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

661–670 of 763 posts

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

#661

Post by dragonwriter »

deno wrote: post #658
withdavidli wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

That's based on a false dichotomy; many won't be used at all, and many of the rest will be used for entertainment, not to save or take lives. And some will be used for multiole purposes (often simultaneously), potentially including both saving and taking lives. (A criminal who fatslly shoots a cop to make his escape from arrest on a capital offense, is, after all, both saving and taking a life, as is the cop who, being slightly faster in the same situation, fatally shoots the criminal first.)

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

#662

Post by splintercell »

ehmu wrote: post #625
splintercell wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Rhode Island's 1842 constitution starts like this: > The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . . So according to you, if the 'security…

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They left out part of it

Are you implying that "right of the people" implies that it is not an individual right?

> First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the __right of the people__ peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Does that mean that first amendment is not an individual right to free speech, press or religion?

> Fourth Amendment: The __right of the people__ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How about now? You don't have the individual right against unreasonable searches and seizures?

> Ninth amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained __by the people__.

Again, the 9th amendment which claims that there are rights outside of constitution and they are retained by the people, just because they are not written in the constitution. Are these all the 'right of the states'??

Or my favorite one, the tenth amendment:

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or __to the people__.

Here, it uses "the states" and "the people" separately. Clearly if second amendment meant it is a right of the states to keep and bear arms, then it would have mentioned it so, and not said "right of the people".

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

#663

Post by yequalsx »

jakeogh wrote: post #660
yequalsx wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have not read the Heller decision in its entirety. I do know that there are Supreme Court rulings that Heller contradicts. I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded. I do know that views on how the Constitution should be interpreted have changed over time. I do know that it's not an obvious amendment. There is no such thing as we have lawyers arguing the meaning of the Constitution all the time. Nothing is very clear cut. Language is nuanced, intent is nuanced, and there are a ton of gray areas.

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

#664

Post by ptero »

mindways wrote: post #497
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." Agreed, but "I won't provide a platform for this speech" is not "suppressing". If I put up a bulletin board in my front yard and encourage my neighbors to post things there, in general it's eminently reasonable for me to decide that certain things can't be posted - even if my bulletin board becomes the…

Your fourth option is perfectly acceptable to me: exercising free speech right to say that original post is a terrible thing to say. However, we should not enforce the "no discussion whatsoever": if either the original speaker or another person wants to argue that it was not in fact a terrible thing to say, let them.

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

#665

Post by programmarchy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #659
programmarchy wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is a weak argument, nitpicking semantics. Virtual spaces are protected, too. [1] Telephone systems and television cable systems are not technically "areas" either, yet have protections under the first amendment.

Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement:

> Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world.

> We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities.

> We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular.

[1] First Amendment Architecture, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2012, No. 1, 2012, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791125

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

#666

Post by yequalsx »

splintercell wrote: post #662
ehmu wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. They left out part of it

Are you implying that "right of the people" implies that it is not an individual right? > First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the __right of the people__ peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Does that mean that first amendmen…

The reading of ehmu's comments doesn't make it clear that he/she probably agrees with your position on the second amendment? It's seems obvious to me. If it's easy to get confused with the intent of ehmu's two comments then it should be understandable that reasonable people can interpret the meaning of the 2nd amendment in different ways.

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

#667

Post by deno »

dragonwriter wrote: post #661
deno wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. That's based on a false dichotomy; many won't be used at all, and many of the rest will be used for entertainment, not to save or take lives. And some will be used for multiole purposes (often simultaneously), potentially including both saving…

I’ve tried to word around it carefully with ‘will more likely to be’, but obviously that’s true.

I think the number of firearms in US is quite remarkable, considering the fact that in my home country, Poland, only a single person in hundred owns a firearm.

If gun control was in any way effective at reducing crime, it should be very easy to demonstrate, with such significant differences in saturation.

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

#668

Post by dragonwriter »

programmarchy wrote: post #665
dragonwriter wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This is a weak argument, nitpicking semantics. Virtual spaces are protected, too. [1] Telephone systems and television cable systems are not technically "areas" either, yet have protections under the first amendment. Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement: > Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world. > We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster…

> Telephone systems and television cable systems are not technically "areas" either, yet have protections under the first amendment.

Users of telephone systems have free speech protections against the operator of those systems not because of the first amendment (and especially not because of applications of that to physical common areas against private property owners, which applications don't actually exist—the First Amendment has specifically and repeatedly been held not to apply even in that case against the property owner), but because of common carrier regulations.

> Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement:

YouTube's PR has very little impact on how constitutional law applies to it.

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

#669

Post by grzm »

CaptSpify wrote: post #616
grzm wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When asking you to "post something more substantial and thoughtful when you do. You’ve seen enough responses from people to anticipate objections.", I'm asking you to do more than repeat "Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line." to start out. From what I gather, your complaints with respect to Apple and privacy center around the source code not being open and you'd like them to…

I don't feel like anticipating arguments is very helpful, as much as it just adds noise. I could anticipate that someone will argue that because the sun is round, it proves that Apple can do no wrong, yet I don't bring that up, because until someone does, it seems to me to be a waste of time. In short, I am trying to be succinct rather than waste everyone's time arguing over something that nobody wants to argue about…

What would satisfy you that Apple takes privacy seriously?

- Open source the enclave?

- Open source the OS (be it macOS, iOS)?

- Allow you to install your own OS and software?

- Refuse to do business in China?

- Open all of their books so you can view the revenue stream?

If this is wrong or incomplete or to expansive, please do clarify, but also please be specific. I want to understand in detail what your reservations are.

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

#670

Post by humanrebar »

wvenable wrote: post #641
humanrebar wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ide…

Well, your premise is that people are too ignorant, at least sometimes. You don't blame them for being ignorant, instead you blame bad actors for creating the ignorance, but regardless liberal democracy still rests on the assumption that the populace is qualified enough to make important decisions.

To put it another way, maybe we're overconfident. Maybe the citizens, at least in aggregate, are well enough informed, but they just value things differently. To be more specific to the case at hand, maybe citizens are mature enough to handle tobacco ads on the internet.

Citizen: "Let me see those cigar ads."

Censor: "I can't let you do that. You'll just buy cigars!"

Citizen: "Well, yeah. That's the idea."

Post reply on HN