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

701–710 of 763 posts

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

#701

Post by lern_too_spel »

nezzle wrote: post #690
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…

> 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…

You have a right to publish your own materials. You do not have a right to make a newspaper publish a classified that is against its policies. Similarly, you can put whatever you want on your website. You cannot force another website carry your content simply because that website has achieved some level of distribution.

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

#702

Post by comex »

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #495
wan23 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word censor comes from a Latin word for a government official who, well, censored things. In English the word has the implication of being action taken by someone who actually has the power to make moral decisions on behalf of society, such as a government. Maybe you think the word has a different meaning, or maybe you think Youtube has this power, but you should try to disagree without accusing people of being p…

>The word censor comes from a Latin word for a government official who, well, censored things. Do you have a source for this? The latin word censere does not seem to be defined only as government officials silencing opinions they don't like: >Definitions:assess, count/reckon, decree, vote, determine, recommend think/suppose,judge http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/8896/censeo-censere-c... >Maybe you think the wor…

"The censor was a magistrate in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor

The name of the Roman office was based on "censere" but had a more specific meaning, and it's that which evolved into the English word "censor", due to the "supervising public morality" part of the censors' job. But the meaning shifted in the process. The Roman censors didn't "censor" anything in the modern sense; rather, they judged people for violations of public morality.

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

#703

Post by dragonwriter »

comex wrote: post #702
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The word censor comes from a Latin word for a government official who, well, censored things. Do you have a source for this? The latin word censere does not seem to be defined only as government officials silencing opinions they don't like: >Definitions:assess, count/reckon, decree, vote, determine, recommend think/suppose,judge http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/8896/censeo-censere-c... >Maybe you think the wor…

"The censor was a magistrate in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor The name of the Roman office was based on "censere" but had a more specific meaning, and it's that which evolved into the English word "censor", due to the "supervising public morality" part of…

The modern English sense of “censor”, IIRC, isn't directly derived from the as actions of the Roman official, but more from those of the Catholic ecclesiastical official of the same name (sometimes more fully “censor librorum”) who reviews books intended for publication and provides (or withholds) the nihil obstat certifying it free of anything harmful to good faith and morals, which is generally a prerequisite to the episcopal imprimatur allowing it to be published, a function which is very much in line with the modern English understanding of censorship.

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

#704

Post by TheAdamAndChe »

ashooner wrote: post #432
purple-again wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time I see this argument come up people always try to frame it like it will be ‘nutters’ shooting ‘some’ people. You are very wrong, and that is the attitude that will get a lot of innocent people killed. This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed.

It would be nice if all these gun owners were interested in defending rights other than owning guns.

Gun ownership is a right in the US.

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

#705

Post by vsl »

birksherty wrote: post #174
lettergram wrote: post #120

There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... If I take my car (a Jeep Grand Cherokee) and ram it into a crowd - I'm confident that can take out more people than I can with a gun, knife, probably even bomb. Point being, I understand not facilitating trade, but for the love of god, videos? You really want to push the right over the edge? We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of t…

General population don't practice ramming car into crowd. Those are not hobbies. So, when mentally ill people want to cause harm they don't use those methods. It does not normally comes to mind. But, shooting is common. It's a hobby. A killing machine is normalized and it becomes a culture. So, those mentally ill men feels completely normal to shoot people when they go crazy. Consider this: ramming car into objects b…

> That's why countries where gun are banned for general population, does not have mass murder by "common people" like USA

Funny. I live in a country where gun ownership is common-ish. Curiously, per your theory, though - no mass shootings.

Gun ownership is not the root of all evil.

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

#706

Post by vsl »

matwood wrote: post #585
DINKDINK wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>impossible to fund gun violence studies. How is the NRA stopping anyone from funding studies? >study shows as is already implied it means that person may be hurt or killed Your arguments are epistemologically broken. Would giving, low-blood-pressure people, blood-pressure regulating medication suddenly make them have high blood pressure? No. Wet streets do not cause rain

I incorrectly assumed anyone discussing gun violence would know about the Dickey Amendment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996) My arguments are not broken at all. To do the type of control you suggested above would mean putting guns in homes of people who would otherwise not have one. Previous studies have showed that owning a gun increases the odds of injury by gun. Putting subjects at that sort…

Let me rephrase the parent:

How is the NRA stopping anyone other than the government from funding studies?

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

#707

Post by vsl »

jetpks wrote: post #115
krapp wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, racists, sexists and conspiracy theorists appear to be the only people who still believe in freedom of speech, and are willing to fight to keep it. Even many of the "hackers" around here seem to support regulation and censorship.

This isn’t a free speech issue. The government isn’t stopping anyone from speaking or thinking anything they want. Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want

You are confusing the moral concept of free speech with USA’s 1st amendment. The latter is only a narrow implementation of the former. Nobody hear argued this is unconstitutional in the US.

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

#708

Post by seabird »

kerkeslager wrote: post #302
lettergram wrote: post #120

There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... If I take my car (a Jeep Grand Cherokee) and ram it into a crowd - I'm confident that can take out more people than I can with a gun, knife, probably even bomb. Point being, I understand not facilitating trade, but for the love of god, videos? You really want to push the right over the edge? We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of t…

EDIT: The fact that I actually support the second amendment seems to be lost on some readers who didn't take the time to read a nuanced opinion. :) Okay, I don't support the restrictions YouTube and Reddit are putting on free speech, but I think we need to keep things rational here: > We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of the first and most protected rights. The ability to defend yourself and cou…

Every time I see the "guns can't beat tanks" observation, it's usually painfully misguided/oversimplified. I mention this not to justify some "blood of the tyrants" notion, but because it is fundamental misunderstandings of why militaries are the way they are that leave people wondering massive failures like those experienced in Vietnam and throughout the Middle East for the last 50 years occurred.

Tanks exist for a very specific reason in modern militaries; they are effective in combatting deeply entrenched or armored enemies. When the modern tank was conceived in WWI, trench warfare brought the conflict to a grinding halt, and a tanks were the solution. WWI was a ground war fought by regular militaries. Many modern conflicts are guerilla wars fought against irregular militaries. Guerilla forces do not control battlefronts at strategic positions that require armor to penetrate. Guerilla forces do not have emplacements that cannot be defeated with small arms. Guerilla forces do not field any armor of their own.

Likewise, most features of modern militaries that were developed to fight other nation-states prove nearly useless against irregular combatants. Aircraft strike buildings and armor that guerrilas don't have, or combatants that are indistinguishable from the general populace. Navies fight ships that guerrillas don't sail. Modern EWAR disables communications and technologies that guerrillas don't use. Such capability is lost upon an insurgent force. This misunderstanding is (in some ways) a bizarre sort of American exceptionalism, where we seem to think that the more expensive military will always win, despite the overwhelming evidence to that not being true.

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

#709

Post by doyoulikeworms »

SXX wrote: post #201
doyoulikeworms wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from android being easier to root, don’t the top-tier android phones have all of the other problems too? Genuine question.

Is there any reason you need exactly these "top tier" devices? For under $200 there is well-built Xiaomi devices with 3-4GB RAM, powerful CPU and everything except for removable battery. Of course you should never use firmware from Chinese company, but it's true for 98% of other Android devices too and LineageOS + microG work great on these phones.

No, not really. I'm personally an iPhone user, but my wife has a really nice Android phone. I like top tier phones even though they're more expensive. That said, I didn't want to spend so much (or wait) for an iPhone X, so I updated my iPhone 6 to an iPhone 8.

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

#710

Post by moomin »

macspoofing wrote: post #346
moomin wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to start a personal crusade to change YouTube and Facebook’s standards, go ahead, that’s your first amendment right. Just don’t go taking sideswipes at others for exercising theirs.

I can't critize media personalities for their public viewpoints? What kind of standard are you actually advocating for?

If you can’t see the problem with criticising someone’s position on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions there’s no helping you.
Post reply on HN