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

261–270 of 270 posts

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

#261

Post by def_true_false »

enzanki_ars wrote: post #218
def_true_false wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that a problem? Nothing is stopping people from seeding their content themselves or archiving it...

Yes, but it relies on people actively doing so. For example, look at the following torrent of the 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony in 3D [1]. Yes, it is an illegal video copy, but a video that there are no legal ways to access anymore. This torrent has no seeders and because I don't have a copy, I therefore can't seed it. [1]: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/7487775/2012_Olympics_Openi...

How is this going to be a problem if the owner/publisher takes care of the seeding (i.e. they run a seeding node instead of or in addition to serving the content the traditional way)? IP laws have almost nothing to do with the way the content is delivered...

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

#262

Post by flyingfences »

leot wrote: post #257
flyingfences wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes.

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

Both. I think it's deplorable to censor something without understanding it; I also think it's deplorable to plot to disable the free exercise of peoples' right to self defense. Furthermore, in direct response to the earlier question, I think the fact that an overreaching and vague policy can be pushed out is indicative of a bigger problem in their policy-making procedure.

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

#263

Post by naaaaak »

pavlov wrote: post #25

It's about time people realize that platforms like YouTube are private publishers. They have full discretion to remove or editorialize content, and there's no expectation of free speech. Expecting YouTube to keep hosting something because of First Amendment rights is as absurd as expecting a printing press to print your pamphlets for free.

If YouTube is a private company that can act how it wants, how is a Christian bakery forced to bake a cake for a person who violates their religious beliefs? Were they not a private company who could act how they want?

Gun control is the religion of leftists, so I guess that’s okay, right?

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

#264

Post by vinniejames »

chillwaves wrote: post #49
vinniejames wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could be solved with an aggregate search tool. Independent video providors can submit results to the video search engine. Using an integrated, distributed signon (like Blockstack or uPort), friction will again be reduced to feel like one unified system

This is good but what stops the aggregator from censoring results once it gains critical mass? You literally just described Reddit.

Because it could be a decentralized system of nodes, subject to consensus for any censorship algorithm changes. This solition could lead to a tragedy of the commons scenario, however, it's still an upbgrade to the "because we said so" model the big four currently enforce.

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

#265

Post by CompanionCuuube »

leot wrote: post #246
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll take your point into consideration that deregulating silencers will increase their usage by intelligence services.

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

#266

Post by leot »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #265
leot wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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.

I'll take your point into consideration that deregulating silencers will increase their usage by intelligence services.

Huh? That wasn't my point.

It should be blindingly obvious that silencers/suppressors have a use beyond "hearing safety". Namely, that they allow someone to shoot someone else without attracting as much attention.

Are you claiming otherwise?

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

#267

Post by WhompingWindows »

gscott wrote: post #194
WhompingWindows wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about "liberal opinions", though, is it? Guns are undeniably a public health issue, with 30,000 "death by firearms" in the USA each year, it's on the same level as traffic fatalities and slightly below the opioid deaths. When you have a category of devices responsible for 30,000 deaths, we move beyond mere opinions, mere he said/she said, into a moral territory where it is incumbent on those in power to…

Problem: U.S. vehicle deaths topped 40,000 in 2017. Solution: Let's ban car videos Problem: Johns Hopkins patient safety experts have calculated that more than 250,000 deaths per year are due to medical error in the U.S. Solution: Videos about medical procedures? Get rid' of em! and so on. Only allow cat videos.

What about videos on how to install bump stocks? Would you support allowing those to remain up on YT?

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

#268

Post by WhompingWindows »

cat199 wrote: post #161
WhompingWindows wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about "liberal opinions", though, is it? Guns are undeniably a public health issue, with 30,000 "death by firearms" in the USA each year, it's on the same level as traffic fatalities and slightly below the opioid deaths. When you have a category of devices responsible for 30,000 deaths, we move beyond mere opinions, mere he said/she said, into a moral territory where it is incumbent on those in power to…

> Would you fault Google for removing videos promoting unsafe driving practices that endanger lives, or promotional materials or sponsored videos or ads for cigarette brands, or videos demonstrating the means by which fentanyl can be mixed in with heroin? yes, yes and yes.

So absolute freedom of speech, even promotion of very dangerous products and practices, should be enforced onto private company's products?

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

#269

Post by CompanionCuuube »

leot wrote: post #237
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.

What do you suppose the impact of a suppressor would have been in Las Vegas last fall?

Realistically, not much.

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

#270

Post by CompanionCuuube »

leot wrote: post #266
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take your point into consideration that deregulating silencers will increase their usage by intelligence services.

Huh? That wasn't my point. It should be blindingly obvious that silencers/suppressors have a use beyond "hearing safety". Namely, that they allow someone to shoot someone else without attracting as much attention. Are you claiming otherwise?

I am claiming that you are taking the example of intelligence agencies and expanding it to all crime, which is not honest in the least.
Post reply on HN