Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

541–550 of 763 posts

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

#541
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If you want purity of intent in every transaction or contract you ever enter into then the world is going to be a very frustrating place.

> If you want purity of intent in every transaction or contract you ever enter into then the world is going to be a very frustrating place.

I do, and it is. I don't think I get what you mean. Just because a lot of groups choose to lie about their intentions means that it's OK that Apple does the same?

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

#542
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…

This is false, the NRA has compromised as recently as last year. Here's an article from their website congratulating the concealed carry reciprocity act being coupled with the background check fixing bill - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea....

That's what a compromise looks like, gun owners get easier concealed carry rules and everybody gets safer gun purchases via enhancements to the NICS system.

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

#543
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.

> 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. Not sure of the first two off the top of my head, but…

Last year they allowed Fix NICS to be coupled with the concealed carry reciprocity act, so one side gets enhanced background checks and the other side gets an easier time concealed carrying - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea....

That sounds like budging to me.

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

#544
post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

I already put it out there. Gun licenses and gun registry.

Without that there is no room to enforce regulation. The NRA and the gun culture will never budge on these two items, so they make an outright ban inevitable.

People can call things reasonable or unreasonable, that's fine but try to argue that registering a gun or obtaining a license is such an undue burden for the individual gun owner vs the harm of vast unchecked gun profileration for the rest of society.

NRA supporters are gun nuts. I am a gun owner.

There is a difference.

Here is a recent ad from the NRA,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag

That doesn't come off as at least a little unhinged to you?

The NRA does a disservice to gun owners and the whole country with their amped-up, violent rhetoric.

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

#545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>impossible to fund gun violence studies.

How is the NRA stopping anyone from funding studies?

>study shows as is already implied it means that person may be hurt or killed

Your arguments are epistemologically broken. Would giving, low-blood-pressure people, blood-pressure regulating medication suddenly make them have high blood pressure? No. Wet streets do not cause rain

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

#546
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…

The registry is a non-starter. A significant fraction of gun owners will see registration as a precursor to confiscation. A smaller fraction fear that the registry will either be public from the start or significantly breached within a short time frame, such that gun owners will be selectively targeted for harassment or burglaries.

Given what New York has done recently, I presume that a lot of gun owners will also simply refuse to comply with any registration orders. And, as usual, the black market guns will remain nigh-untraceable, especially among those who are barred by law from owning them.

The best you could do is a database of last-known locations, maintained entirely without cooperation by owners, that will probably consist mainly of business locations of licensed firearm dealers and crime scenes.

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

#547
post #190

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 the more mainstream it is, the less control the "they" (insert correct term here--damned if I know who "they" are but I am certain there is a "they" that desire servitude from as many people as possible because that's the game) have over us.

Knowledge used to be something kept fairly secret because in the past it was hard to research how to do and make things. I used to have a lot of trouble finding information about my cars in order to work on them. The same experience repeats--you had to be in a club with like-minded people to bootstrap knowledge and people held on to manuals and homebrew documents created on a typewriter with annotations in the margins. Now all that knowledge has been dumped onto the Internet and is easy to find and videos make it fast to pick up.

The problem with being in a club is that most of the personalities don't mix but the club controls the gateway to the knowledge. For a long, long time, gun clubs were loaded with Elmer Fudd types who looked down their noses and modern semi-automatic rifles and handguns. They only accepted typical hunting rifles and shotguns, the odd Browning semi-auto, maybe an M1 Garand or M1 Carbine for WWI and WII nostalgia, and of course, the cult of the 1911. But they didn't understand the 2nd Amendment, not like many of us do now. Because they didn't need to--there weren't vast armies of thug leftists trying to bludgeon the nation into some form of corporate collectivism.

What has changed is manufacturing technology, not the guns themselves. Things have changed quite remarkably and those old ideas are disappearing, which is mostly good. What isn't good is that the knowledge, information, and yes we have the best selection of small arms in 150 years, is available to all at affordable prices. A few outliers are having problems dealing with the responsibility of it all. But we as a society can't cater to the least common denominator. We have laws to deal with criminality but lack the will to do so--hence why the Broward deputies didn't arrest that wacko during one of the 40 some times they were in contact with him. Either they directly desired his violent outburst for political reasons, or they were just too politically correct to act. Regardless of the details of each incident, we have a remedy in law and that is to punish the guilty and stoically move on. If the sheriff were to lose his job for being incompetent, all the better.

Firearms are just one teeny part of what it takes to stop the oligarchy. Humans tipped the balance once before: When guns were invented and first arrived in Europe, commoners made good use of them shooting armored noblemen right off the backs of their horses because screw those guys. The scientific revolution being the direct result of the end of medieval period. We all owe a lot to firearms, they are the necessary evil for humanity.

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

#548
post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with this, I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. The problem I have is that they're having their cake and eating it. To me there are two models: - You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site. - You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for the cont…

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…

It's much more than that. What if the next time someone posted a conspiracy theory on Reddit about Hilary Clinton she filed a libel claim against Reddit in the UK.

The UK court will consider that under it's jurisdiction because the publication was available in the UK. The UK libel law essentially puts the burden of proof on the defendant.

So now an American citizen can force an American company to prove that the claims of an anonymous user were true, or pay damages.

You can't IPO if everything on your platform is a potentially bankrupting libel lawsuit waiting to happen.

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

#549
post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are their morals? If corporations even have morals, the morality based decisions seem purely based on some unknown to me outrage/butthurt quantum. So this fluctuates quite a bit depending on many factors. Interestingly, since social media can be used to manipulate opinion pretty easily (eg, CA) large companies can bootstrap outrage according to their true values. This could end up being a maximizing rule for rev…

Well for a start, Reddit is a privately owned company run by Steve Huffman and he's been very open that he will use his own moral judgement. Companies are capable of making moral decisions - I agree that most companies morals boil down to "Make the most money and do whatever we can for that purpose" but that's fine, we can judge them on that basis.

I still see ads on reddit for alcohol and tobacco products (well, I did until yesterday when I turned uBlock back on for reddit). A subreddit that links to wine for sale is bad, but if those same links are purchased as ads it's allowed. I think that says a lot about the morals behind this change.

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

#550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Neither are instructions for making grandma's famous chocolate chip cookies.

Writing and publishing a recipe is absolutely protected by the First Amendment as an inalienable right.
Post reply on HN