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

691–700 of 763 posts

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

#691

Post by foghagernows »

yequalsx wrote: post #584
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you understand that outside of obvious moral ethics - that a law against murder doesn't stop someone from murdering. It only gives lawyers a way to punish it. It's the punishment that is the deterrent. Why should law abiding gun owners be punished again? Adding punitive laws is not a deterrent. Enforcing those laws is. We don't enforce many guns laws, then you come in yelling about adding more laws. The logical co…

A person is law abiding until they aren’t. It’s about keeping people from having ready access to so much lethality when that person decides to become a bad actor. Banning guns would lower the likelihood of a bad actor having as much lethality as they currently are easily able to acquire. Parkland could have been avoided in a 7th way too. Without access to guns it wouldn’t have been as lethal.

So what if the person had used a bomb? Or 3D printed a gun?

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

#692

Post by chillwaves »

sheepmullet wrote: post #675
chillwaves wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US.

The logic that makes more sense to me is gun control in the US would result in less guns going over the border to Mexico.

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

#693

Post by nbdev »

pasquinelli wrote: post #554
DuskStar wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that would be why we have an amendment to the constitution that says 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' As long as we follow that, guns won't be whites only.

what kind of magical thinking is that, that what the constitution says determines who has guns? anyway, it isn't the point. the point is that the majority are if anything more likely to support a tyrant than not, so the idea that gun nuts will save us from a tyrant they have at least a 50/50 shot of supporting is silly, and that's without considering the possibility that they'll save us from a tyrant who actually isn…

Pretty much anyone can get a gun, right? Because of the Constitution, right? Where's the magic thinking?

You say most people would support a tyrant, which may not be true but let's go with that. Given that, why wouldn't you want the opposition to that tyrrany to have guns? Your take seems defeatist. You want to just try to live peacefully as tyranny spreads?

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

#694

Post by krapp »

nbdev wrote: post #693
pasquinelli wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what kind of magical thinking is that, that what the constitution says determines who has guns? anyway, it isn't the point. the point is that the majority are if anything more likely to support a tyrant than not, so the idea that gun nuts will save us from a tyrant they have at least a 50/50 shot of supporting is silly, and that's without considering the possibility that they'll save us from a tyrant who actually isn…

Pretty much anyone can get a gun, right? Because of the Constitution, right? Where's the magic thinking? You say most people would support a tyrant, which may not be true but let's go with that. Given that, why wouldn't you want the opposition to that tyrrany to have guns? Your take seems defeatist. You want to just try to live peacefully as tyranny spreads?

One doesn't need a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in order to keep and bear arms, only to do so legally. Expecting a tyrannical US regime to respect the 2nd Amendment in order to legitimize the means of its own demise seems shortsighted, and other countries manage to have revolutions and coups without a legal firearms market.

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

#695

Post by flounders »

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 think this is a slope you want to go down because the constitution is law. Do we want people to view the law subjectively, especially juries that decide on cases? "When the government is acting in your best interests unwarranted searches and seizures are ok, therefore we can come into your home any time we want as long as we are acting in your best interests." I doubt you would be ok with that. Sadly we have laws in place for exactly that sort of thing, and people are ok with it because are we are really scared of terrorists.

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

#696

Post by intopieces »

juliangoldsmith wrote: post #652
intopieces wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>By that logic, though, it's reasonable to say that there shouldn't be Net Neutrality regulation.

The logic here depends on scale. YouTube is a service among services; ISPs are utilities that provide access to other services. It's much easier to set up your own video streaming website than it is to set up an ISP. As it stands, there no risk for ISPs with the content they carry, since their subscribers have no choice to leave them. They do not risk their brand or advertising dollars. That is why they ought to be neutral to the content they carry.

If there comes a time in America where an ISP risks losing subscribers to their competitor because they allow LiveLeak or Porn or dragon ball z gifs, let 'em go wild with the filters.

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

#697

Post by CaptSpify »

grzm wrote: post #669
CaptSpify wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reservation…

All of the above would be great, obviously, but for me to take Apple seriously, I'd say that they'd need to:

Open source pretty much anything that they can, allowing me to compile and install my own os and software. And this would have to be without having to contact apple's servers in any way.

There might be more that I can't remember ATM, but I think that's the main gist of it.

By not allowing me to see how the code works, I can't know what they are doing with my data. And by designing a system where I could set up as much of the stack as possible without having to contact any central source, would ensure that everyone could use it without fear of that data being mis-handled.

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

#698

Post by grzm »

CaptSpify wrote: post #697
grzm wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 reservation…

All of the above would be great, obviously, but for me to take Apple seriously, I'd say that they'd need to: Open source pretty much anything that they can, allowing me to compile and install my own os and software. And this would have to be without having to contact apple's servers in any way. There might be more that I can't remember ATM, but I think that's the main gist of it. By not allowing me to see how the cod…

What phone and OS do you currently run? How does it meet all of these criteria?

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

#699

Post by sheepmullet »

chillwaves wrote: post #692
sheepmullet wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US. The logic that makes more sense to me is gun control in the US would result in less guns going over the border to Mexico.

> I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US.

With strong gun controls in the US what will stop guns from traveling in the other direction from Mexico to the US?

The only reason they don't today is because nobody in the US wants lower quality firearms from Mexico.

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

#700

Post by question_that »

The bigger problem is that even if they create their own platform - let's say the NRA rolls out guntube - they're still at the mercy of registrars. Don't read TheDailyStormer (unless you really want to) but do read about how much trouble they're having keeping free speech on the internet - gab.ai is in many ways a similarly objectionable site which has been threatened with the same treatment.

I agree that platforms have the right to police content but I disagree strongly with registrars seizing domain names without a court order.

Everything might go back to normal if these bans ever see a California courtroom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

Post reply on HN