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

711–720 of 763 posts

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

#711

Post by mcintyre1994 »

lettergram wrote: post #189
birksherty wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. First I beg to differ- compare the EU to the U.S. or the U.S. to India, or to China for that matter or the U.S. to Brazil. Not just "countries". The US is one of the largest countries on Earth (by population and landmass), with one of the most diverse sets of population... It's really hard to eve…

Your mass shooters are plastered over every media outlet in other countries too, so that doesn't fully explain it either.

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

#712

Post by weego »

CaptSpify wrote: post #541
weego wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want purity of intent in every transaction or contract you ever enter into then the world is going to be a very frustrating place.

> If you want purity of intent in every transaction or contract you ever enter into then the world is going to be a very frustrating place. I do, and it is. I don't think I get what you mean. Just because a lot of groups choose to lie about their intentions means that it's OK that Apple does the same?

But they aren't lying are they? "We care about your privacy" is not a lie just because they care out of necessary for their share price, it's just not the unreasonably ideal situation you want. You cannot reasonably expect everyone with the same goals to have perfectly aligned intent, and you certainly cannot expect a company of tens of thousands of people to all completely align their intent not only as a collective but also with you as an individual.

If their goals shift, forced by their intent, you drop them. I can't see any other way to pragmatically get along or make progress in life.

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

#713

Post by pbhjpbhj »

graedus wrote: post #686
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 wi…

Taking guns away from people =/= complete been of all guns.

Tighter gun controls requires taking guns away from people (or people giving up their guns willingly).

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

#714

Post by sheepmullet »

sheepmullet wrote: post #699
chillwaves wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To expand upon my above comment:

Basic firearms are significantly less complex than you would think.

Any one of the cartels is big enough and rich enough to make hundreds of thousands of firearms/year.

But why do that when you can get them dirt cheap and higher quality from the US?

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

#715

Post by chillwaves »

sheepmullet wrote: post #714
sheepmullet wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To expand upon my above comment: Basic firearms are significantly less complex than you would think. Any one of the cartels is big enough and rich enough to make hundreds of thousands of firearms/year. But why do that when you can get them dirt cheap and higher quality from the US?

Because the US doesn't have a cartel problem so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does. I really do not know where you are trying to go with this.

Mexico has a demand for guns. US has a supply. The guns go south. US cutting its supply will not increase the demand internally to the level of Mexican cartels, and even if it did it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico.

We have much more enforcement and LEO structure all around than Mexico.

If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.

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

#716

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

> As of today, users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services, including ... alcohol

So you can't offer someone a beer on reddit? Speaking as someone resident in London, UK, that seems extreme.

What are the consequences for e.g.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Untappd/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/

https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonSocialClub/

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

#717

Post by chillwaves »

sheepmullet wrote: post #676
chillwaves wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

The most compelling argument is that Reddit and Youtube cannot pretend to be content agnostic hosts if they are actively censoring. Either they take responsibility for their content or not.

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

#718

Post by sheepmullet »

chillwaves wrote: post #715
sheepmullet wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To expand upon my above comment: Basic firearms are significantly less complex than you would think. Any one of the cartels is big enough and rich enough to make hundreds of thousands of firearms/year. But why do that when you can get them dirt cheap and higher quality from the US?

Because the US doesn't have a cartel problem so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does. I really do not know where you are trying to go with this. Mexico has a demand for guns. US has a supply. The guns go south. US cutting its supply will not increase the demand internally to the level of Mexican cartels, and even if it did it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the U…

> so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does

The US has a higher demand for firearms than Mexico does - it's just local manufacturing more than meets the local demand.

> it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico.

They do just fine running drugs and people. I don't see why guns would be any harder.

> If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.

Gun bans at the city and state level have been found utterly ineffective at reducing violence - in large part because people run guns over the state/city border.

Why would you expect a nationwide ban to be any more effective?

It would still be easy to run guns over the border - just the border now is a national border instead of a state/city border.

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

#719

Post by graedus »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #713
graedus wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

Taking guns away from people =/= complete been of all guns. Tighter gun controls requires taking guns away from people (or people giving up their guns willingly).

Right, but if the type of people having their guns taken away (say repeat violent offenders) or the type of guns being taken away (say automatics) are reasonable enough in the eyes of the people, you don't see a ton of resistance. Gun laws have been incrementally tightened many times in the past. It's lobbied against, voted against, and there is outcry by some gun owners, but not mass rebellion.

I think banning bump stocks, which are just a crude workaround of the longstanding automatic gun restrictions, are something we'll probably see without mass revolt or officers refusing to enforce.

Post reply on HN