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

511–520 of 763 posts

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

#511

Post by cgiles »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #437
purple-again wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think I will be shooting policemen? That’s hilarious buddy, my best friend was an officer before becoming a fed and two of my uncles are officers. All three will be shooting the same direction as me and the rest of our families. Thank you for helping me to underline for you how little you understand the situation.

Did you read the start of the thread that I was responding to. The whole thread is reference to the parent saying people would rise up in armed revolt if the law was changed to tighten gun controls. Assuming the national guard weren't sent in then as I understand it regular police would be charged with arresting those who refused to follow the legislation. To me the meaning of that is clear - if the law is changed pe…

I think the implication was that a very large fraction of police/national guard/US armed forces would at least refuse to enforce such a law, if not join the rebellion itself. Indeed, I've never met a more adamant group of 2nd amendment supporters than my military friends.

But should such a dire scenario occur, I have always wondered how these small arms would fare against UAVs. The trouble is that we have precedent in this country that in a large-scale rebellion, it is taken out of law enforcement's hands and put into the military's hands.

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

#512

Post by PurpleBoxDragon »

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 A lot of historical content will be lost.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…

>I can't imagine why reddit would ban strictly law-abiding communities while allowing illegal and toxic ones to flourish.

To be cynical, why offer a seller access to a market for free when you can charge for it?

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

#513

Post by talmand »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #495
wan23 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

>The word censor comes from a Latin word for a government official who, well, censored things. Do you have a source for this? The latin word censere does not seem to be defined only as government officials silencing opinions they don't like: >Definitions:assess, count/reckon, decree, vote, determine, recommend think/suppose,judge http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/8896/censeo-censere-c... >Maybe you think the wor…

I've seen many people lately try to claim that censor is solely a government-related word and censorship is only something that government officials are capable of. Every definition of the word I've seen does not say this.

Makes one wonder where this new definition is coming from?

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

#514

Post by chillwaves »

sanxiyn wrote: post #340
chx wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm. This is legal nonsense put together relatively recently, starting as answer to the Black Panthers arming themselves and then later some politics. Please look at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-sec... > From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every sin…

> Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands. Note that among US states, there is no correlation whatsoever between gun ownership and gun homicide.

If only guns respected state lines.

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

#516

Post by soundwave106 »

makomk wrote: post #264
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 "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…

I don't think this is a terribly good counterargument, personally. To me, the gun control movement is basically reacting to several high profile mass shooting cases. Your argument to me seems to be the equivalent of countering, say, a mother who lost a child to a drunk driver, with an argument that they shouldn't be concerned, because they don't know about the technical details of engine displacement or the neuropharmacology behind ethanol. That would be nonsense.

Obviously, with drunk driving, no one tends to blame the tool, either, as gun control movements often are doing. It is worth pointing out that automobiles are fairly regulated, though. There is a "street legal" definition for a car, you have to have an operator's license, and there are things you cannot do in a car -- elsewise, your license gets taken away. For better or for worse, America's one of the few places out there with a relatively high minimum age to purchase alcohol -- 21 -- and drunk driving was one of the reasons it ended up this way (https://www.boston.com/culture/health/2014/07/17/why-21-a-lo...).

I personally think it's fine to counter over-emotional focus on the tool (after all, 99% of AR-15 owners are just normal, average folks who don't commit mass shootings or indeed violence of any kind). Ultimately, though, "what they're calling for" is a reduction of gun violence. If "they" don't get a reasonable counter-answer to their concerns (and in my opinion, the NRA is doing a poor job here, themselves often being overly-emotional in response), it's entirely possible the regulations "they" want will result in the end.

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

#517

Post by talmand »

gnu8 wrote: post #431
dolessdrugs wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this statistically true? It's not even slightly true in my experience, but I've lived in NY, Philly, and Texas...

You lived in Texas and didn’t notice the sheer amount of firepower people have there? I don’t think I believe you.

I currently live in Texas and the amount of firepower that any one person owns is not readily apparent. Texas is not the wild west that many think is with everyone packing heat and daily shootouts at the corner. Open carry is now legal here and I've yet to see the first person doing so.

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

#518

Post by talmand »

beachy wrote: post #190
DennisAleynikov wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is indeed an alarming move of trying to censor gun information online is by far the most miguided approach to regulating guns I've seen thus far. There aren't inherent risks to knowing the mechanics of physical items much less channels that deal with proper handling of guns or gun communities online. You are literally moving their communities further into the deepweb and making gun ownership a nefarious thing! O…

Yeah, in my country you can own hunting or sporting weapons, e.g a rifle or shotgun, but it's almost impossible to posess a handgun for example, or a high capacity semi automatic weapon. But I have a tradition with my son of sending each other links of people in other countries shooting things up with their 50 cal machine guns and the like. I can't imagine why anyone would think that watching such things constitutes…

Because such decisions are often based on emotion and not logic.

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

#519

Post by [deleted] »

gnu8 wrote: post #428
this_user wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes to attract them. Take 4chan as an example: For years they were struggling to find anyone who would want to advertise there, and that is not entirely surprising. Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would appear they are attempting to make…

I wonder how we can effectively punish Reddit for this. If we can cut into their advertising revenue and derail their IPO, that might force them to reverse their position.

[deleted]

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

#520

Post by chillwaves »

aninhumer wrote: post #471
humanrebar wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 t…

It makes sense when you use the term censorship to apply to something like the government, which has a monopoly on violence and can literally jail or kill the people being censored and can apply that standard universally.

It does not make sense to apply it to someone's private property, especially when people are free to continue their speech somewhere else.

Summed up elsewhere, they are not being denied the right to say a certain thing, just the right to say it in a specific place (Reddit or Youtube).

What these people call 'censorship' is more accurately described as 'house rules'.

Post reply on HN