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

#601

Post by Frondo » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 6:22 PM UTC

soundwave106 wrote: post #516

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…

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 neurophar…

Well, people who get caught driving drunk a few times can have their license taken away or a blood alcohol interlock put on their car.

What if gun owners who didn't keep their guns locked in gun safes had their bullets replaced with rubber ones, or had mandatory trigger locks installed on their guns?

I dunno, I'm just spitballing here, but cars are heavily regulated, licensed, the whole nine yards, and if we had a tenth of that applied to guns, we could probably do a lot to reduce gun deaths and gun violence across the country.

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

#602

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #600

yequalsx wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point of the 13th amendment is to eliminate legal human trafficking once and for all. It's not reasonable to say that the meaning of that rule is allowed to change over time. And that standard has to apply for every part of the Constitution for the 13th amendment to have actual impact, otherwise it's just another holy text and can be ignored has a nice myth for simple people. But instead of people sinning by uncl…

> The point of the 13th amendment is to eliminate legal human trafficking once and for all.

No, its not, otherwise it wouldn't explicitly allow penal slavery.

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

#603

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 6:30 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #520

aninhumer wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

The Supreme Court has held that effective bans on rights are also unconstitutional. And I think that's a fair standard to apply in a broader ethical context.

You can say "go somewhere else to share your views", but if the only real places you can speak are in places you own, that's not much of a consolation. "Free speech" implies conversations where everyone can hear. It's not "free speech" to write yourself notes on your own napkin or to scream into your own pillow.

I think its entirely possible to have a public discussion in a privately maintained and owned forum. And the principle of free speech would have us, as much as possible, set up free discussions where the all ideas can be heard so the best ideas can be adopted.

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

#604

Post by humanrebar » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 6:32 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #532

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. Better ideas do not win -- ideas that are proclaimed the most or the loudest win. This is the problem we currently have.

That's a fair point. A very undemocratic one, but it is a cogent reason to not value free speech. Though if that were true, we'd be looking for ways to limit keep especially dumb or naive people from participating in elections. I don't get the sense that anyone, including YouTube and Reddit, is seriously proposing that.

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

#605

Post by talmand » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 6:34 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #596

talmand wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Emotion is as much a part of the human decision-making process as logic, and it's sociopathic to act as though logic is the only part that matters. My favorite for-example: one of those old great libertarian thinkers applied libertarian principles to the parent-child relationship and decided that a law that compels a parent to feed a child is an immoral law; parents should be free to let their children starve to deat…

Indeed, emotion is part of decision making and is often the cause of the wrong decision to be made.

It is not logical to allow a child to starve to death. Using an argument that a law is immoral is more about emotion than logic.

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

#606

Post by splintercell » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 6:35 PM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #544

makomk wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 unc…

> The NRA and the gun culture will never budge on these two items, so they make an outright ban inevitable. > ... > NRA supporters are gun nuts. I am a gun owner.

Well I don't want to give an inch more to gun control proponents because they have already made their intent clear, they believe that a completely gunless society is much more admirable than what we have today.

It's like this, imagine if a British politician Nigel Windsor calls for the 'assassination of the Queen' and overthrowing of Monarchy. Upon failing to achieve support on that, he proposes bill such as "Full budgetary accountability of Queen's security" or "Transparency of Queen's Expenditures" where Queen's security details be made published or "How about we reduce the number of Queen's guards by just one".

Who in their right mind would believe that Nigel Farage wants "sensible expenditure on Queen's security" since we know that at the end he wants to overthrow the British Monarchy?

This is the same case with gun control. We know that most gun grabbers don't own guns, have never owned guns and will never own guns, it's not in their culture. They also fantasize European countries regarding Healthcare, gun control, hate speech, discrimination laws and Australian style complete gun confiscation. Now they say "Come to a reasonable gun reform or a complete ban is inevitable", which to gun right proponents sounds like "Publish Queen's security detail or else an assassination of the Queen is imminent", I'd say if they could ban guns, then they would have.

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

#607

Post by programmarchy » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 6:41 PM UTC

dfxm12 wrote: post #587

programmarchy wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s easier to argue that YouTube, Twitter, etc. are public forums. So it seems to me that the argument would be even stronger.

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

#608

Post by splintercell » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 6:43 PM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #71

zombieprocesses wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Societies evolve and social views change. That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change. I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment. The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is rea…

The 2nd Amendment does speak of a well regulated militia and it being necessary for the defense of the United States. I'm in favor a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer and have no expertise on the legalities but I do know that amendments can be repealed. There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

"well regulated" meant "well functioning". Like "a well regulated clock".

> There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

You really think you can get 34 states to vote to repeal something from our bill of rights?

If you are a democrat mastermind and want to do that then your best bet is to get more and more states created out of the blue states to get more than 2/3rd of the states to vote to repeal 2nd Amendment.

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

#609

Post by tortasaur » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 6:45 PM UTC

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…

You are describing the First Amendment, not the concept of free speech.

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

#610

Post by Frondo » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 6:48 PM UTC

spacehome wrote: post #254

pasquinelli wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the hypothetical tyrant just wins over the gun nuts who shoot up the regular folks. tidy.

The more people that own guns the better, then. That way a minority can't run things.

This is certainly the position of the NRA, but it is not a position that has been leading to good results for society here, up to now.