So YouTube and Reddit are again saying that they're not okay with potentially illegal conduct on their platform. The only difference is that this time they're being much more direct and specific.
YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
261–270 of 763 posts
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#262This is due to US Section 230 legislation changing this week, spurred by the actions and legal battles of backpage.com https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/59... "The Backpage saga has galvanized lawmakers to act on bills amending Section 230 with the goal of stemming online sex trafficking. The legislation allows more state and civil lawsuits against websites related to online sex trafficking, f…
I don't buy this excuse. Backpage was always in a risky legal position without public support, but Alphabet (owner of YouTube) and Advance Publications (owner of Reddit) are well-positioned to fight for freedom of speech if they wanted to. These rules are being rolled out because they want to, not because they're forced to.
The Reddit bans in particular banned a wide swath of behaviors that are completely legal and not in any grey area, such as selling alcohol or trading alcohol. US Section 230 has nothing to do with this.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#263This 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 A lot of historical content will be lost.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…
We seem to be moving from an era when internet censorship was considered bad, to one where "It's OK, we're just censoring this". I have no sympathy towards gun use - but the principle of large monopolies applying their own morals to censor content seems wrong.
>I have no sympathy towards gun use
Do you think it's wrong for a woman to shoot a man who is raping her? Is it wrong for her to practice gun use to prepare for that possible threat? Do you support police use of firearms to neutralize criminal use of firearms?
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#264Earlier 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 reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive. Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, lik…
The "sensible gun regulation" isn't, that's the thing. Indeed, the people calling for it are so proud of being so ignorant about guns and gun laws that they often can't even accurately say what class of guns they want banned, they've coined a term - "gunsplaining" - to mock those who point out when they don't know what they're talking about.
Features of the current US pro-gun-control movement include the notion that it's somehow absurd handguns, which are used in the vast majority of US gun homicides, are more tightly restricted than rifles. The idea that the gun used in your deadliest school shooting, the VA Tech massacre, is basically useless and ineffective. The belief that the AR-15 is some kind of super-powerful danger rifle too powerful for anything but murder (it's actually a tad underpowered as hunting rifles go). Also unyielding, full-throated defence of the elected official in charge of the police department which ignored all the warning signs about the Parkland shooter. Pretty much only pro-gun folks seem to be questioning any of this.
To give some idea about the quality of this debate, the founder of gun control group Moms Demand Action literally pointed her followers at a photo of a scary-looking black gun, trying to make it look like some incredibly dangerous killing machine, and demanded they pressure the retailer into not selling it to under-21s https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/969572513154936833 It was actually a .22 LR bolt-action rifle, probably the least effective long rifle in widespread use it you want to kill anyone or anything, that was optimised entirely for competitive target shooting. I can't think of any other country off-hand that considers 18 year olds incapable of buying and owning those. Her follow-up was to accuse the NRA of misogyny for pointing out how stupid and clueless this was, with the help of Media Matters for America.
The campaigns for "sensible gun control" basically just use the term as a talking point that avoids having to actually explain and justify what they're calling for; after all who could be against sensible, common-sense restrictions other than some gun nut whackjob?
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#265I understand the concern here on HN. However, what do we propose to do? At the end of the day, these are private companies and they can enforce whatever arbitrary guidelines they want within the laws of the countries they operate in. E.g. if you were president Trump, would you do anything about it? Genuinely curious.
> However, what do we propose to do?
1. Ideally, we don't allow corporations to control so much of our communications.
2. Barring 1, we should set the expectation that communication platforms should protect their users' freedom of speech, with laws to enforce this.
> At the end of the day, these are private companies and they can enforce whatever arbitrary guidelines they want within the laws of the countries they operate in.
This is descriptive of reality but not prescriptive of how reality should be. As far as I am concerned, corporations don't have rights, people do, and when corporations start infringing on the rights of people (such as the right to free speech) that's a problem.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
We seem to be moving from an era when internet censorship was considered bad, to one where "It's OK, we're just censoring this". I have no sympathy towards gun use - but the principle of large monopolies applying their own morals to censor content seems wrong.
>I have no sympathy towards gun use Do you think it's wrong for a woman to shoot a man who is raping her? Is it wrong for her to practice gun use to prepare for that possible threat? Do you support police use of firearms to neutralize criminal use of firearms?
This is the first time I've ever heard someone suggest that easy access to guns makes rape more difficult.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why have a society if you cannot trust the people in it to defend themselves?
Because when we organize a society, we can specialize into roles like policing and become more effective at defense as a whole?
That might be a good argument in theory, if it wasn't for the part where US police don't have to protect citizens and all the population that are outside of effective police coverage. It's not the argument gun control campaigners seem to be making right now. They mainly seem to have gone for the approach of supporting police officers standing by and doing nothing as kids are murdered one by one. Given that, I suspect you're going to have a hard time convincing people who don't already agree with you that they should give up their guns and let the police take care of everything.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
We seem to be moving from an era when internet censorship was considered bad, to one where "It's OK, we're just censoring this". I have no sympathy towards gun use - but the principle of large monopolies applying their own morals to censor content seems wrong.
>I have no sympathy towards gun use Do you think it's wrong for a woman to shoot a man who is raping her? Is it wrong for her to practice gun use to prepare for that possible threat? Do you support police use of firearms to neutralize criminal use of firearms?
I believe this is usually called the "Please think of the children" argument (or women in this case).
I imagine the person you are replying to is not a closet rape supporter, but they likely think that allowing every adult member of a population to arm themselves is not the ideal solution. I imagine you disagree with that view, but the way you have expressed yourself is the start of an emotional flame-war, not a discussion.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, racists, sexists and conspiracy theorists appear to be the only people who still believe in freedom of speech, and are willing to fight to keep it. Even many of the "hackers" around here seem to support regulation and censorship.
This isn’t a free speech issue. The government isn’t stopping anyone from speaking or thinking anything they want. Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want
This is absolutely a free speech issue. Not in the sense that it's protected by law, but the law isn't relevant.
The bill of rights comes from a belief that certain rights are self-evident and inherent to all people. In the modern mindset, we have a broader definition of "people" than the founding fathers (that is, we include people of all genders and races). Included in those rights is freedom of speech. Human rights don't simply disappear because you're communicating on a corporate-owned platform.
Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
#270This 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…
> Please weigh your own personal hobby against our society's clear dysfunction when it comes to gun violence.
What do you think about prohibiting drugs and alcohol? Like another commenter was a victim of gun violence in his family, I'm a victim of alcohol abuse in mine. Yet, many people enjoy these substances recreationally without problem.
It's hard to weigh a purely "for fun" activity against something with dire consequences. It feels selfish to say, "my hobby is more important than your life" but that's ultimately what the 21st amendment repealing Prohibition said. And it's not an entirely unfair argument when the people safely enjoying the activity are in the tens or hundreds of millions, and the ones harmed by it are a tiny fraction.
I like guns. I don't love them. But it's a fun activity like darts, but with "cooler" machines. I could be persuaded that my hobby is net-negative for society, but it's hard to give up a clearly safe, fun, activity because of an abstract notion that somewhere else in this country of 100s of millions of people, someone is using it for evil, especially when it's fairly rare.
And liberals aren't totally blameless when it comes to the "coolness" factor of guns, either, if you look at essentially any modern movie or TV show, in which they're fairly well glorified. If the solution is to make people not want to have this hobby - and I think that's probably best bang-for-your-buck (heh) solution - then maybe Hollywood should self-censor like YouTube here and not have guns in their movies (or blur them out like in Korean dramas).