YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by aaron-lebo » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:11 PM UTC

jakeogh wrote: post #315

aaron-lebo wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

ah, ya, "conspiracy forums" with a "crazy" tossed in. Welp, no point in discussing it then. Case closed. "Hilarious" even... Clearly he needed all those guns for... "You can't keep up that rate of fire no matter how many mags you've got" Citation needed. You could make shot timeline with the audio. It's 101 that changing mags is faster than switching guns. I have most if not all of the footage, there is nothing there…

Just saying, the only place the cover up story goes around is conspiracy forums.

If you've got a non-crazy story (didn't call you crazy, you didn't provide anything but a vague suggestion), have at it.

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

#322

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:11 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #291

makomk wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're mocking the intelligence of gun control supporters and doubting their sincerity and credibility. As you seem to be knowledgeable about the subject, and seem to believe that only persons such as yourself are qualified to have an opinion on the matter, what would you consider to be actually sensible gun regulation?

Bump stocks are likely on their way out. They seem to be only suited for throwing a lot of bullets around indiscriminately.

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

#323

Post by wu-ikkyu » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:12 PM UTC

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.

This is doublespeak.

>censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

"Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms, in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable."

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

#324

Post by Klathmon » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:14 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #310

Klathmon wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes and those things are (in my opinion) regulated proportionally to their "level of danger".

You can't anonymously own a car in the US, you can't (legally) buy one at a car convention then take it on the road without registering it. Larger knives have regulations and rules around who can buy them, and some are just illegal to own in many states. Tequila requires you to be over a certain age, and you can't buy it if you are visibly drunk.

These things are dangerous. Yes, they won't jump up and attack someone on their own, but even well educated sane good people have accidents with them, which is what I mean by these things being dangerous.

And just like with automobiles, I don't think banning them is the right move, but I do think requiring a "gun license" where you can prove that you know how to handle, store, and can show you have the skills to safely use a gun should be required, as well as registering and proving that you have a safe place to store them that is out of the reach of children, mentally ill adults, and theives.

Safe gun owners will need to do very little to get approved to continue owning guns, and many unsafe gun owners can be denied. Not to mention that increasing the "average" storage security would mean that less would be easily stolen reducing the number of unregistered guns available for purchase on a "black market".

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

#325

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:14 PM UTC

lightedman wrote: post #185

chx wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm. This is legal nonsense put together relatively recently, starting as answer to the Black Panthers arming themselves and then later some politics. Please look at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-sec... > From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every sin…

"You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm." The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. District of Columbia vs. Heller.

...because the text is in the Constitution in very clear wording. Trying to use syntax tricks to explain an alternate meaning for the second amendment results in nonsense, really. People who are against gun rights aren't for "well-organized militias" in general.

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

#326

Post by slivym » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:14 PM UTC

gtlondon wrote: post #251

Rebelgecko wrote: post #15

This 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 disagree with this, I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. The problem I have is that they're having their cake and eating it.

To me there are two models:

- You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site.

- You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for the content on your site.

Reddit & Youtube want a little from (A) a little from (B). They want the revenue from being a neutral platform, and the control of being a media company to moderate content for PR purposes.

The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban. So for example, at Reddit, Pizzagate is now officially endorsed as a reasonable point of view that Reddit believes is a valid opinion and is worthy of investigation. We know that reddit endorses pizzagate, because reddit moderates their content and decided to allow pizzagate conspiracies.

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

#327

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:15 PM UTC

itbeho wrote: post #227

pasquinelli wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the constitution allows itself to be changed. ultimately it comes down to the whims of society.

It takes more than a whim to change it.

Hacking apart the constitution because it is too hard to persuade people to amend it is a bigger problem than videos about AR-15s.

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

#328

Post by macspoofing » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:17 PM UTC

gtlondon wrote: post #251

Rebelgecko wrote: post #15

This 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.

These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press criticism (who love taking potshots at tech companies), the outrage and 'activist' brigade (who now target their campaigns at platforms and advertisers), advertisers who now freak out over individual tweets and even the new tech elite class (e.g. Kara Swisher of Re/code has been on a personal crusade to get YouTube and Facebook to get adhere to her standards of content).

It's a new world. It's no longer the internet of the 90s and early 2000s.

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

#329

Post by prepend » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:17 PM UTC

The more social media applies arbitrary rules to speech, the more likely they are to be regulated as common carriers. This puts a lot of restrictions and “the Internet” was against it.

But these items are not illegal speech (although sometimes).

These are private orgs and can legally ban whatever they want. However, phone companies are private too, but they have regulation controlling what is and is not allowed.

The issue is that banning legal speech is a slippery slope. I imagine how I would respond if YouTube banned howtos on ripping DVDs. They can legally do that and it’s based on an illegal activity.

This also opens the door for countries with restrictive laws to forbid speech about what is illegal in China, etc.

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

#330

Post by mattbrewsbytes » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 12:17 PM UTC

x14 wrote: post #40

yequalsx wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a gun owner. Indeed I'm very much opposed to people being able to own guns and hope that someday they will be banned in the U.S. I do understand your perspective and why this is upsetting to you. For me I see it as a step toward people being more anti-gun ownership. Societies evolve and social views change. Our views on marijuana, smoking, etc. have changed over the decades. I hope I am now seeing the beginni…

>hope that someday they will be banned in the U.S How would something like that possibly be carried out?

At one point (1920 I think) there was an amendment which made alcohol illegal. It went on for 13 years and then was removed.

So there is a legal framework to add/remove amendments from the US Constitution, they are amendments after all, they were not there originally (I think 3 years after).