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

651–660 of 763 posts

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

#651

Post by xster »

slivym wrote: post #326
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.

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…

My internet history may be a bit hazy but isn't Reddit banning r/pizzagate or whatever it was and u/spez shadow editing people's comments the 2 biggest events of Reddit last year and likely why voat has users?

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

#652

Post by juliangoldsmith »

intopieces wrote: post #649
juliangoldsmith wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Those are fair points. By that logic, though, it's reasonable to say that there shouldn't be Net Neutrality regulation.

Let's say Spectrum doesn't like a certain service, say, LiveLeak. We've established that a business shouldn't have to devote resources to promoting something that its shareholders disagree with. It would, then, be reasonable for it to refuse its customers access to LiveLeak, right?

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

#653

Post by jakeogh »

pasquinelli wrote: post #226
nbdev wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the part where I mentioned Vietnam, and the part where I asked what if half the military defects? I'm against loss of human life too, that's why I'm pro-2nd Amendment. People can defend themselves. People can fight off tyranny. Given enough time, people will need to do that again.

what if half the military and all the gun nuts decide this country is for whites only? the people can fight for tyrrant as well as against it.

"It was good to have a gun when the Clansmen came." -Antonin Scalia

You really should take a moment to listen to Heller(2008).

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

#654

Post by programmarchy »

macspoofing wrote: post #614
programmarchy wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Probably not. There's a reason why the decision was so narrow - they explicitly didn't want to set a widely applicable precedent.

Read the appeals cases. They curtailed spaces like Costco parking lots and strip malls without plazas or atriums, which are different than "common areas". Free speech in common areas was reaffirmed in 2012.

YouTube is clearly a common area.

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

#655

Post by CaptSpify »

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.

Why not? I can buy FOSS products, so I don't see how that wouldn't apply. Would this work for you then?

https://www.pfsense.org/

I also don't see why it matters whether or not nobody else sells a smartphone like that. Just because everyone else is doing shady shit with their products doesn't mean Apple gets a free pass.

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

#656

Post by kadenshep »

factsareright wrote: post #450
superkuh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has reached that point. I'm moving to voat.

You are definitely prepared for voat, but for the others reading this, make note that voat is like 4chan; part of their defense mechanism is to get people who use words like "racist" upset and make them leave (and then go tell their friends how bad voat is). The crowd of people who just care about freedom of speech, transparency, and corruption, have been chased from platform to platform. users like go1dfish are a go…

>Remember that many prominent progressives and socialists are also blacklisted by the bulk of NPR/reddit types.

No they aren't.

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

#657

Post by jakeogh »

Karunamon wrote: post #647
kevhito wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "…

Requiring citizens to ask permission for a sale means they don't really own their firearms. It also breaks plausible deniability in a confiscation scenario.

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

#658

Post by deno »

withdavidli wrote: post #631
deno wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How about starting with the fact that are more guns than people in United States, and yet gun violence (excluding suicides) is on similar level as other developed countries, and on constant decline?

Major sources of gun violence are no different than in any other developed country, which unfortunately is in a big part fueled by the global failed drug prohibition, and committed with very much illegal firearms.

UK, for example, despite its strictest gun control, has much of the same problems, committed with more primitive tools, only leaving you to bleed out slower, but ending up just as dead (stab wounds are often more lethal than handgun calibers).

The surplus or deficit of guns does not affect the number of people already predisposed to capital crime. The law, unsurprisingly, only affects those that are willing to abide by it. Left defenseless, suspect by default and at mercy of the King.

Clearly, by the way of deduction, legally owned guns must then be in the hands of good & responsible people, for the most part. That, btw, includes 22% of Democrat voters (to 35% Republicans).

I don’t actually think that guns magically make people good or responsible (though they make other people more polite).

It’s likely just a correlation having to do with how firearm owners autoselect, based on range of personality traits and other criteria (like gender).

The statement “401(k) owners are on average good people” is probably equally true, though we don’t collect any data to disprove it, as far as I know.

Nevertheless, there’s some comfort in the fact that of the 370 million guns in United States, all but very few will more likely be used to save lives, rather than take them.

A grand experiment in freedom & liberty, nothing alike anywhere else in the world.

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

#659

Post by dragonwriter »

programmarchy wrote: post #654
macspoofing wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. There's a reason why the decision was so narrow - they explicitly didn't want to set a widely applicable precedent.

Read the appeals cases. They curtailed spaces like Costco parking lots and strip malls without plazas or atriums, which are different than "common areas". Free speech in common areas was reaffirmed in 2012. YouTube is clearly a common area.

> YouTube is clearly a common area.

YouTube isn't even an area, much less a common area. (Not to mention that the “common area” thing is not a federal Constitutional requirement but a judicial application of the positive rights in the California Constitution; it is not a First Amendment right.)

It's a publication in which user submissions that Google accepts will be published, possibly accompanied by ads from which revenue is shared with the submitter.

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

#660

Post by jakeogh »

yequalsx wrote: post #387
humanrebar wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...because the text is in the Constitution in very clear wording. Trying to use syntax tricks to explain an alternate meaning for the second amendment results in nonsense, really. People who are against gun rights aren't for "well-organized militias" in general.

Very clear wording that took over 200 yeas for there to be a Supreme Court willing to agree with that interpretayption. Previous courts disagreed. Given this no one can reasonably think it’s very clear wording.

Getting really obvious that you haven't taken a moment to listen to the Heller decision.
Post reply on HN