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

#441

Post by asift » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 2:07 PM UTC

Haydos585x2 wrote: post #356

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…

The web still exists very much as it was. You could set up your own site and host any kind of weapons content you wanted assuming it fits with your local legislation. YouTube has no obligation to host your content. It's annoying that the best/most popular/easiest to use video service won't support you/these weapons channels but I don't think it really impacts on _free speech_. Plus, isn't the free speech crowd usuall…

> Plus, isn't the free speech crowd usually about letting private companies do what they want?

You can believe that a private company has the right to do something but also be opposed to them exercising that right.

There's a difference between free speech as a legal principle and free speech as a moral principle. I personally support both, so while I acknowledge that YouTube has a legal right to restrict speech, I still disagree with their use of that right in this case.

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

#442

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 2:07 PM UTC

jdanp wrote: post #433

kevhito wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive. Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, lik…

NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.

> NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.

Not sure of the first two off the top of my head, but the other two of the named examples are things that the NRA vociferously opposed, and (especially Brady) fought to repeal after they were adopted, so not exactly examples of the NRA budging. Ditto with many of them state laws you wave your hand at.

The NRA may lose sometimes, but thats different than budging.

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

#443

Post by deadmetheny » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 2:08 PM UTC

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).

Yeah, and look at how well that whole experiment turned out.

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

#444

Post by latencyloser » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 2:08 PM UTC

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).

It was removed, but also (and maybe because) it was nearly impossible to effectively enforce. Gun restrictions would very much experience the same problems. There are millions of guns and gun owners in the US and many of those people are firm believers in their right to own a gun. They'd likely bury them in the yard or, as the old joke goes, "lose" them in a boating accident, before turning them over to authorities.

I personally would _never_ willingly turn mine in--they're for my and my family's protection and have saved my life before. I am certain many gun owners feels this way as well. Trying to enforce such a rule would be difficult, if not impossible.

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

#445

Post by MrMember » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 2:10 PM UTC

Pinckney wrote: post #101

Amusingly, InRangeTV and C&RArsenal have both responded by using pornhub as an alternate distribution platform.

Pornhub has an opportunity here to branch out if they wanted to. They have the infrastructure, they could open a more general use, non-pornographic video hosting service.

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

#446

Post by yequalsx » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 2:11 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #423

yequalsx wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My interpretation of the second amendment is that the government has broad regulatory powers when it comes to gun ownership. Furthermore that the right applies only to militias and that in the present day militia would be an organization under government control.

Times change and interpretations change. I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. But for people who are originalists the well regulated meaning in the wording of the second amendment should imply broad government powers of regulation. It’s the only part of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to both the government and the people. It’s an oddly worded amendment. I imagine that the founders understood that a broad, unregulated right to own guns might not be the best public policy and hence threw in the well regulated wording. Also they mention it being necessary to a free state. If it is no longer necessary to a free state what then? Can a ban be placed on ownership? I don’t know how they would answer the question. I do know how I answer it.

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

#447

Post by juliangoldsmith » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 2:14 PM UTC

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.

People can theoretically switch from one social network to another, however taking their friends with them is less easy.

If you make your living making videos on YouTube, and want to move to another service, most of your audience isn't going to come along. Being able to publicly post your videos is pointless if nobody watches them.

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

#448

Post by ehmu » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #348

humanrebar wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

you misquoted it the text reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

emphasis mine, It is the right of the people that will not be infringed.

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

#449

Post by mrlala » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 2:17 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…

>This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs

But that's also in the best interested of everyone.

Instead of youtube, we should visit 10 different video sites? Instead of reddit, we should visit 10 different global info sources that now have 10x less content, and spend even more time finding what's relevant? Instead of twitch, we should visit 10 different sites to watch streams?

It's the natural order of things.. there's no way to have a LOT of different sites that also contain basically everything you want.

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

#450

Post by factsareright » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

superkuh wrote: post #18

benmmurphy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with voat is it basically the dregs of reddit so no-one respectable wants to be associated with it. But if reddit bans enough stuff that is semi-respectable and those people are able to hold their nose to migrate to voat they might end up making voat respectable enough to overcome their current poor reputation.

It has reached that point. I'm moving to voat.

You are definitely prepared for voat, but for the others reading this, make note that voat is like 4chan; part of their defense mechanism is to get people who use words like "racist" upset and make them leave (and then go tell their friends how bad voat is). The crowd of people who just care about freedom of speech, transparency, and corruption, have been chased from platform to platform.

users like go1dfish are a good example, he is known on reddit and voat, but he is an example of someone who was forced off reddit for having the wrong thoughts. We were chased off of digg way before digg4 came out and we went to reddit where people like swartz cared about transparency and no censorship. Then we were chased off the main subs of reddit, then our subs got subverted, then shit started disappearing, and now we are on voat.

Remember that many prominent progressives and socialists are also blacklisted by the bulk of NPR/reddit types. Kucinich is a prime example, Ed Shultz is another; their crime is to tell their followers to think rationally about the situation. This is where people like me, and I guess you, find themselves.