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

301–310 of 763 posts

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

#301

Post by aaron-lebo »

losvedir wrote: post #270
kevhito wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 If losing historical content and "niche communities" having to go find new hobbies means just a coupl…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 co…

For me the difference is that drugs and alcohol usually predominately affect the user. This obviously isn't always the case...

Guns aren't toys. Yes, they can be used for hunting or just shooting stuff, and most guns aren't especially more effective at killing people than a variety of other household items, but assault rifles were actually designed to kill people, to assault entrenched positions (the stg-44 in WW2). It's not made for hunting or anything else, it's made to kill people.

The consumer ar-15 is just a variant of the m-16. With a bump stock it becomes fully automatic, easily getting around any laws. I posted this in another comment, but the Vegas shooter had 14 of those modded up. 14! Why does anyone need one of those killing machines for fun, much less 14? It's easy to see how he killed fifty people in a crowd.

I don't understand the justification for that. When your ability to have fun with a "toy" which is actually a killing machine makes it easy for dozens of people to get murdered while they are out having a good time, it's an issue. Seems like a warped sense of priorities. Yet you'll find people (many here) who believe that even limiting them to one (or god forbid anyone even suggest it) is some kind of assault on their liberties. That's not reasonable. The Bill of Rights wasn't written with anything beyond the notion of hunting rifles and muskets. It doesn't say "all citizens should have the right to fire 90 rounds per 10 seconds to defend themselves or have a good time".

Should attacks like that continue to occur, it's going to be that complete lack of moderation by gun users themselves which is going to get their rights taken away. I don't say that as wanting that to happen, but it seems obvious.

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

#302

Post by kerkeslager »

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…

EDIT: The fact that I actually support the second amendment seems to be lost on some readers who didn't take the time to read a nuanced opinion. :)

Okay, I don't support the restrictions YouTube and Reddit are putting on free speech, but I think we need to keep things rational here:

> We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of the first and most protected rights. The ability to defend yourself and country in the face of tyrany. Look at what happened in Ukraine, Syria, etc. A government doesn't fuck with a populace that has guns, so it increases stability. When you don't have the ability to defend your rights, you don't have rights anymore.

Guns as they are allowed now don't allow you to protect yourself from tyranny. Look at the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. Whether or not you believe they had illegal guns, they had guns, and they died. Guns lose to tanks every time. When the second amendment was drafted, guns made sense as a way to defend your rights from the government, but in the modern day, it's been probably half a century since civilians lost the arms race. Civilian gun ownership has lost its relevance as a means of defending our rights in the face of increasingly militarized law enforcement.

> Further, violence isn't associated with guns - it's associated with people being suppressed or by mental issues. The weather is more associated with murder than guns...

There's a case to be made that the culture around guns increases violence, but that's ambiguous. What isn't ambiguous, is that a mentally ill person with a gun is more dangerous than a mentally ill person without a gun.

> I even understand trying to reduce ways to kill massive amounts of people easily. But again, I have a car, I know how to make chlorine gas, so on and so forth.

You can argue that a mentally ill person could build a fertilizer bomb or drive a car into a group of people, but I'll point out that we have laws restricting those things too--let's not assume that people who support restricting gun rights don't also support restricting fertilizer and car rights.

> Stop talking about mass murders and start talking about tragedies, do a black out on mass murders names. That'd probably fix the issue in time.

I think that this is part of the issue: that won't "fix" the issue. It might help, but people will still want more gun control, because the magnitude of the issue isn't relevant to how people feel about it.

More people die every year in car accidents than die from civilian-owned guns in 10. By all statistics, we should be much more worried about why we let drive than who we let own guns. But again, the magnitude of the problem isn't what people are reacting to. Guns are just much scarier to the average person than cars.

So people are always going to push for more and more gun control as long as gun violence exists at all, and gun violence will always exist, because it's impossible to control it completely. You aren't going to "fix" gun violence, so unfortunately we need to accept that that isn't an option on the table, even though everyone wants it to be. And once we accept that we can't "fix" gun violence, then it's easier to stomach that gun rights might have some validity worth weighing against restrictions of questionable efficacy.

> I'm telling you right now, by removing these videos you're arming people, and exhasborating the problem.

This is absolutely true, and I think it's one of the biggest problems with the left right now. Too many of us don't seem to understand that by restricting free speech we create martyrs.

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

#303

Post by typon »

thinkingemote wrote: post #292
typon wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

?? Are you somehow suggesting that people involved in gun sales or drug sales on reddit are somehow meme generators keeping the culture alive?? People made the same arguments when /r/fatpeoplehate was banned and /r/niggers was banned, and before that when /r/jailbait was banned. Nothing changed except the site got a bit better because a bunch of the assholes migrated to voat or remade those subreddits under different…

Yes, I am saying that gun enthusiasts, the millions of normal Americans and people around the world who like guns, or even craft beer, or historical re-enactment, also like to tell jokes. They do not go to reddit to only talk about guns, but to other subreddits. It's quite easy to understand. I am not saying they are the only people keeping the site alive, that would be silly. I'm saying that people that like to tell…

Let me clear: im completely against these bannings specifically. It looks like a very political move and it came out of nowhere without any warning to the subreddit mods, volunteers who make reddit what it is.

Having said that, I still don't buy the argument that this will have some sort of larger negative impact on the reddit community. Reddit is way too large for some niche subreddits to actually matter in the big picture.

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

#304

Post by IAmEveryone »

userbinator wrote: post #289

This reminds me of this quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson I wonder if he would be considered a terrorist today...

If you want to die for your country, please do it alone.

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

#305

Post by aaron-lebo »

jakeogh wrote: post #288
aaron-lebo wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 understa…

He can only shoot one gun at once. It's (much) faster to change a mag than to switch guns. Think harder about why he may have had so many. Maybe look into his very unusual non-history and the people around him. If it's not obvious, officially what happened in Vegas is a coverup.

Do you frequent conspiracy forums, because thats where I've heard that?

The most hilarious scenario is the suggestion that he was actually doing an arms deal with bad guys who were planning on assassinating some Saudi nearby. The arms deal went wrong so they murdered him and to cover that up they shot up a crowd. Which you know, makes more sense than walking away or buying your guns in the desert anywhere within 100 miles around there.

The easier thing to believe is the guy loved guns and decided to kill people. You can't keep up that rate of fire no matter how many mags you've got, that's why he had multiple weapons.

I'd love to hear an explanation that isn't crazy and actually has some evidence behind it, but otherwise Hanlon's Razor and all...

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

#306

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Per the Reddit regulations, item 6:

Do they mean counterfeit currency ("Falsified official currency") or was there supposed to be a comma, meaning all currency? That would rule out any sales transaction as they "involve" currency.

Wasn't sale of counterfeit already ruled out?

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

#307

Post by humanrebar »

simias wrote: post #290
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.

This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs. It makes sense for Youtube to ban this controversial content. It's not new either, websites banning some types of content based on arbitrary rules is as old as the internet. It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. The problem is that Youtube is so big and almost monopolistic that removing this content from You…

> It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform.

On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship.

> I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore.

I don't find this line of thinking convincing. It's certainly appropriate to criticize moderation policies of platforms. If YouTube decided to censor videos on how to use condoms, #BlackLivesMatters, "conspiracies" about governments reading everyones' emails, or opinions on the Damore firing, criticism would be entirely warranted.

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

#308

Post by dolessdrugs »

maxlybbert wrote: post #286
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The average city dweller in the US doesn’t own a gun either. There are plenty of guns around, but often it feels more like a boogeyman than a real threat.

Is this statistically true? It's not even slightly true in my experience, but I've lived in NY, Philly, and Texas...

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

#309

Post by krapp »

jetpks wrote: post #115
krapp wrote: post #52

Earlier 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

I've seen a number of comments and articles suggesting that, somehow, social media and the freedom of communication permitted by the internet are incompatible with democracy and social order. There seems to be a fear of freedom of speech as a dangerous principle which could lead to a demand for government control, or at the very least, a general mistrust of non centralized and proprietary communications platforms.

>Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want.

Wherever you want, no... but whatever you want, yes, more or less.

The only rights protecting you and I are the rights that protect the scum that many people currently (and understandably) want to see driven off of social media and out of public discourse. They act as the canaries in the coal mine of personal liberty, and democracy depends on the capacity for the free exchange of ideas, communication and debate.

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

#310

Post by pc86 »

Klathmon wrote: post #281
Anon1096 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not every argument about personal safety is a "think of the children" argument. Guns are dangerous. Yes they can be used for self defense, but they are also dangerous on their own. I believe that un-regulated guns are more dangerous (to everyone) than the danger of some subset of people being more vulnerable without them. I'm not advocating for a ban, but heavy regulation about who can buy them, how, what kind of tra…

They are not dangerous "on their own" any more than an iron or a knife or an automobile or a bottle of tequila is dangerous on their on. All of those are dangerous in the hands of a bad person, an uneducated (about that object) person, or a mentally ill person. The object does not have inherent danger.
Post reply on HN