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

721–730 of 763 posts

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

#721

Post by juliangoldsmith »

intopieces wrote: post #696
juliangoldsmith wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just because someone ought to do something, doesn't mean it should be codified into law. Laws should be made to solve an actual problem that people are already having, not to force someone to do what we think they should.

Also, YouTube isn't just a service among services. They are, effectively, the only service. YouTube's subscribers have no better option, because there isn't much content anywhere else; YouTube's content creators have no better option, because there aren't any subscribers anywhere else.

It's a chicken-and-egg problem, that nobody has been able to solve. Coming up with $200k to start an ISP is easier than breaking into online video streaming.

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

#722

Post by CaptSpify »

grzm wrote: post #698
CaptSpify wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I use cyanogenmod. But I never said I had a phone that meets all of this criteria.

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

#723

Post by TheAdamist »

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #716

> 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/

/r/beertrade got banned. several beer groups that used to feature beer trades have stopped allowing it, trying to avoid being banned.

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

#724

Post by CaptSpify »

weego wrote: post #712
CaptSpify wrote: post #541

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. 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…

I'd strongly argue that my view isn't about being ideal, it's the minimum.

Fact: We don't know what they do with our data

Fact: They refuse to show us what they do with our data, even though they could

Fact: They have taken actions that, while I obviously don't have direct evidence of this, looks extremely like they are handing over control of other people's data to someone else, who is known to be abusive with it

Fact: They can design their system in a way that avoids all of this, yet they continually choose not to

All of this points in one direction, and there's very little evidence pointing in the other direction. It seems pretty obvious to me that their pro-privacy standpoint is all just smoke and mirrors. I'm sure they care to some extent, but they clearly value money over their user's privacy.

If I say that I care about my health, but I eat terrible quality foods, don't exercise, and ignore people who try to encourage me to be healthier, then it it obvious that I don't care about my health, despite what I say.

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

#725

Post by a_tractor »

pjc50 wrote: post #400
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.

> well organized people who will kill before being disarmed. The collective noun for people who will kill rather than obey the law is "terrorists". One of the conditions for peace in Northern Ireland was that political groups had to disarm in order to enter politics, because you can't do politics with people who are threatening to murder you. That's not a democracy.

>The collective noun for people who will kill rather than obey the law is "terrorists".

No. It isn't.

Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

You understanding seems to have the subject inverted. It is unlawful for the US government to infringe on the rights of its citizens outlined in the constitution. Such an act by the government would immediately invalidate its authority and any attempt to assert that illegitimate authority would be immediately considered an act of war against the American people. So, from that point on any action taken against the illegitimate government by the American people would in fact be in pursuit of restoring the law.

>One of the conditions for peace in Northern Ireland was that political groups had to disarm in order to enter politics, because you can't do politics with people who are threatening to murder you. That's not a democracy.

Right, that was surrender.

In America, the authority of the law is derived from the people, not the other way around.

It is not just a democracy, it is a well defended one.

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

#726

Post by macspoofing »

moomin wrote: post #710
macspoofing wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions

Where did I argue that?

Kara Swisher has the same right to her opinion as everyone else. I do stand by my statement that she's part of a new wave of tech 'elites' who are brown-beating tech companies into accepting certain kinds of ideologically-based standards of conduct. Nowhere did I even imply she doesn't have a right to do that, but I can certainly criticize her for it. Doubly-so because she's a public opinionator with a significant public platform.

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

#727

Post by kerkeslager »

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #592
kerkeslager wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy this excuse. Backpage was always in a risky legal position without public support, but Alphabet (owner of YouTube) and Advance Publications (owner of Reddit) are well-positioned to fight for freedom of speech if they wanted to. These rules are being rolled out because they want to, not because they're forced to. The Reddit bans in particular banned a wide swath of behaviors that are completely legal and n…

>Alphabet (owner of YouTube) and Advance Publications (owner of Reddit) are well-positioned to fight for freedom of speech if they wanted to. Why on earth would they "want to" threaten their share prices and upset their shareholders?

It may be hard to understand, but some people have ethical principles.

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

#728

Post by CompanionCuuube »

mike10010100 wrote: post #636
GCU-Empiricist wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sad thing is they seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are potentially the dominant media being attacked by the legacy media because their idealism worked and they are gaining market-share, but they keep walking away from what made them so successful.

It's because they're beholden to advertisers rather than their users.

The advertisers are the consumers, the users are the product.

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

#729

Post by mi100hael »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #170
prawn wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a country where it is quite unusual for someone to own a gun, but I can appreciate that YouTube how-tos are a great educational tool in the situation you describe. From YouTube's message though, it seemed that they were only cracking down on how-tos pertaining to specific things like magazine size or automatic fire. Would that pertain to the 100+ year old rifle and general gun maintenance/malfunctions?

I am not super familiar with gun channels, but I'm going to assume that they work same way as many other hobbies. Companies contact the Youtubers to showcase their new products, which are essentially adverts, which means there are always "affiliate links in the description box" to buy the stuff. At least how I read the announcement this kind of linking will be forbidden which means that the companies making the produ…

It depends. Certain channels are like that, but other smaller instructional channels will also be swept up.

> Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above.

That's going to impact a lot of channels that focus on firearms/military history as well as general how-to sorts of channels. YouTube has been a great resource in the past if you're wondering "how do I properly install these trigger pins in my rifle?" or "how do I safely load this muzzle-loader in a deer stand?"

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

#730

Post by grzm »

CaptSpify wrote: post #722
grzm wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I use cyanogenmod. But I never said I had a phone that meets all of this criteria.

That's not the intent of my question. I'm asking "how" in the sense of explain (as opposed to just a "yes" or "no" answer). I'm asking you to apply those same criteria to the system you're using with the same critical eye and see how it stacks up. I don't know you system and I want to learn more about it.
Post reply on HN