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

501–510 of 763 posts

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

#501

Post by matwood »

DINKDINK wrote: post #468
matwood wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would love to provide more studies. As I said in my original comment, the NRA has made it nearly impossible to fund gun violence studies.

Plus giving people guns who do not want them is bordering on unethical since if the study shows as is already implied it means that person may be hurt or killed.

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

#502

Post by juliangoldsmith »

intopieces wrote: post #486
juliangoldsmith wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Being able to publicly post your videos is pointless if nobody watches them The freedom of speech is not the freedom to be heard. Youtube is not the only seller of megaphones by the public square.

YouTube isn't the only seller of megaphones, but they're the only one that matters. When they have an effective monopoly on audience, network effects will make it impossible for anyone else to compete.

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

#503

Post by TravelTechGuy »

The second line in the Reddit list has been cut short. The full item says:

* Drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or any controlled substances (except advertisements placed in accordance with our advertising policy);

Meaning they are not against drugs and alcohol, if they can make a buck out of it.

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

#504

Post by juliangoldsmith »

dangoor wrote: post #458
juliangoldsmith wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The difference is that those manufacturers can go to other stores to sell their products.

YouTube is the only store that customers go to, so it's the only place you can actually sell your product at.

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

#505

Post by chillwaves »

krapp wrote: post #291
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…

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?

Still waiting for the answer here.

What the NRA is doing is a disservice to gun owners. They are making a gun ban more likely by not offering any reasonable alternatives.

My opinion is we need state run (but federally funded) gun licensing to ensure safe owners and gun registry to ensure the guns stay with those owners.

Other countries do it. It works just fine. We are not having that conversation in America today in part because of the extremist views of the NRA.

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

#506

Post by whywhywhywhy »

pjc50 wrote: post #245
IronWolve wrote: post #2

I read the craft beer forums got hit hard, since they cant sell alcohol. Also cigars trading and buy clubs are now banned. The finally got all the dark net, and idtheft, shoplifting subs. Sexsells is still up, but thats a political discussion sub, not for advertising. I know my local WA_Gun sub is purging all its trade/sell posts, since they allowed it, since all transactions are done at a dealer under law here. Gun…

Banning alcohol references but not weed is bizarre; it sounds like they simply haven't thought this through.

Can't shake the feeling weed gets different rules just because /r/trees is a big part of the culture on the more "wholesome" side of Reddit that they prefer to promote.

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

#507

Post by chillwaves »

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.

As mentioned, the NRA did not support those initiatives, secondly the NRA today, right now, is not willing to compromise. As a gun owner, this hurts us all.

Common sense gun regulation is a benefit to safe gun owners and less people will die from misuse, less criminals will have access to guns, less mentally unstable people will be able to go on killing sprees.

This is all in benefit to gun owners. How does sensible gun control (not bans) hurt a legal and safe gun owner?

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

#508

Post by chillwaves »

sheepmullet wrote: post #247
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…

> The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Because the anti-firearm crowd won't budge an inch either. All the evidence points towards gun-free zones failing to reduce violence. Will the anti-gun crowd work with gun owners to expand where law abiding citizens can carry? > If people can't get sensible gun regulation Without making this partisan - you can't ha…

> you can't have strict gun control without strict border control.

The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around.

Maybe the Mexicans should build a wall to protect them from illegal US guns?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/...

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

#510

Post by chillwaves »

itbeho wrote: post #227
pasquinelli wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the constitution allows itself to be changed. ultimately it comes down to the whims of society.

It takes more than a whim to change it.

All you have to do is appoint the right judges.
Post reply on HN