YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans • Hacker News Board

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

#521

Post by Moodles » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #420

Moodles wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for answering. I think we're going a bit off-topic here though. The crux of what I'm getting at is, do you think that you should have the right to moderate the content on your own platform that you built? Or should the government decide what is and isn't allowed? E.g. maybe instead of you running HN, maybe you run a content distribution network. As its own your network, don't you think you should be allowed to…

> The crux of what I'm getting at is, do you think that you should have the right to moderate the content on your own platform that you built? As I've said elsewhere on this thread, corporations don't have rights, people do. A more clear way to say this might be: corporations only have rights inasmuch as the people who make up the corporation have rights. Even though you're not asking this rhetorically, the way you'r…

> As I've said elsewhere on this thread, corporations don't have rights, people do. A more clear way to say this might be: corporations only have rights inasmuch as the people who make up the corporation have rights.

> But giant corporations are different from individuals.

You can see how this gets fuzzy then, right? At what point is a corporation "giant"? How to measure and who decides that? Why is it okay for your Dave's Liberal Hosting Service to arbitrarily moderate material but not YouTube? YouTube isn't even a monopoly on video hosting services. Both YouTube and Dave's Liberal Hosting Service are still made up of individuals, and you think that individuals should be treated the same. So why aren't they?

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

#522

Post by vorpalhex » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:20 PM UTC

maxlybbert wrote: post #389

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...

I made the statement based on the facts that while there are roughly 200 million guns in the US, most gun owners have multiple guns (i.e., most people don’t own guns), and guns are far more popular in rural areas. When we lived in New Jersey, the leases specifically prohibited us from having guns in the house or apartment. According to https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-hou... , 42% of household…

I'm extremely skeptical of any stats around firearm counts, and ownership stats. Firearms aren't registered, which means the only data we have are the amount of background checks for buying them from a dealer (which goes through a department at the FBI called NICS). The issue is:

+ Those background checks are used for lots of things other than firearm purchases

+ Firearms can be transferred legally in some cases without background checks

+ Plenty of firearms existed before the background check system and are still owned and functioning

+ Many firearms are purchased, left to rust or otherwise break, and never repaired.

+ Firearms are occasionally turned in to the police or surrendered (usually when a family member passes and their relatives don't know what to do with the firearms).

The other source of information is directly asking people, but that runs into a bunch of problems too, mostly that people will lie.

I also don't think there's any kind of remotely common pattern that lets us correct this bad data from self reporting. Liberal gun owners are likely to lie about owning a firearm since they don't want their family to know, and conservative firearm owners are less likely to trust the person they're reporting to. Many firearm owners are taught to never ever talk about being a firearm owner to avoid being a target for burglary.

My point is, we simply don't know at all. Any gross figure is extremely suspect.

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

#523

Post by jclulow » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:21 PM UTC

maltwhiskey wrote: post #407

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think trying to murder policemen because your country enacted gun controls to protect schoolchildren would be "nutters trying to shoot people"? "Oh but I need this 1000 round per minute gun for pest control in my apartment! I'll murder people to protect my right to have it."??

I'm not sure where you got 1000 rounds per minute from, even a fully automatic rifle generally cannot fire that quickly (it would probably need to be belt-fed or you would be changing magazines more than thirty times per minute). A semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 is unlikely to surpass 100 rounds per minute.

Oh, well that sounds _much_ safer and more reasonable then.

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

#524

Post by CaptSpify » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:21 PM UTC

earenndil wrote: post #129

CaptSpify wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line.

Sure. And as it is likely to continue to be good for their bottom line for the forseeable future, I continue to benefit from patronizing them. See what's happening here? It's a selfish economic system whereby we both benefit. I guess capitalism works sometimes, at least for (relatively) short periods of time. Who knew?

The problem is that you don't both benefit in the ways you think you are. Apple is pretending to be pro-privacy, but they actually aren't pro-privacy. You think you are getting a privacy-oriented device, but you are not.

I would love it if Apple did build privacy oriented systems. I would be their biggest supporter, and I would spend mountains of money on their products. And I do think they would make good money from it from everyone. But until they do design their systems correctly, all we have evidence of is that they can make money by deceiving their users.

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

#525

Post by CaptSpify » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #395

CaptSpify wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line.

> Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line. I don't care why Apple's interests are aligned with mine, as long as they are. When it comes to corporations, dealing with one whose bottom line is aligned with my interest is exactly what I want. Also, Apple is not 'pretending' to care about privacy. While they have had some embarrassing bugs, they do put privacy as a high priority. Ma…

> I don't care why Apple's interests are aligned with mine, as long as they are. When it comes to corporations, dealing with one whose bottom line is aligned with my interest is exactly what I want.

Agreed! I have no problem with that either, and I think it's great when it happens!

> Also, Apple is not 'pretending' to care about privacy. While they have had some embarrassing bugs, they do put privacy as a high priority. Many speculate that Apple is behind in the assistant category because of privacy concerns.

Just because you don't like the fact that they are pretending, doesn't make it untrue. I'm sure that to a certain degree they do care about privacy, but when push comes to shove, they choose money over privacy. They have the ability to design systems with privacy inherent in them, yet they choose not to.

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

#526

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:25 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #507

jdanp wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#527

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:26 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #513

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

[deleted]

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

#528

Post by yequalsx » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:26 PM UTC

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #476

yequalsx wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Adding guns probably doesn’t increase crime rate. It does the mass murder rate. It is precisely gun crime that I abhor. Thus I'm opposed to their availability.

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

#529

Post by yequalsx » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:29 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #489

yequalsx wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My interpretation of the second amendment is that the government has broad regulatory powers when it comes to gun ownership. Furthermore that the right applies only to militias and that in the present day militia would be an organization under government control. Times change and interpretations change. I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. But for people who a…

> I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. That's probably the place to end this back-and-forth. We aren't going to hash out "rule by men" versus "rule of law" a thread about banned subreddits. But I think the right way to be unbound from what the Constitution means is to actually convince people to amend it. There are significant justice implications to ignoring…

I go by what the Constitution means. It’s meaning changes from person to person. And from era to era. I don’t feel bound to interpret it according to how the founders would interpret it.

The second amendment means to me something different from what it means to you. As I’ve said all along In these threads, fight for your rights. Advocate for your position. I will fight to change public perception.

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

#530

Post by makomk » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 3:30 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #505

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?

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…

It's not clear whether there is, in fact, any obvious or easy improvement on what the US has already. If there was it'd likely have happened already. I mean, I live in the UK which has outright banned handguns and doesn't consider self-defense justification for gun ownership, but that won't fly in the US - it's unconstitutional and goes against the principles the country was founded on, and it'd require an lot more trust in your police force and a much less rural population - and probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy gun control supporters anyway.

Surely the burden for coming up with a reasonable, sensible gun control proposal should be on the people who're insisting we could have one if it wasn't for the pesky NRA and their gun nut supporters?