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

451–460 of 763 posts

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

#451

Post by leetcrew »

swalsh wrote: post #296
yequalsx wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like it to be illegal for people to own guns. Those who violate the law (as the ban would be in the form of a law) would go to jail. Current owners would turn in their guns and those guns would be destroyed. The 2nd Amendment is oddly worded. It does speak of a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert but it seems to me that banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia sho…

"banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia " The definition of militia is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 There are two "militias", the national guard, and the unorganized militia... When I read the Federalist papers, I interrupted it as Hamilton and Jay were trying to describe a defense strategy of the country, which included internal, and external threats. When I read it,…

> Every social service other first world countries have, we can't afford. That is directly a result of our military spending.

The US spends a lot on its military, but it's only about 15% of central government spending. When you look at spending as a percentage of GDP, we (3.3%) are not that far off from European powers like France (2.3%) or the UK (1.9%) whose defense we essentially subsidize through NATO. We just have a much larger economy so that 3.3% turns out to be a really big number.

There's no obvious (to me) fiscal reason why our social services have to be so poor, so I have to assume we just suck at allocating the money (possibly intentional).

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

#452

Post by wan23 »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #323
simias wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 primar…

The word censor comes from a Latin word for a government official who, well, censored things. In English the word has the implication of being action taken by someone who actually has the power to make moral decisions on behalf of society, such as a government. Maybe you think the word has a different meaning, or maybe you think Youtube has this power, but you should try to disagree without accusing people of being part of a conspiracy to change the meanings of words.

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

#453

Post by simias »

humanrebar wrote: post #397
simias wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship. I suppose you can say that but I don't think it's a useful definition. Censorship is a strong word, if we overuse it it's going to lose its meaning. Censorship generally has the intent of removing something from society at large because the elites deem it dangerous. Youtube isn't calling for the removal of gun content from the internet,…

> If your Dungeon and Dragon forum bans you because you posted porn, are they censoring you? Yes. Censorship is a neutral term. > If you expect advertising-powered private platforms that host your content pro-bono... I expect people to let each other say their piece. Content owners and content hosts have a partnership, and the balance of power definitely tips toward Reddit and YouTube at the moment. We can argue that…

The only way to be sharp and clear about how Youtube and Reddit should behave is either boycotting them or having the regulators strongarm them into changing their practices. You exclude the 2nd option, that leaves us with the boycotting. We'll see how it'll turn out but I doubt the general reddit and youtube audience is mature and principled enough to drop these websites because of their idealistic goals. As long as they don't ban cat videos and videogame streaming I'm sure they'll do fine.

I expect that, as always in these situations, a minority of users will migrate to alternative websites (voat, alternative video streaming websites etc...) many of them will end up coming back to Youtube/Reddit because that's where all the content is and the network effect is strong. Repeat in one year when Reddit decides to issue a new wave of subreddit bans. I genuinely don't know how we can get out of this situation.

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

#454

Post by dangoor »

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…

I had to go back to find the article, because it was just a headline that appeared in the sidebar of an article I was reading this morning.

This wouldn't appear to be a general solution, they're moving to Pornhub:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/leticiamiranda/a-gun-demo-youtube-c...

(The slug in that URL is wrong. They changed the headline to be "24 million views".)

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

#455

Post by latencyloser »

pjc50 wrote: post #400
purple-again wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see this argument come up people always try to frame it like it will be ‘nutters’ shooting ‘some’ people. You are very wrong, and that is the attitude that will get a lot of innocent people killed. This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed.

> well organized people who will kill before being disarmed. The collective noun for people who will kill rather than obey the law is "terrorists". One of the conditions for peace in Northern Ireland was that political groups had to disarm in order to enter politics, because you can't do politics with people who are threatening to murder you. That's not a democracy.

One of the founding principles of the US was the right of its citizenry to protect itself from the overreach of the government, which was enabled partly through the right for citizens to own firearms and other weapons. They're a means of self defense, but more importantly as a way to keep the gov in check. No government can control millions of armed citizens--which is exactly the point.

Killing in response to being disarmed is probably one of the most "American" things its citizens could do.

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

#456

Post by domevent »

latencyloser wrote: post #455
pjc50 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> well organized people who will kill before being disarmed. The collective noun for people who will kill rather than obey the law is "terrorists". One of the conditions for peace in Northern Ireland was that political groups had to disarm in order to enter politics, because you can't do politics with people who are threatening to murder you. That's not a democracy.

One of the founding principles of the US was the right of its citizenry to protect itself from the overreach of the government, which was enabled partly through the right for citizens to own firearms and other weapons. They're a means of self defense, but more importantly as a way to keep the gov in check. No government can control millions of armed citizens--which is exactly the point. Killing in response to being d…

Where in the wording of the 2nd amendment does that exist?

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

#457

Post by lostapathy »

alsetmusic wrote: post #118
hartator wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself.

> Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself. This is an absurd comment. The parent stated that four units were returned state-wide. Asserting the ability to manually decommission them attempts to give the appearance of undermining the parent’s statement without actually addressing the issue. I don’t think anyone here, even you, likely believes that even a majority of these were destroye…

I'm sure plenty of them were sold out of state or shipped to friends/family out of state as well. There are more options than destroy/turn-in/felony.

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

#458

Post by dangoor »

juliangoldsmith wrote: post #447
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.

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.

I agree that it can be painful, but there are parallels that can be drawn. Dick's Sporting Goods just stopped selling certain kinds of guns. Those gun manufacturers can still sell their guns, but just not at Dick's, so they're losing part of their potential audience.

There was a story a month or two ago about a publisher that went out of business because their whole business model (apparently) revolved around pushing their content on Facebook and then Facebook changed their newsfeed algorithm. I think that's a risk for anyone relying on a given channel for their product.

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

#459

Post by wan23 »

EasyTiger_ wrote: post #384

It's absolutely stunning what's happened to Reddit. Between the speech clampdowns like this and the soul-crushing amount of political astroturfing going on it's clearly time for a new challenger (not Voat).

What's wrong with voat besides that it's a cesspool? It seems like it has all the technical features that make Reddit work, and the lack of moderation that makes it so disgusting is the result of not having speech clampdowns.

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

#460

Post by lostapathy »

humanrebar wrote: post #322
krapp wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In some states, sure.

At a federal level, it's not that easy. If there was an easy way to ban them, the ATF would have already. It's really hard to define a bump stock in a way that wouldn't either ban a lot of other things, short of classifying them as machine guns. If you classify them as machine guns, at this point, you pretty much have to let people who already have them enroll them on the NFA registry (federally, there is no legal basis to confiscate property that was legally acquired and legal to acquire when acquired), which is not necessarily what you want either.

Post reply on HN