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

341–350 of 763 posts

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

#341

Post by moomin »

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…

Indeed. Try to get onto Fox News every day and push a pro-choice message and see how long it is before your name appears in a database somewhere with a note saying “do not let on air”. ALL media firms have a slant, bias, &c. YouTube and Reddit, by virtue of their size, _have_ to go for “acceptable to a very wide audience”.

This isn’t censorship, it’s commercial positioning. You don’t have to like it, and indeed you can pressure the firm to take a different line but centralisation is the real enemy here.

But Other Websites Are Available.

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

#342

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

This is a site about startups and tech and hacking.

Doesn't this sound like a golden opportunity for someone to stand up a video service dedicated to this niche? Basically Google and Reddit are stating that they don't want to lose ad revenue from other channels which they deem as more important. Sure they are wrapping it up as being socially conscious or something but it comes down to money. They are ad companies. Large ad firms for large brands might pull their stuff if they keep firearm channels around.

A service for this niche would probably get all of the firearm ad revenue that is leaving those platforms.

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

#343

Post by moomin »

macspoofing wrote: post #328
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.

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…

You want to start a personal crusade to change YouTube and Facebook’s standards, go ahead, that’s your first amendment right. Just don’t go taking sideswipes at others for exercising theirs.

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

#344

Post by nickysielicki »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #342

This is a site about startups and tech and hacking. Doesn't this sound like a golden opportunity for someone to stand up a video service dedicated to this niche? Basically Google and Reddit are stating that they don't want to lose ad revenue from other channels which they deem as more important. Sure they are wrapping it up as being socially conscious or something but it comes down to money. They are ad companies. La…

Already exists and is popular: http://www.full30.com

This is where most channels are intending to move.

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

#345

Post by emanreus »

kevhito wrote: post #143
aaron-lebo wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually had this discussion with someone who is very pro-gun earlier. To me the reasonable position is it's absurd when people can buy weapons made to kill (the AR-15, for example) for funzies. The Parkland shooter was 19, clearly off his rocker, and had multiple semi auto rifles. If you listen to the shooting, you're talking weapons that can fire killing/maiming shots every second. These are essentially the same…

Maybe I misread the parent. It sounded like parent was very "dismayed" at youtube's effort to ban videos about exactly the kind of horrifying weapons you mention, just because the ban also happens to impact his hobby with 100yo rifles. To me, banning some videos isn't extreme, even if it does have some overreach in some cases. It's just an oversight that could be fixed. Can't we all agree to get the extreme videos of…

> Can't we all agree to get the extreme videos off youtube, before we worry about some corner cases with niche communities? Because if some random guy's fascination with 100yo rifles means kids in my son's classmates are more likely to shoot the place up, then screw that.

We can't. Because some guy posting videos about historical weapons doesn't mean that has anything to do with your kid being safe.

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

#346

Post by macspoofing »

moomin wrote: post #343
macspoofing wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You want to start a personal crusade to change YouTube and Facebook’s standards, go ahead, that’s your first amendment right. Just don’t go taking sideswipes at others for exercising theirs.

I can't critize media personalities for their public viewpoints?

What kind of standard are you actually advocating for?

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

#347

Post by pbhjpbhj »

saas_co_de wrote: post #277
birksherty wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But when you compare USA to UK or Australia - both of whom banned most gun ownership following mass shootings - you see that USA far outstrips others who have addressed the situation with gun controls.

Compare the USA situation to countries at war or with armed insurgencies and, of course, it might seem even tame. If you aspire only to give your citizens the security of a corrupt developing world dictatorship then this comparison is probably useful.

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

#348

Post by yequalsx »

humanrebar wrote: post #331
yequalsx wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd Amendment does speak of a well regulated militia and it being necessary for the defense of the United States. I'm in favor a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer and have no expertise on the legalities but I do know that amendments can be repealed. There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

> I'm in favor a well regulated militia. So people can have guns as long as they're in a "well-regulated militia"? Do we want all gun owners to be in self-governed militias? I don't follow this line of thought.

The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment but it seems to me a case could be made that well regulated gives the government broad regulatory powers. The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Of course a repeal of the amendment would be fine with me too.

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

#349

Post by TheCoreh »

whyever wrote: post #319
lettergram wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we should be given one in school, trained, and make it normal. The problem is you're right, they are being advertised. Although, what I will say is I don't know a single person who treats them as toys (I live in a pretty rural area, so pretty much everyone has one). Every gun is taken care of and very well managed. It always amazes me, because I'm one of the few people who refuse to have a gun in my house (mi…

How can you say guns are safe when so many get killed by them in the U.S.?

To be fair, in the U.S. about the same number of people are killed by cars every year. Most people would generally consider cars to be safe.

(About 60% of gun deaths are suicides, 30% are homicides, and only 10% are accidental. Unlike with car deaths, where almost 100% are accidental.)

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

#350

Post by humanrebar »

aninhumer wrote: post #300
SCHiM wrote: post #202

There they go again, the big nanny corporations. They are part of the social fabric of our society. The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there. Saying that they have a right to censor their platform is OK, if this was the case from the outset. As it is, once these platforms were free and unrestricted. It's only after they grew big, are became protected by network effects that allows them to do stuff like…

>The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there. If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which is itself a violation of freedom of speech. And this is the problem with a simplistic idea like "Freedom of Speech". It is not possible for everyone to hear everyone else's point of view, so some speech will alw…

> If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which is itself a violation of freedom of speech.

People can advocate for social norms and different ethical frameworks without advocating for legal or regulatory changes.

> ...speech is never truly free, and unless we accept that, we will not be able to ask real questions about what kind of societal discourse we truly value.

They are called ideals because we cannot perfect reality, not because they are unimportant. There's nothing wrong with forming consensus about how things should work and then only doing what is reasonable to force that vision on each other. I don't see what part of that gets in the way of asking "real questions".

Post reply on HN