just blocks completely unrelated videos

Right. There will be a false positive rate, and there will be gray area cases, as there always is.

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

#207

Post by tzs »

hungerstrike wrote: post #74
tzs wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How so? Net neutrality concerns ISPs not interfering with legal content. It has nothing whatsoever to say about or do with what content sites that host or provide content chose to host or provide. Transportation provides a good analogy. Net neutrality is about the roads, not about what goods and services the places you drive to on those roads do and do not offer.

These services own their platform. So, they are justified in doing what they want right? Likewise, the ISPs own the infrastructure and they can do what they wish as well. The Internet is not made up of public roadways. So what's the difference? I think it's just that you want the ISPs to not own the roads. If you separate what you personally want ISPs to be from the rest of your argument, I think you can see that the…

There are several differences between ISPs and websites.

1. ISPs generally require licenses or leases from the government in order to build and maintain their infrastructure. Wireless ISPs, for example, need to license RF spectrum. Wired ISPs generally need to run their wires on public land. You can't just start a new ISP, like you can a new website.

2. Broadband ISPs are generally monopolies or near monopolies in a given area, especially wired ISPs. This is related to #1.

3. Telecommunications services fall under the Telecommunications Acts of 1934 and 1996. Websites do not.

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

#208

Post by logfromblammo »

fredch wrote: post #166
daxorid wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another gun person who thinks he's living in an action movie...

The massacre of the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, was real life. Black Lives Matter can produce many examples of citizens slaughtered where they stand, simply because someone imagined they might have been carrying a weapon.

If it were an action movie, one could make a case that it would always be the gun-taking bureaucrat that would die, and in a cathartically satisfying way, but in real life, they come with overwhelming force, and kill the citizens without remorse. Then they investigate themselves and clear themselves of all wrongdoing.

Perhaps you imagine you're living in a sitcom instead? Does your entire family always sit on just one side of the dining table?

We remember the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943, because a lot of Holocaust survivors emigrated to the US and made sure to tell their stories to everyone who would listen. The lesson learned was to always fight back, and to start the instant anyone tries to undermine your ability to do so. In doing so, you will likely die, but the fear you put into your killers might just save someone else. That's the honeybee defense. The bee that stings will die, but there are more bees willing to sting and die than attackers willing to feel the pain, and thus the hive is preserved.

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

#209

Post by mrguyorama »

en4bz wrote: post #54
Navarr wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did anyone read the article to see what types of videos Google is taking action against? > YouTube will ban videos that offer instructions on how to make firearms and accessories such as silencers and bump stocks. It will prohibit content in which firearms and accessories are sold, both directly and through other websites. Videos on how to install firearms modifications will also be barred. > While we've long prohibi…

The channel mentioned "Forgotten Weapons" is mostly filmed at auction houses since it's the best place to find a lot of old guns in the same place at one time. As part of his arrangement with the auction centers the creator plugs the upcoming auction for the guns he is reviewing and links it in the description. This would probably be against the rules.

YouTube routinely skirts its own rules for popular channels

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

#210

Post by seanmcdirmid »

alethiophile wrote: post #201
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we actually had a Swiss-style militia system, the constitution would be completely unambiguous. Instead, the pro-gun interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it’s first clause is completely meaningless. I’m not sure how they resolve that kind of “being literal only when convenient” hypocrisy in their heads.

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.

Post reply on HN