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

641–650 of 763 posts

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

#641

Post by wvenable »

humanrebar wrote: post #604
wvenable wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not sure why you took it to that leap.

I value free speech -- everyone is free to share their opinions. But speech isn't distributed evenly. It used to be that only the very wealthy or the very organized could widely distribute their speech. Now it's very wealthy and anyone with far too much time on their hands. This is not a better situation.

People can now wield speech as a weapon -- not by spreading better ideas -- but by simply using so much that it drowns everyone else out. Your own speech online is literally worth less because you're not willing to spend hours every day posting it.

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

#642

Post by Scoundreller »

zrobotics wrote: post #626
mrlala wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs But that's also in the best interested of everyone. Instead of youtube, we should visit 10 different video sites? Instead of reddit, we should visit 10 different global info sources that now have 10x less content, and spend even more time finding what's relevant? Instead of twitch, we should visit 10 different sites to wa…

On the contrary, centralization can actually reduce the amount of content, at least for certain types. For instance, nearly any automobile will have a dedicated forum, and often these forums will provide some of the most helpful information, simply because they concentrate people around a specific subject. Whereas asking a question in one of the general automotive subreddits will typically yield poorer quality answer…

The latter is just getting worse.

YouTube is doing its best to demonetize content that doesn’t result in subscribing to an uploader. Ie: people posting numerous videos that are unrelated because they are so specific.

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

#643

Post by zrobotics »

zaarn wrote: post #199

I wonder if Reddit will then ban subreddits relating to Cody's Lab. Maybe youtube will finally ban Cody forever for showing us how to do explosives or make mercury based ammunition in guns! hurray!

What I don't understand is how on earth king of random hasn't had the same kinds of problems as cody's lab. I mean, the guy was arrested on explosives charges, and his channel is very clearly aimed at a young audience, while cody's channel doesn't seem particularly aimed at kids. And king of random has to be one of the worst offenders i've seen for showing something dangerous w/o explaining the hazards, such as exposed/poorly insulated mains connections or frankly dangerous tool usage.

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

#644

Post by flyingfences »

exabrial wrote: post #426
dangoor wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that social media aren't the same as common carriers in that people can very easily switch from one to another. I saw a headline saying that one gun video channel on YouTube was moving its videos to another site. They will no longer have access to YouTube's audience, but they are still free to post their videos in a publicly-accessible fashion.

Just curious, what site is that? Cody's Lab and AVE, two of the most informative educational channels, already have a crap ton of problems with YouTube (granted AVE pokes the bear with a stick). With the #DeleteFacebook movement in full swing, I'd love to see a #LoseTheTube and go to a platform that promotes free expression but can actually classify stuff correctly (giving the user the power to filter what they don't…

A few channels are legitimately backing up their content to PornHub. The largest serious contender is Full30.

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

#645

Post by Karunamon »

CaptSpify wrote: post #638
walterbell wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FOSS projects are not "vendors". Nobody sells a smartphone that meets the criteria described.

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

#646

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

macspoofing wrote: post #328
gtlondon wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We seem to be moving from an era when internet censorship was considered bad, to one where "It's OK, we're just censoring this". I have no sympathy towards gun use - but the principle of large monopolies applying their own morals to censor content seems wrong.

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…

That seems like a missaligned view. The internet from the 90s and turn of the century is still around; hell the tools for creating federated communities and reaching niche groups are stronger than ever. The likes of Reddit, Youtube at least on the scale to which they pivoted to companies looking to make cash, were never really part of that set.

I'd go so far as to say the early communities of the internet were, as a rule, more moderated (either explicitly or implicitly) that even these new rules.

Whoever hosts the service (and as a corollary those that pay them) determines the moderation. The thing about "free speech" (taken to mean unmoderated speech) is that's not something you can build a healthy community on top of. No one got "torn down" by nebulous "mainstream" forces; it's just bad business. All hail the invisible hand of capitalism.

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

#647

Post by Karunamon »

kevhito wrote: post #128
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 reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive. Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, lik…

>NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive.

You realize that "sensible" is both subjective, and cuts both ways, right? Have you ever noticed that the "compromise" touted by gun control advocates is always, 100% of the time, entirely one-sided?

That isn't compromise, that's capitulation. Compromise would be "Okay, universal NICS checks for all gun sales, but private citizens can access it for free". Compromise would be "per the full faith and credit clause, CCW permits are now legally recognized in all 50 states and become shall-issue, but there will be a standardized framework to get them".

Compromise is unambiguously not "ban bump stocks" and everyone who disagrees going "okay!".

So long as gun control compromise is a one-way street, I remain a dues-paying NRA member.

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

#648

Post by detaro »

Karunamon wrote: post #645
CaptSpify wrote: post #638

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FOSS projects are not "vendors". Nobody sells a smartphone that meets the criteria described.

You can buy Android phones like the Fairphone where removing the Google services is officially supported, that comes pretty close.

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

#649

Post by intopieces »

juliangoldsmith wrote: post #502
intopieces wrote: post #486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Being able to publicly post your videos is pointless if nobody watches them The freedom of speech is not the freedom to be heard. Youtube is not the only seller of megaphones by the public square.

YouTube isn't the only seller of megaphones, but they're the only one that matters. When they have an effective monopoly on audience, network effects will make it impossible for anyone else to compete.

They are the only one that matters because of superior products, innovation, or business acumen. Obtaining a monopoly in this way is legal [0].

The argument here seems to be that because "unpopular speech" is not being spread through the market-leader media site, that free speech is being restricted. This sounds really similar to the "Fairness Doctrine" [1], and has the same pitfalls: it forces businesses to devote their resources, risk their brand, and jeopardize their ad dollars to promote speech that their patrons disagree with.

If YouTube were a government run enterprise using public money, absolutely -- everyone gets a megaphone. But YouTube's legal obligation is to shareholders and anything that forces them to act against that is not sound policy.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine [0]https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...

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

#650

Post by rpenm »

bnolsen wrote: post #488
pjc50 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's never going to be en masse. Australia enacted sufficient gun control to drastically limit mass shootings by introducing licensing, purpose and registration requirements as well as banning semi-automatics. There was a buyback scheme which most people complied with. I do wonder if American resistance to sensible gun control will cause a flip straight over into hard restrictions, but it's difficult to see what the…

"sensible"? Since massive amoutns of guns have found their way to the public since the 1990s the crime rates across the US have been dropping dramatically. And even so the US isn't even close to the top of the list worldwide in per capita murder rate even though lots of people have weapons. If anything those numbers show that there is at the very least no correlation between numbers of guns and crime, and may well in…

Gun ownership rates have been falling, not rising.

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun...

Post reply on HN