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

471–480 of 763 posts

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

#471

Post by aninhumer »

humanrebar wrote: post #421
aninhumer wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> The ideal is that better ideas, not power, are the best response to ideas someone doesn't like.

But what does that actually mean in terms of how we structure discourse? "Better ideas" will do nothing if people are never exposed to them, so presumably we would like to structure things so they are.

Obviously we can't just identify the "better" ideas and amplify them, because the point is that people should identify them themselves. But if we don't amplify anything, it's likely people will not be exposed to them at all.

So perhaps we want to amplify things such that people are exposed to lots of different ideas? But everyone's ideas are slightly different, and we can't amplify all of them equally. Should we choose a selection of ideas, and amplify the best examples of them? How do we decide which ideas, and which are the best examples?

Or perhaps you have some other idea? I'm not trying to dismiss all the possibilities here, I'm just pointing out that statements like "better ideas, not power" get treated as simple and obviously correct, but are actually extremely complex when you get into details. And we quickly find that people understand these supposedly guiding principles in very different ways.

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

#472

Post by chillwaves »

Klathmon wrote: post #324
pc86 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not dangerous "on their own" any more than an iron or a knife or an automobile or a bottle of tequila is dangerous on their on. All of those are dangerous in the hands of a bad person, an uneducated (about that object) person, or a mentally ill person. The object does not have inherent danger.

Yes and those things are (in my opinion) regulated proportionally to their "level of danger". You can't anonymously own a car in the US, you can't (legally) buy one at a car convention then take it on the road without registering it. Larger knives have regulations and rules around who can buy them, and some are just illegal to own in many states. Tequila requires you to be over a certain age, and you can't buy it if…

One sticking point is gun owners seem completely unwilling to budge on any kind of gun registry -- which seems like a necessary starting point for any kind of accountability of ownership and an actual effective solution against straw purchases and illegal gun sales. Just putting this out here because I like how thoughtful your posts are and I am really stumped at finding a compromise -- ultimately I think there is no way to water down a gun registry (or even licensing) that the current gun lobby will accept, which is a disservice to safe gun owners.

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

#473

Post by dageshi »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #338

I am concerned about how this will affect some educational channels. A good example is Forgotten Weapons ( https://www.youtube.com/user/ForgottenWeapons ). It's a vlog about interesting old firearms. These are often supplied for the videos by an auction house that is selling them, so the guns are literally for sale. But these are massively expensive, antique weapons, many of which require a Federal Firearms Licence t…

I would suspect Forgottenweapons is screwed on youtube, he gets access to many of the most interesting old guns at auction houses in return for publicising the auctions. I'd be surprised if he can continue to do that under these rules.

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

#474

Post by robgibbons »

mtreis86 wrote: post #378
makomk wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "sensible gun regulation" isn't, that's the thing. Indeed, the people calling for it are so proud of being so ignorant about guns and gun laws that they often can't even accurately say what class of guns they want banned, they've coined a term - "gunsplaining" - to mock those who point out when they don't know what they're talking about. Features of the current US pro-gun-control movement include the notion that…

The 5.56 round is designed to tumble upon impact to maximize internal damage. It really is a poor choice for anything but warfare.

This is an old misconception, and incorrect. All Spitzer-tip (pointed) boat tail bullets are prone to destabilization upon impact with anything hard in their path, deflecting easily off of surfaces (eg. wood, metal, bone). They were not designed to tumble on impact, but to fly straight, fast (high ballistic coefficient).

The same shape (Spitzer-tip boat tail) is used for virtually all modern target and hunting rounds. 5.56 (and .223) is basically a glorified varmint round. Certain 5.56 rounds, however, are designed to be frangible, which causes the bullet to break up on impact and causes more wound channels. Hunting ammo in 5.56/.223 does not do this, as it is designed to stay in one piece.

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

#475

Post by nailer »

I wonder if they'll enforce this:

> * Paid services involving physical sexual contact;

Not 'sexual content' - actual prostitution on Reddit is rare (though does happen in terms of submission of film/video content by sex workers in places where prostition is legal, eg in Australia).

But a large part of the sex subreddits are 'donate to my patreon and I'll give you access to my private Snapchat' which is clearly:

a) 'paid services'

b) sex work.

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

#476

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

yequalsx wrote: post #379
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worked for drugs, and tax evasion, and human trafficking, and alcohol for awhile. Simply make it illegal and it goes away!

People do illegal things. This isn’t surprising nor an argument against making something illegal. If it could be shown that banning guns and making it illegal to sell guns didn’t decrease the frequency of their usage to commit crimes then I would no longer be advocate for banning guns.

Except that there is no correlation to gun ownership and crime.

We know the places that have more guns don’t have more crime, we can’t call correlation to that, but we do know adding guns doesn’t increase crime - because that’s been true since the high crime peak of the early 1990s where crime has been falling with guns skyrocketing.

It’s painfully childish to claim that it’s some surprise that where guns are that there is more gun-crime. Something can’t be abused where it doesn’t exist - the joke is that people look at gun-crime compared to overall crime.

Rape rates in Australia are 40-45% higher than the USA. If you’re a rapist, it’s much safer to “work” in Oz, does the rapist getting shot in the USA contribute to “gun-crime”? On paper, yes.

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

#477

Post by DuskStar »

Mononokay wrote: post #166
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and blacks were taking up arms because they were literally being bombed. The whites wanted to control their rights to have guns so they could continue controlling the black populations with violent force. So you highlight how gun control has been used as an oppressive tool in the past. What are we do to when only our corrupt government is allowed to have guns?

If you're going by second amendment rights, at this point it's more to the spirit of it for civillian fighter jets and tanks to be legalized than guns. To some extent, I actually imagine it'd be safer for the average citizen. * * * From a more protectionist standpoint, you could say that an AR-15 or an AK-47 will allow you to stand up against your government. This isn't really realistic, however - no civillian weapon…

Yep, people with rifles and improvised explosives are completely ineffective against a modern military force. That's why the US was in and out of Afghanistan in less than a year!

Oh wait.

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

#479

Post by intopieces »

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…

I don’t see the connection between a company changing its platform to please its advertisers and being declared a common carrier. Has it happened before? Telephones are not common carriers because the phone company tells you what you can and cannot say.

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

#480

Post by kerbalspacepro »

humanrebar wrote: post #357
Waterluvian wrote: post #186

This continues to distract from the problem: systemic issues in American culture and society that perpetually re-primes a powder keg of fear and divisiveness. That sounds wordy but I just don't have the skill to articulate my feelings. There's just... something fundamentally wrong with how everything can feel so zero-sum.

People don't value tolerance anymore. You only need tolerance for things you don't like or understand. Honestly, these sorts of things would work better if people acted locally more. It's human to be upset about the Parkland incident. It's not appropriate for a resident of Spokane to have strong feelings about Florida gun laws, let alone actually lobby for them. Discussing current events can be healthy, but only to t…

You're confusing valuing tolerance for tolerating the intolerable.
Post reply on HN