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

251–260 of 270 posts

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

#251

Post by flyingfences »

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.

YouTube's new policy includes a ban on even showing the use of magazines or belts that hold more than thirty rounds.

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

#252

Post by leot »

flyingfences wrote: post #251
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.

YouTube's new policy includes a ban on even showing the use of magazines or belts that hold more than thirty rounds.

Ok, maybe there are parts that are an overreach. Does that mean the whole thing is a bad idea?

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

#253

Post by leot »

mbrumlow wrote: post #239
leot wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your post covers it, it should be easy for you to answer the question: Should YouTube be forced to host porn and snuff videos? Why or why not? In answer to your question: the porn thing was a dicey question of tradeoffs, and in the US was adjudicated by the legal system decades ago. This is an explicit example of a debate about where to draw lines (a debate that continues), and porn has (for the most part) been ev…

Sorry. I suggested if it is legal, and you are setup in such a way as YouTube to host other peoples content that YouTube should not be able to remove content without forfeiting protections it receives as entity that host other peoples content. Snuff is illegal, so yeah, nobody should be hosting it, and I don't think anybody was arguing for so. As far as I know as for being "in-bounds" it's because it is legal in gene…

So to be clear, you're saying "yes YouTube should host porn".

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

#254

Post by leot »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #248
leot wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you have an expectation that CatTube should host dog videos?

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

#255

Post by flyingfences »

leot wrote: post #252
flyingfences wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube's new policy includes a ban on even showing the use of magazines or belts that hold more than thirty rounds.

Ok, maybe there are parts that are an overreach. Does that mean the whole thing is a bad idea?

Yes.

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

#256

Post by [deleted] »

flyingfences wrote: post #250
yongjik wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[deleted]

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

#257

Post by leot »

flyingfences wrote: post #255
leot wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, maybe there are parts that are an overreach. Does that mean the whole thing is a bad idea?

Yes.

Is this a general principle, or specific just to making it harder for people to find videos depicting how to make deadly weapons?

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

#258

Post by zaarn »

twothamendment wrote: post #245
ForHackernews wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The baker has no decisive market share, people can reasonably go to another bake and get the exact same cake for the same cost (or even lower cost).

People can't reasonably go to another video hosting platform and expect to get the same kind of exposure and income. Some people's income purely depends on youtube's quasi-monopoly on video hosting.

A more correct analogy would be if a baking company had 90% of the market and refused to make cakes for gay weddings and every other baker can't afford the volume prices so the cake will be more expensive and possibly of less quality.

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

#259

Post by prepend »

pishpash wrote: post #145
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.

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

Yes they did. And we ignored it back then as well.

Largely, the TOS/“contract” doesn’t define host clearly. So you need to get real specific what you mean.

Blocking an ftp server because it’s a host would also block Apple iChat video because it’s “hosting” a video stream.

For my ISP (ATT/uverse) they prevent hosting a commercial service, otherwise they aren’t specific. And it’s not for hosting purposes, it’s for SLA purposes so they aren’t responsible for revenue loss from system outage.

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

#260

Post by prepend »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #90
bad_user wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, blockchain powered video service running on own Beowulf cluster of Rassberry Pis, w00t!

Which would be wholly rendered illegal and anyone hosting any part of it held liable if there's e.g. child porn uploaded into it. Like what turned out to be true for bitcoin yesterday.

I don’t think you understood the article on illegal material in the bitcoin blockchain.
Post reply on HN