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

461–470 of 763 posts

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

#461

Post by whyever »

birksherty wrote: post #174
lettergram wrote: post #120

There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... If I take my car (a Jeep Grand Cherokee) and ram it into a crowd - I'm confident that can take out more people than I can with a gun, knife, probably even bomb. Point being, I understand not facilitating trade, but for the love of god, videos? You really want to push the right over the edge? We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of t…

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…

> So, when mentally ill people want to cause harm they don't use those methods.

Not sure what you mean by mentally ill, but they have definitely been used for that in Europe.

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

#462

Post by simias »

mrlala wrote: post #449
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…

>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 wa…

What if each subreddit was an independent forum? What if each youtube channel was a blog hosted on potentially a whole bunch of different hosts? If reddit is so much better than the alternatives what are you doing on HN instead of /r/programming or similar?

The only thing you'd lose is the unified user profile but we have the tools to have distributed identities (oauth and friends). Before the era of social networks having mililon of forums for niche topics was common. Now you just create a subreddit instead.

Want to talk about knitting? Search for "knitting discussion online". Here are a few results: https://www.houzz.com/discussions/knitting-and-crocheting https://crochettalk.com/ http://www.knittingparadise.com/active-topic-list

Each site does not contain "everything I want" but each fills a particular niche. The fact that you actually have to search for them to find them can actually be seen as a bonus, you don't have the sort of "cross-contamination" you can observe on reddit when a community is suddenly popular enough to propelled into the frontpage and you have an influx of people who overrun your community and destroy its "culture".

Should reddit disappear tomorrow I'm sure we'll do just fine. Youtube is more complex because video hosting is much more demanding in terms of resources.

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

#463

Post by chillwaves »

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…

So can we take your argument to its logical conclusion, that you are against all content moderation on any site?

Or where exactly is the line?

This is not censorship.

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

#464

Post by chillwaves »

mrlala wrote: post #449
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…

>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 wa…

If content is centralized in this manner you should expect it to moderated and influenced from a central source.

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

#465

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

YouTube and Reddit should be like paper and pencil.

If I used paper and pencil to break the law, then it's between law enforcement and me, I would be super annoyed if the pencil refused to write what I want to write because the pencil manufacturer thought it might be illegal or just simply undesired.

What the Content Providers are doing is anti-thesis of neutrality towards ideas and the supporting arguments. If someone breaks the law using their platform then let the someone file a complaint and let law enforcement handle it.

Should the burrito truck ban you from utilizing the calories from the breakfast burrito if you intend to do some insider trading that morning? If the burrito place can't block you from eating, then why should YouTube and Reddit be able to block you from saying what you have to say?

Can't believe that the hacker news crowd was jumping up and down for months at a time for neutrality of packets as if ISP is going to stop you from saying what you want to say, but all the while Facebook/Google/Twitter/Reddit can stop you from saying what you say anytime they feel like it, and those advocating "Neutrality of service providers" are perfectly fine with it.

Can folks be little more realistic about what the real danger is?

Out packets are not threatened, our thoughts are.

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

#466

Post by saas_co_de »

enraged_camel wrote: post #406
saas_co_de wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They occur, but far less frequently.

That is correct but the parent claimed they did not occur at all, which is false.

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

#467

Post by bnolsen »

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…

Ripping dvds isn't affirmed by the constitution as an unaliable right either.

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

#468

Post by DINKDINK »

matwood wrote: post #412
lettergram wrote: post #120

There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... If I take my car (a Jeep Grand Cherokee) and ram it into a crowd - I'm confident that can take out more people than I can with a gun, knife, probably even bomb. Point being, I understand not facilitating trade, but for the love of god, videos? You really want to push the right over the edge? We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of t…

I understand your points and agree that it is our right currently as an American to own a gun. I'm not afraid of guns and grew up around them, although I do not own any today. The problem I have is equating guns to cars or any other weapon. Just owning a gun means you are more likely to be injured or killed in a gun related incident[1]. Guns are an immediate force multiplier that can cause a lot of injury with little…

>Just owning a gun means you are more likely to be injured or killed in a gun related incident[1].

Correlation does not equal causation. Wet streets do not cause rain. Until you provide a study that shows a baseline population and another who are given a treatment (say "here's a free gun that you weren't going to buy on your own") and compare the results, the null hypothesis is not broken.

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

#469

Post by lettergram »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #282
lettergram wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why countries where gun are banned for general population, does not have mass murder by "common people" like USA. First I beg to differ- compare the EU to the U.S. or the U.S. to India, or to China for that matter or the U.S. to Brazil. Not just "countries". The US is one of the largest countries on Earth (by population and landmass), with one of the most diverse sets of population... It's really hard to eve…

Confused with your statement. Do you mean to suggest that India and Brazil aren't large countries with diverse and large populations? The same with the EU (though not a single country). The comparison isn't favorable to the US.

I'm saying look at the mass murder rates at countries of that scale. And that's even with a fairly uniform population, when you get to the U.S. you have a large, disperse group, with various ideologies, incentives, etc.

Often this makes people feel isolated or ostracized, because they don't fit in or are being out down. Then you get mass murder or murder in general, because I you don't relate. Basically, you have no incentive to care for one another.

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

#470

Post by themaninthedark »

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…

Also look at the timing of it: They did this when the people most likely to object are both preoccupied with Faceboook and Mark Zuckerburgs statement as well as the Count Dankula trial verdict.

Looks to me like they don't want scrutiny.

Post reply on HN