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

581–590 of 763 posts

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

#581

Post by birksherty »

lettergram wrote: post #469
aaron-lebo wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confused with your statement. Do you mean to suggest that India and Brazil aren't large countries with diverse and large populations? The same with the EU (though not a single country). The comparison isn't favorable to the US.

I'm saying look at the mass murder rates at countries of that scale. And that's even with a fairly uniform population, when you get to the U.S. you have a large, disperse group, with various ideologies, incentives, etc. Often this makes people feel isolated or ostracized, because they don't fit in or are being out down. Then you get mass murder or murder in general, because I you don't relate. Basically, you have no…

No, USA is not the only country where different groups of people live and feel isolated. India have more diverse groups of people than anywhere else. Language, culture, cast, religion, economy. It's divide from every possible way.

Lot of those groups hate each other. Many of them have lower status in society. And millions of people there have mental issues. People don't give shit about mental health there. If guns become normal there, it would be catastrophic.

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

#582

Post by birksherty »

saas_co_de wrote: post #277
birksherty wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General population don't practice ramming car into crowd. Those are not hobbies. So, when mentally ill people want to cause harm they don't use those methods. It does not normally comes to mind. But, shooting is common. It's a hobby. A killing machine is normalized and it becomes a culture. So, those mentally ill men feels completely normal to shoot people when they go crazy. Consider this: ramming car into objects b…

> That's why countries where gun are banned for general population, does not have mass murder by "common people" like USA Sorry, but this is completely false. I am not going to link to it for reasons of taste, but you can google "encyclopedia dramatica high score" for a very thorough run down on mass shootings. They occur globally and are by no means a phenomenon isolated to the US.

Mass shootings by general population, not terrorists or gangs. I would actually like a stat on that.

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

#583

Post by programmarchy »

dfxm12 wrote: post #578
ptero wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The web still exists very much as it was. As a collection of standards, yes. However, trying to find a host for the content that is perceived to be wrong or questionable by the mainstream is now much more difficult. The submission is a case in point. youtube bans gun-related videos not because it is directly bad for their business (on the contrary -- it seems to have an active following), but because lawmakers and…

Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them. No. Free speech refers to protection from the government censoring or jailing for speech they don't want said. If you're relying on a private company, especially one who retains the rights to take down your video at any time for any reason, to disseminate your speech and you're worried about them doing so…

The US Supreme Court has a different opinion.

They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1]

> A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....

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

#584

Post by yequalsx »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #566
Larrikin wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logical conclusion from that train of thought is that laws have no meaning if people break the laws. So why have any laws?

Do you understand that outside of obvious moral ethics - that a law against murder doesn't stop someone from murdering. It only gives lawyers a way to punish it. It's the punishment that is the deterrent. Why should law abiding gun owners be punished again? Adding punitive laws is not a deterrent. Enforcing those laws is. We don't enforce many guns laws, then you come in yelling about adding more laws. The logical co…

A person is law abiding until they aren’t. It’s about keeping people from having ready access to so much lethality when that person decides to become a bad actor. Banning guns would lower the likelihood of a bad actor having as much lethality as they currently are easily able to acquire.

Parkland could have been avoided in a 7th way too. Without access to guns it wouldn’t have been as lethal.

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

#585

Post by matwood »

DINKDINK wrote: post #545
matwood wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I incorrectly assumed anyone discussing gun violence would know about the Dickey Amendment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

My arguments are not broken at all. To do the type of control you suggested above would mean putting guns in homes of people who would otherwise not have one. Previous studies have showed that owning a gun increases the odds of injury by gun. Putting subjects at that sort of risk for a perfect control study absolutely has ethical implications.

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

#586

Post by logfromblammo »

jetpks wrote: post #115
krapp wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, racists, sexists and conspiracy theorists appear to be the only people who still believe in freedom of speech, and are willing to fight to keep it. Even many of the "hackers" around here seem to support regulation and censorship.

This isn’t a free speech issue. The government isn’t stopping anyone from speaking or thinking anything they want. Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want

The government chartered the corporation that is engaging in the censorship, and granted its owners limited liability.

Strip away the privileges, and I wouldn't feel it necessary to impose additional obligations.

In my personal opinion, corporations chartered by a government cannot engage in acts forbidden to that government. If you want to exercise your rights as a natural person, you must be prepared to accept full responsibility for the consequences of your actions. If you want to shield yourself from those consequences through a fictional entity, then follow the rassafrassin' rules.

The US government is forbidden from restricting free speech, and so its corporations should not be engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination on that portion of their private property that they have explicitly opened as a public forum. If you allow the public into your space, you have to respect their rights.

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

#587

Post by dfxm12 »

programmarchy wrote: post #583
dfxm12 wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them. No. Free speech refers to protection from the government censoring or jailing for speech they don't want said. If you're relying on a private company, especially one who retains the rights to take down your video at any time for any reason, to disseminate your speech and you're worried about them doing so…

The US Supreme Court has a different opinion. They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1] > A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_…

As the link you provided states, this decision applies to shopping centers in California, whose state supreme court has narrowed its applicability a few times over the years.

This simply doesn't apply to YouTube.

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

#588

Post by vit05 »

It makes me unhappy to know that Reddit is choosing to make written rules rather than choosing changes and improvements in its code. Having opportunities to market and discuss products could be a great source of income if well done. real opinion, honest and who is not a paid advertising on a product and humanize the business relationship are very difficult questions to find on the internet.Especially about artisans products and local productions. Craft beers is a market that depends on suggestions and evaluations of people. Facebook has been trying to provide a marketplace opportunity that makes it easier for local and more human businesses. But is horrible. Reddit could offer something in this vacuum. But they preferred to walk away.

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

#590

Post by salawat »

headsoup wrote: post #383
humanrebar wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship. > I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore. I don't find this line of thinking convincing. It's certainly appropriate to criticize moderation policies of platforms. If YouTube decided to censor videos on how to use co…

That's the thing though, these are private companies at the end of the day and can censor whatever they like. That'll reflect on their brand and perception, but that's their choice. It's changing because they're trying to follow 'public sentiment' and keep up the sign-ups, views and clicks to get advertisers their money. If we want them to not be able to censor/moderate/control their platform their own way, they need…

Have you ever noticed that no one ever brings up a company being private until they do something that outrages the public?
Post reply on HN