YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans • Hacker News Board

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

#681

Post by kevhito » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 11:42 PM UTC

sheepmullet wrote: post #247

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…

> 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…

This isn't a game or a horse trade, I win one, you win one.

"I'll agree not to shoot your kids today, but only if you let me beat up your cousin instead." That's more or less what your argument sounds like to me. Can we agree that gun violence is a problem in the US, on a level vastly higher than many other parts of the world? Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Let's work together to find things that will help reduce gun violence. I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way. You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return. And it's especially jarring when the thing you want in return seems a to always move things back in the exact opposite direction, expanding access to and availability of guns.

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

#682

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 11:42 PM UTC

cgiles wrote: post #511

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the start of the thread that I was responding to. The whole thread is reference to the parent saying people would rise up in armed revolt if the law was changed to tighten gun controls. Assuming the national guard weren't sent in then as I understand it regular police would be charged with arresting those who refused to follow the legislation. To me the meaning of that is clear - if the law is changed pe…

I think the implication was that a very large fraction of police/national guard/US armed forces would at least refuse to enforce such a law, if not join the rebellion itself. Indeed, I've never met a more adamant group of 2nd amendment supporters than my military friends. But should such a dire scenario occur, I have always wondered how these small arms would fare against UAVs. The trouble is that we have precedent i…

>a very large fraction of police/national guard/US armed forces would at least refuse to enforce such a law //

Anything to support this? It's very sad to imagine that not being allowed automatic weapons at home, say, would turn LEOs in to outlaws. Do they perceive an actual threat? Do they not care about all the school massacres?

Are this large proportion of armed personnel in rebellion against the bump stock rulings that I understand were enacted recently?

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

#683

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Mar 22, 2018, 11:45 PM UTC

programmarchy wrote: post #674

dragonwriter wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Then to argue that virtual spaces are not protected by the first amendment contradicts the principles of free speech, and recent case law.

Since the citation upthread notes that even physical privately-owned common spaces are not protected by the first amendment against regulation by the owner of the space [0], though the first amendment rights of the owner also do not prevent state constitutions (California's in particular) from creating free speech obligations which do bind certain private owners of an extremely narrow class of public spaces, I think it is impossible to argue that virtual spaces are somehow protected under the first amendment by analogy to private common spaces, since the latter aren't actually protected.

[0] there is, IIRC, a different line of cases applying narrowly to government's or individual government official's use of privately owned physical spaces as a quasi-official two-way channel which does create some first amendment protection in that narrow context, and these principles have been extended to online fora, but that's not germane here.

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

#684

Post by sheepmullet » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 12:07 AM UTC

kevhito wrote: post #681

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…

This isn't a game or a horse trade, I win one, you win one. "I'll agree not to shoot your kids today, but only if you let me beat up your cousin instead." That's more or less what your argument sounds like to me. Can we agree that gun violence is a problem in the US, on a level vastly higher than many other parts of the world? Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Let's work together…

> Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence?

Yes - by implementing proven policies and removing ineffectual ones.

> You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return.

Because we don't trust anti-gun people.

> expanding access to and availability of guns.

^ and this is why we don't trust anti-gun people.

Like I said above gun free zones have been shown to be ineffectual.

Yet you don't want to remove this ineffectual policy and try a different approach. You just want stricter and stricter gun control.

> I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way.

Are you?

So if the evidence supports arming teachers and reducing the number of places that qualify as gun free zones will you support these changes?

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

#685

Post by zitterbewegung » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 1:24 AM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #403

zitterbewegung wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddit and Youtube are becoming more and more draconian for one reason. They REALLY need people to stay on their advertisement platform. For instance Reddit has always had issues with its content clashing with advertisers. Youtube I think has gone into rougher times with its relation to advertisers (I remember proctor and gamble pulled their ads). When your advertisers complain about your platform having content they…

I have my doubts. It's not rocket science to introduce a mechanism which lets the advertisers choose what kind of videos are acceptable for their ads to appear in. Don't like guns or beer? Tell Youtube not to displays the add on guns/beer related videos. Problem solved. Same goes for Reddit. Would advertisers care that there is gun related subreddit their ad never appear on? I feel the decision is ideological and wil…

The point that I was trying to make was the advertisers dictate what is on the platform and not the content creators .

Also I beleve that advertisers had that power but it wasn’t enough for them.

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

#686

Post by graedus » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 1:46 AM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #682

cgiles wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the implication was that a very large fraction of police/national guard/US armed forces would at least refuse to enforce such a law, if not join the rebellion itself. Indeed, I've never met a more adamant group of 2nd amendment supporters than my military friends. But should such a dire scenario occur, I have always wondered how these small arms would fare against UAVs. The trouble is that we have precedent i…

>a very large fraction of police/national guard/US armed forces would at least refuse to enforce such a law // Anything to support this? It's very sad to imagine that not being allowed automatic weapons at home, say, would turn LEOs in to outlaws. Do they perceive an actual threat? Do they not care about all the school massacres? Are this large proportion of armed personnel in rebellion against the bump stock rulings…

The original context of this thread (starting with user yequalsx's comment) isn't about "tighter gun controls", but rather the a complete ban of all guns ("I hope I am now seeing the beginning of the end of acceptance of gun ownership.") I think that is the scenario -- actual confiscation of all guns -- user purple-again was addressing ("This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed").

This is different from outlawing or more tightly controlling certain classes of weapons, which seems to be what you're talking about. I think not being able to easily purchase fully automatic weapons or crazier stuff like rocket propelled grenades, stingers, 20mm cannons, etc is something a minority of gun enthusiasts grumble about but pretty much everyone basically accepts. Nobody that I know of is revolting about that, cops/feds have no problem enforcing it, etc.

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

#687

Post by nezzle » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 2:01 AM UTC

xster wrote: post #651

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…

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?

voat has users?

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

#688

Post by ehmu » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 2:11 AM UTC

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…

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

I think you had me wrong it is an individual right. They neglected to include the of the people part in their quote. The 2A applies to the people not the militia

I pretty much agree with you on the rest

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

#689

Post by ehmu » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

yequalsx wrote: post #666

splintercell wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is the right of the people I didn't think I was ambiguous

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

#690

Post by nezzle » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 2:13 AM UTC

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…

> I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals.

This is rather like saying you think it's fine for libraries to only carry books in line with their morals. Or perhaps that your phone only works for approved topics.

At a certain size these sites become primary platforms for communication. I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech applied to historical means of communication. Or made into one.