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

241–250 of 270 posts

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

#241

Post by CompanionCuuube »

leot wrote: post #200
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does the loudness of a gun deter its use in the commission of a crime? I think it does, though perhaps only in a handful of cases. Gang violence comes to mind: the gun's loudness gives you away if you're sneaking up on folks, and makes it easier for law enforcement to locate you. If a gun's loudness sometimes acts as a deterrent, then the availability of this "piece of metal" will reduce/eliminate this deterrent, and…

The change in loudness would have to be proven to make a difference first, which you have not done here. A gun with a suppressor is still a very loud gun.

"A 30-decibel reduction in theory means an AR-15 rifle would have a noise equivalent of 132 decibels. That is considered equivalent to a gunshot or a jackhammer." Are firearms with a silencer 'quiet'? - The Washington Post

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

#242

Post by wensley »

enzanki_ars wrote: post #83
ryanmarsh wrote: post #41

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.

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…

Remember WinMX in the early 2000's? It was mostly used for sharing music. That had good discoverability for self hosted files.

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

#243

Post by tzs »

hungerstrike wrote: post #59
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.

Actually, I think what you meant to say is that the definition of the word censor has nothing to do with the first amendment or even government. Censorship is the "official" capacity of someone to prevent someone else from publishing. The official person could be an official of government or a private company as far as the definition is concerned. define censor - https://www.google.com/search?q=define+censor 1. an of…

> So, Youtube and others are indeed censoring you when they do not allow you to publish certain videos.

Except YouTube does not prevent you from publishing your videos. They only prevent you from publishing them on YouTube. You can publish them on another platform, or self-publish them.

Censorship is usually taken to mean suppressing or attempting to suppress a work from being published at all across some reasonably large population, which is generally something only governments have the power to do.

One might make a case that a private organization that has acquired a monopoly or near monopoly could do so, but YouTube is not yet there.

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

#244

Post by verylittlemeat »

cptskippy wrote: post #154
cm2187 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 has absolutely nothing to do with a "liberal agenda", this is capitalism plain and simple. There is nothing more to it and anyone who says it's a conspiracy by is off their rocker. YouTube exists to make money. It makes money through advertisers. If advertisers don't want to use YouTube then YouTube loses money.

How is this "capitalism plain and simple." Youtube and reddit are only banning this content because of new regulation passed by the government.

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

#245

Post by twothamendment »

ForHackernews wrote: post #5
zaarn wrote: post #2

PornHub: The last bastion of a free and good internet. There is also some porn. I think 10 years ago people would have laughed at the idea that a federal law pushed gun enthusiasts into pornographic websites.

What federal law? YouTube is a private company and they decided they didn't want this content on their platform.

If the content of a video is legal, do they have more right to refuse to host it than the baker has to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

Aren't both businesses trying to make a decision about who their customer is?

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

#246

Post by leot »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #241
leot wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the loudness of a gun deter its use in the commission of a crime? I think it does, though perhaps only in a handful of cases. Gang violence comes to mind: the gun's loudness gives you away if you're sneaking up on folks, and makes it easier for law enforcement to locate you. If a gun's loudness sometimes acts as a deterrent, then the availability of this "piece of metal" will reduce/eliminate this deterrent, and…

The change in loudness would have to be proven to make a difference first, which you have not done here. A gun with a suppressor is still a very loud gun. "A 30-decibel reduction in theory means an AR-15 rifle would have a noise equivalent of 132 decibels. That is considered equivalent to a gunshot or a jackhammer." Are firearms with a silencer 'quiet'? - The Washington Post

> "The change in loudness would have to be proven to make a difference first"

What do you specifically mean by "proven to make a difference"? Suppressors are known for being used by intelligence services -- presumably they're not using them to protect their agents' hearing.

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

#247

Post by leot »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #238
leot wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, expecti…

Is my no-dogs-allowed CatTube unethical, then?

Or do the ethics have to do with YouTube's utility like status?

I personally am happy that YouTube can and does censor/ban porn, obscene videos, and videos depicting humans dying.

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

#248

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

leot wrote: post #247
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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, expecti…

Is my no-dogs-allowed CatTube unethical, then? Or do the ethics have to do with YouTube's utility like status? I personally am happy that YouTube can and does censor/ban porn, obscene videos, and videos depicting humans dying.

You keep inferring that I think any particular subject should be permitted on YouTube, while I've deliberately avoided saying so. The only point I've made is that trotting out the old "private companies aren't the government and aren't required to uphold free speech" argument is silly because feeling an extralegal expectation of certain behaviors private companies should follow is entirely reasonable.

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

#249

Post by vinniejames »

zingmars wrote: post #64
vinniejames wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out Plex

I'm not sure Plex would be a good option for sharing stuff with others. And on that note how many people actually have static IPs these days that allows them to easily host services like that? As the IP shortage worsens expect more carrier grade NATs to pop up.

You don't need a static IP with Plex, only a Plex account with granted access

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

#250

Post by flyingfences »

yongjik wrote: post #197
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.

It's OK. The state can still come to collect your firearms after you die... of old age. Sometimes progress is made when old generation dies off. It's painfully slow, but hey, it's better than nothing.

In what context can the word "progress" be used to describe the state cementing its absolute power by seizing private property?
Post reply on HN