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

421–430 of 763 posts

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

#421

Post by humanrebar »

aninhumer wrote: post #385
humanrebar wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 question…

>People can advocate for social norms and different ethical frameworks without advocating for legal or regulatory changes. Yes, but unless you're considering some means of achieving those social norms, even if that's just social pressure, it's unlikely to change anything. And when people do actually advocate means of changing the norms of discourse, people who don't like the proposed changes will call it censorship.…

> "Freedom of Speech" is not actually a very coherent ideal.

Sure it is. The ideal is that better ideas, not power, are the best response to ideas someone doesn't like. But there are certainly exceptions where power is needed to counter acutely harmful speech like "don't yell fire in a crowded theater" and "don't post stolen passwords".

Governments and corporations just have different interests and different amounts and kinds of power. So we have different norms and rules for what governments and corporations ought to do. But the general principle is the same.

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

#423

Post by humanrebar »

yequalsx wrote: post #392
humanrebar wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep "the military" (British troops) from taking weapons away from arguably "self-regulated" militias. I think it's a tough case to make if you're arguing that the Constitution was referring solely to current members of armed services commissioned by the government.

Those militias were under the control of the colonial government. Indeed one of the colonials killed at Lexington was an ensign. That militia was the army at the time.

To complete the thought experiment, what would we have to do to form our own militia? Have a charter and elections? The colonial army at the time was not sanctioned by the king to bear the arms it did.

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

#424

Post by humanrebar »

yequalsx wrote: post #387
humanrebar wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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.

Very clear wording that took over 200 yeas for there to be a Supreme Court willing to agree with that interpretayption. Previous courts disagreed. Given this no one can reasonably think it’s very clear wording.

Guns were not banned for 200 years. D.C. vs. Heller in particular overturned parts of a law passed in 1975.

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

#425

Post by apazzolini »

mattbrewsbytes wrote: post #330
x14 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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).

I think he was alluding to the fact that although there is a legal way to make guns illegal, it won't actually get rid of guns, in much the same way making alcohol illegal didn't prevent people from drinking.

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

#426

Post by exabrial »

dangoor wrote: post #351
prepend wrote: post #329

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…

It seems to me that social media aren't the same as common carriers in that people can very easily switch from one to another. I saw a headline saying that one gun video channel on YouTube was moving its videos to another site. They will no longer have access to YouTube's audience, but they are still free to post their videos in a publicly-accessible fashion.

Just curious, what site is that?

Cody's Lab and AVE, two of the most informative educational channels, already have a crap ton of problems with YouTube (granted AVE pokes the bear with a stick). With the #DeleteFacebook movement in full swing, I'd love to see a #LoseTheTube and go to a platform that promotes free expression but can actually classify stuff correctly (giving the user the power to filter what they don't want to see).

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

#428

Post by gnu8 »

this_user wrote: post #369
slivym wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cont…

The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes to attract them. Take 4chan as an example: For years they were struggling to find anyone who would want to advertise there, and that is not entirely surprising. Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would appear they are attempting to make…

I wonder how we can effectively punish Reddit for this. If we can cut into their advertising revenue and derail their IPO, that might force them to reverse their position.

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

#429

Post by wu-ikkyu »

simias wrote: post #380
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 primar…

You say that I doublespeak and I say that you cry "wolf". If you're willing to go full 1984 when Youtube updates its ToS where do you go from there? Note that the definition for censorship you quote doesn't necessarily apply here, youtube is not prohibiting "any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security", they're prohibiting it on their platform .…

I agree with you that the root problem bere is monopolistic centralized platforms without serious competition, but you misread the definition of censorship and went on to create your own definition -- this is how doublespeak happens.

It's the suppression or prohibition. Nowhere is the definition constrained by location. There has never been a case of censorship that was enforced on every corner of the globe -- only where one's scope of influence has the power to do so.

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

#430

Post by taborj »

exabrial wrote: post #426
dangoor wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that social media aren't the same as common carriers in that people can very easily switch from one to another. I saw a headline saying that one gun video channel on YouTube was moving its videos to another site. They will no longer have access to YouTube's audience, but they are still free to post their videos in a publicly-accessible fashion.

Just curious, what site is that? Cody's Lab and AVE, two of the most informative educational channels, already have a crap ton of problems with YouTube (granted AVE pokes the bear with a stick). With the #DeleteFacebook movement in full swing, I'd love to see a #LoseTheTube and go to a platform that promotes free expression but can actually classify stuff correctly (giving the user the power to filter what they don't…

Many are moving over to full30.com
Post reply on HN