Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 763 posts

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#271

Post by vertis »

assblaster wrote: post #263
gtlondon wrote: post #251

Earlier 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?

That is a seriously BS example. If guns had an effect on reducing rape US would be much lower than Australia that has much tighter gun laws[1]. US has all the school shootings that come with gun ownership and none of the supposed benefits.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#272

Post by [deleted] »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #259
prawn wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a country where it is quite unusual for someone to own a gun, but I can appreciate that YouTube how-tos are a great educational tool in the situation you describe. From YouTube's message though, it seemed that they were only cracking down on how-tos pertaining to specific things like magazine size or automatic fire. Would that pertain to the 100+ year old rifle and general gun maintenance/malfunctions?

Ahoy from across the sea! I grew up in Port Lincoln, then moved to Adelaide, and now Launceston. Also, I have family in Queensland. In my experience it isn’t unusual at all for someone to own a gun, or guns, in Australia. My father had guns, my sisters family have multiple guns for pig hunting. Half the guys I work with have a veritable smorgasbord of firearms, I’m talking 10+ firearms, for hunting and just general e…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#273

Post by Anon1096 »

joncampbelldev wrote: post #268
assblaster wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 disc…

Arguments against guns are almost universally a think of the children argument though.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#274

Post by saas_co_de »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #3

This 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…

No. It isn't.

Backpage was openly engaged in helping sex traffickers sell children for sex on their site. They edited ads to remove references to the fact that the people being offered were under age and then ran the ads.

This has nothing to do with the Backpage scum and everything to do with people shooting up schools and other people engaging in mass campaigns to ban guns.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#275

Post by SXX »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #243
SXX wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason you need exactly these "top tier" devices? For under $200 there is well-built Xiaomi devices with 3-4GB RAM, powerful CPU and everything except for removable battery. Of course you should never use firmware from Chinese company, but it's true for 98% of other Android devices too and LineageOS + microG work great on these phones.

Because mobile phones are complex beasts hardware- and software-wise, and going top tier makes it much more likely you'll have a fast device for years, that works with whatever random idiosyncratic software and hardware you throw at it. Like, e.g., last year my SO was changing phones, and we didn't have much budget left, so we went with then-recommended Huawei P8 Lite. Almost good enough, except it seems to have its…

Might be I was just lucky with few devices I owned over last 5 years, but I only got problems with them after putting them in some insane conditions like living in Asia with constant overheating, sand and sea all around. Though I only ever used Cyanogenmod / LineageOS and specifically was looking for older, but tested devices that work well with custom firmware.

Also when it's $160 device I don't need to worry about randomly died battery because I can always get new phone.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#276

Post by jwilk »

oh-kumudo wrote: post #29
tylersmith wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes a slur specifically "alt-right"?

Cuck is invented/re-invented by alt-righters. "As linguist Mark Liberman explained on Language Log, cuck “was extended figuratively on 4chan to reference ‘relinquished manliness’ and more abstractly ‘selling out, abandoning principles.’”"

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20701

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#277

Post by saas_co_de »

birksherty wrote: post #174
lettergram wrote: post #120

There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... If I take my car (a Jeep Grand Cherokee) and ram it into a crowd - I'm confident that can take out more people than I can with a gun, knife, probably even bomb. Point being, I understand not facilitating trade, but for the love of god, videos? You really want to push the right over the edge? We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of t…

General population don't practice ramming car into crowd. Those are not hobbies. So, when mentally ill people want to cause harm they don't use those methods. It does not normally comes to mind. But, shooting is common. It's a hobby. A killing machine is normalized and it becomes a culture. So, those mentally ill men feels completely normal to shoot people when they go crazy. Consider this: ramming car into objects b…

> That's why countries where gun are banned for general population, does not have mass murder by "common people" like USA

Sorry, but this is completely false.

I am not going to link to it for reasons of taste, but you can google "encyclopedia dramatica high score" for a very thorough run down on mass shootings. They occur globally and are by no means a phenomenon isolated to the US.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#278

Post by watwut »

reitanqild wrote: post #204
jjjensen90 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally I am against loss of human life, be it in war or gun violence, but I'm not sure how I would have felt at the time of the Revolution, and I'm not sure you do either. But really, that is just a weak strawman. The US government/military is MANY orders of magnitude more powerful than the British vs the colonists. The US military could nuke every single state capital in a few minutes, for example. If you take th…

> I am just pointing out that an untrained populace armed with even military-style assault weapons is really just laughable if your enemy is the largest military that has ever existed with technology and weapons that could annihilate humanity. Tell that to the Nazis. They were the military superpower of their time. Except for the nuclear option every armed enemy can tie up >10 soldiers if they are going to try to kee…

Third reich army was trained. It was army. This is not an example of "untrained populace". This is example of well trained army from country with great military tradition.

The fight against nazi was ultimately won by armies, not by "untrained populace".

All in all, this is really odd example.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#279

Post by thinkingemote »

"Reddit and Youtube are shooting themselves in the foot!" some would say. "I'm moving to this other site!" those directly affected say. And the rest of the users and the sites say "bye! Good riddance!", thinking that they have just surgically removed a small portion of the site. But they are wrong, the effect will be huge and far reaching and here's why:

What Reddit and those cheering the migration of gun and sex enthusiasts is that those people are also frequent contributors to the funny, light subreddits. If they go, not only do other, straight, subreddits lose out, but the alternatives they go to start to get straighter too.

People will indeed move to something better. And they will move quickly. We have seen it with myspace to facebook and digg to reddit. So far, the alternatives, to me, seem not that attractive, but I imagine it would only take a few people to move to make it so.

It only takes a few sane early adopters.

Re: YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans

#280

Post by aaron-lebo »

jakeogh wrote: post #198
aaron-lebo wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why we can't do both. Mental healthcare is one of the main needs in this country, but the Las Vegas shooter was also not classically mentally ill, just nihilistic and evil. He also had 23 guns, some of them full on assault, some of them modified. That's absurd. Why does it always have to be a dichotomy? Surely a nation of 300 million people can address multiple issues at once? All we've got going on is pe…

"full on assault" Which means? Too many bullets? Wrong color? Too accurate? Too easy to use? It's a meaningless term unless you interpret as a positive attribute.

You're right.

What's important is he had 24* weapons, 14 of which were AR-15s with bump stocks which allowed them to fire at 9 rounds per sec (easily Googleable).

So not technically assault rifles but practically he had 14 assault rifles. Which is crazy. How can you even purchase that many?

Do those who resist gun control believe arsenals like that are reasonable? This question is in good faith. I just don't understand it.

Post reply on HN