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

671–680 of 763 posts

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

#671

Post by dragonwriter »

programmarchy wrote: post #583
dfxm12 wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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_…

> They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment

No, they've ruled the opposite, as your own source explicitly states. Pruneyard permitted California to impose free speech obligations on property owners via the State Constitution that the Supreme Court had previously found were not required under the First Amendment. (In effect, it found that the federal First Amendment rights of the property owner did not extend to blocking the state action.)

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

#672

Post by humanrebar »

yequalsx wrote: post #618
humanrebar wrote: post #600

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You can't seriously believe that the words of constitution have the same meaning and interpretation for everyone. Clearly what people think the words mean changes from person to person and even from era to era. Peoples' views change over time. The words don't change but how people view and understand the meaning of those words change. This is not disputable or revelatory.

I don't believe everyone reads the words the same. That's why the only objective way to read the words is to understand what they meant when they were ratified.

If the text becomes too arcane or unclear, the correct remedy is to amend the constitution, not backfill the meanings of the words from outcomes we already have in mind.

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

#673

Post by humanrebar »

yequalsx wrote: post #663
jakeogh wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded... Language is nuanced, intent is nuanced, and there are a ton of gray areas.

Can I ignore or rewrite the 14th amendment because I find it confusing?

> I do know that views on how the Constitution should be interpreted have changed over time.

Yeah, people started ignoring parts they weren't comfortable with and finding new parts in prenumbras.

Your argument boils down to, "I don't know, everyone. There are a lot of gray areas, so we better just agree to do what I want."

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

#674

Post by programmarchy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #668
programmarchy wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Fir…

You keep editing your comments, so not sure what I'm responding to anymore. Anyway, I think it's disingenuous to argue that YouTube is not a common space, given that's how they describe themselves and how any reasonable person would describe their platform. Then to argue that virtual spaces are not protected by the first amendment contradicts the principles of free speech, and recent case law.

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

#675

Post by sheepmullet »

chillwaves wrote: post #508
sheepmullet wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Because the anti-firearm crowd won't budge an inch either. All the evidence points towards gun-free zones failing to reduce violence. Will the anti-gun crowd work with gun owners to expand where law abiding citizens can carry? > If people can't get sensible gun regulation Without making this partisan - you can't ha…

> you can't have strict gun control without strict border control. The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around. Maybe the Mexicans should build a wall to protect them from illegal US guns? https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/...

> The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around.

Does it make my statement any less true?

Does the current direction of gun flow matter when we are talking about a future US gun ban?

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

#676

Post by sheepmullet »

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…

> Summed up elsewhere, they are not being denied the right to say a certain thing, just the right to say it in a specific place (Reddit or Youtube).

YouTube has been running at a loss for over a decade. This has allowed it to become a monopoly and have undue influence on policing speech.

Censorship like this is an abuse of their monopoly privilege. The most appropriate free market solution is for the government to forcibly split YouTube off into a seperate company and let it compete in the marketplace.

In addition we can remove safe harbor provisions and start holding them responsible for the shady other content they don't remove.

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

#677

Post by kevhito »

splintercell wrote: post #606
chillwaves wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 politicia…

> 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.

This is exactly my point. You point to extremism as justification for yet more extremism in the opposite way. This won't end well for anyone. I'm not sure how, but as a society we need to find a way just sit down and walk things back. I'm willing to work towards a compromise. It seems you would rather not budge, and so the extremism continues.

There are plenty of people like me who don't care about 100yr old rifle historians, or hunters, or sport shooting, or the rest. We just want our kids to not get shot, and think that the current level of gun violence is far too high. Where can we turn to? Gun lovers and the NRA specifically don't seem to be able to offer any response at all beyond "my cold dead hand" and "don't give an inch".

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

#678

Post by pbhjpbhj »

maltwhiskey wrote: post #407
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think trying to murder policemen because your country enacted gun controls to protect schoolchildren would be "nutters trying to shoot people"? "Oh but I need this 1000 round per minute gun for pest control in my apartment! I'll murder people to protect my right to have it."??

I'm not sure where you got 1000 rounds per minute from, even a fully automatic rifle generally cannot fire that quickly (it would probably need to be belt-fed or you would be changing magazines more than thirty times per minute). A semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 is unlikely to surpass 100 rounds per minute.

The 1000 rounds per minute was intended to show that the post was knowingly exaggerated, however in part it was inspired by a "girl fires minigun" post I saw on Reddit. I can't truly recall but I think it was an M134 and that it did maybe 3000 rounds per minute.

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

#679

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

bonzini wrote: post #571
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you advocating for government subsidized ammo and training? That's something I could get behind!

How would you regulate the training---what if you fail the training that's required to be part of a well-regulated militia? If the right to bear arms would be only contingent to being part of a militia, would the failure void your right to bear arms? (serious question)

Why in your interpretation of government subsidized training/ammo is it a requirement?

If the constitution is a document that explains the natural rights of citizens, and is restrictions on the government (which it is)... Then saying A well-regulated militia being necessity to a free state - would imply that government is obligated to train and supply ammo - any requirements for this to be part of your rights would be null considering the next words are "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

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

#680

Post by yequalsx »

humanrebar wrote: post #673
yequalsx wrote: post #663

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded... Language is nuanced, intent is nuanced, and there are a ton of gray areas. Can I ignore or rewrite the 14th amendment because I find it confusing? > I do know that views on how the Constitution should be interpreted have changed over time. Yeah, people started ignoring parts they weren't comfortable with and finding new parts in prenumbras…

That is not my argument at all. I have an opinion on what the 2nd amendment ought to mean. I advocate that others share my position. I've acknowledged numerous times that others don't share my opinion and I've suggested that they keep vigilant to maintain their rights. That's the whole point of politics. This is a political issue and people advocate for/against positions all the time. Sometimes attitudes that once were accepted become repugnant.

We best not just agree to do what I want. That would be absolute power and that would be horrible. No one deserves that much power. No one should be so arrogant that they think they are always right or that their opinions are beyond reproach.

I welcome discourse and debate. It's necessary for a properly functioning society.

Post reply on HN