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

631–640 of 763 posts

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

#631

Post by withdavidli »

deno wrote: post #221
withdavidli wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Law abiding to not law abiding if new law / repeal of amendment happens, and they gave an example of a relavent instance. Is your argument that you believe most/all law abiding citizens that currently own guns will willing destroy/turn over their guns of new laws pass against ownership? Looking at reports on Australia it seems the effectiveness on turning in guns was anywhere from 40-80 percent. Effectiveness for pro…

When we say majority of gun owners are ‘law-abididing citizens ’ we mean they’re good and moral people, and not that they’re obedient subjects. Your argument seems to be focused on semantics, which is fine, except you’re missing the point of this statement. There’s very much a difference in disobeying a natural law like murder and an arbitrary, reactionary, and most of all, unconstitutional, law that’s designed to li…

agree on the latter statements.

definition of words matter, word choice matters to avoid confusion it may cause.

if the original argument is that mostly good/moral people are the gun owners, i wouldn't know where to start on how they got that data, and came to that interpretation as both words are relative.

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

#632

Post by a_tractor »

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…

Reddit can easily be considered a "quasi-public palce" http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation20.html...:

>In Marsh v. Alabama, the Court held that the private owner of a company town could not forbid distribution of religious materials by a Jehovah's Witness on a street in the town's business district. The town, wholly owned by a private corporation, had all the attributes of any American municipality, aside from its ownership, and was functionally like any other town. In those circumstances, the Court reasoned, 'the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.''

Which was later refined:

>Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza... Henceforth, only when private property has taken on all the attributes of a town' is it to be treated as a public forum

The first case, which set the precedent, involved the distribution of written materials in a "company town," the second case created a stipulation that prevented the law from applying in strip mall shopping centers.

Basically, the case can be made that Reddit, for its own advantage, has opened itself up to the public to as a public forum to as great of an extent as possible. It obviously is never going to carry "all the attributes of a town" but I feel to see why that is the only way "to be treated as a public forum."

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

#633

Post by soundwave106 »

Frondo wrote: post #601
soundwave106 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

One of the ideas floating around after Parkland that seems to have gotten bipartisan support (even the National Review warmed up to it! -- https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republica...) is a "gun violence restraining order". This provides a framework for those close to someone, and law enforcement, to temporarily restrict their ability to purchase weapons. I think (as the National Review columnist says) there is broad conceptual agreement that someone can demonstrate through their conduct that they should not possess a weapon. Parkland was a clear failure in this regard -- the perpetrator was this close to being "Baker Acted" (Florida's involuntary institutionalization law).

From my perspective, I welcome ideas like these. Limited access control ideas along the line of this framework is where I think the focus needs to be.

Some discussion also could be reserved for equipment like "bump stocks", that at first glance seems to solely be designed to circumvent existing law (it is highly illegal to modify a semi-automatic into a fully-automatic gun). Again, treating these type of equipment like the extremely highly regulated machine gun class is something even the National Review agrees with. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/bump-stocks-machine-g...)

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

#634

Post by Scoundreller »

this_user wrote: post #369
slivym wrote: 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…

Or just offer 2 tranches of advertising. A higher rate for those that only want to be next to “vetted” content.

Another cheaper rate for those that don’t care.

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

#635

Post by Scoundreller »

pkaye wrote: post #617
gnu8 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can stop using Reddit. That will drive down their advertising revenue.

If they can have the best of both worlds, then so can I.

I’ve enabled my ad blocker on Reddit.

Maybe I’ll suggest having it added to our corporate web filters.

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

#636

Post by mike10010100 »

GCU-Empiricist wrote: post #375
macspoofing wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press criticism (who love taking potshots at tech companies), the outrage and 'activist' brigade (who now target their campaigns at platforms and advertisers), advertisers who now freak out over individual tweets and even the new tech elite class (e.g. Kara Swisher of…

The sad thing is they seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are potentially the dominant media being attacked by the legacy media because their idealism worked and they are gaining market-share, but they keep walking away from what made them so successful.

It's because they're beholden to advertisers rather than their users.

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

#637

Post by Scoundreller »

GCU-Empiricist wrote: post #375
macspoofing wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press criticism (who love taking potshots at tech companies), the outrage and 'activist' brigade (who now target their campaigns at platforms and advertisers), advertisers who now freak out over individual tweets and even the new tech elite class (e.g. Kara Swisher of…

The sad thing is they seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are potentially the dominant media being attacked by the legacy media because their idealism worked and they are gaining market-share, but they keep walking away from what made them so successful.

The media companies may have killed Napster, but that had no long term effect on piracy.

1 provider falls and 5 more grow from the ashes, less vulnerable than their predecessor.

It plays out the same way every time.

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

#638

Post by CaptSpify »

walterbell wrote: post #619
CaptSpify wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if Apple wanted to prove that they actually care about privacy, they would design their apps in a way that I wouldn't have to connect to their servers in any way. This is true even when talking about their apps and services.

Can you recommend a vendor who meets these criteria?

There are a ton of them. Look at any open-source email/dav/webserver/etc projects.

As an example: Dovecot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovecot_(software)) doesn't require me to connect to their servers for anything. They have no idea what I'm doing with my data, and they've designed their software so that they can't violate my privacy.

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

#639

Post by zrobotics »

exabrial wrote: post #427

The youtube ones "no demo of high capacity magazines" leaves me scratching my head, what exactly is that accomplishing?

I wonder if that could be applied to film/tv. Is Rambo bannable? Can gaming channels be banned?

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

#640

Post by a_tractor »

tutts wrote: post #410
soundwave106 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, being a corporate entity supported by other corporate entities' advertisements, there is not much you can do about it. The First Amendment does not apply here: with a few exceptions, you can't force a corporation (or any private entity) to promote something contrary to its interests. This in itself is okay. I certainly can find places on the web that would censor / moderate videos on how to use condom…

The first amendment does apply - just, it applies the other way around. The primary function of media sites is to broadcast their users' messages, and in doing so they're exercising their own freedom of speech. To force them to broadcast certain content would be to compel certain speech from them, which would violate their freedom of speech. (do note that I'm not a lawyer, so this might not be 100% accurate)

Practically speaking these platforms do receive blame from outraged members of the public for "providing platforms" for whatever X topic they dislike, so it makes sense to behave that way.
Post reply on HN