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

#731

Post by intopieces » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 4:42 PM UTC

juliangoldsmith wrote: post #721

intopieces wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 con…

I think our difference in opinion here can be summarized as what constitutes “freedom.” You mention that YouTube is effectively the only game in town because it’s difficult to get subscribers or views for speech. But that is not what is protected as freedom of speech.

There are other video platforms. Vimeo. PornHub. Facebook. Twitter. Uploading your videos to a private server and sending out links. Those things are not restricted, and those lack of restrictions mean free speech is still alive and well in the age of YouTube removals.

You are arguing not for the right to speak, but the right to be heard and the right to have that speech monetized, none of which is or should be guaranteed.

In the US, we use the attention market as a proxy for government restriction on speech. In the same way that the government should not be in the business of arbitrarily shutting down unpopular speech, it should not be in the business of forcing corporations to promote it by using their resources.

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

#732

Post by CompanionCuuube » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 5:10 PM UTC

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #711

lettergram wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Why do they do this? The reason we can't restrict the publicity being offered to mass shooters in the US is due to the first amendment. Those other countries don't have such restrictions. Why are they being complicit in creating copycats?

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

#733

Post by CaptSpify » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #730

CaptSpify wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, my apologies then for assuming the intent of your question.

My current phone is somewhat open-source (cyanogenmod), though I think Google's version of "open-source, but you totally need to rely on our stuff to get basic functionality" is fairly bullshit.

I can compile my own OS and additional software

I can put tools on my phone that severely limit it's contact with Google's servers, although I suspect that there is an underlying system that ignores those tools.

As for my computers, I use Linux. I typically run them on Thinkpads, but I've tried a few other systems as well. My next computer will be a Purism or System76 laptop.

All in all, I'm not happy with any phone that I've seen. I can't think of any that I believe has taken legitimate action to show that they care about my privacy.

As far as computer OS's, I think Linux has strongly taken action to ensure my privacy.

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

#734

Post by grzm » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 5:13 PM UTC

CaptSpify wrote: post #733

grzm wrote: post #730

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, my apologies then for assuming the intent of your question. My current phone is somewhat open-source (cyanogenmod), though I think Google's version of "open-source, but you totally need to rely on our stuff to get basic functionality" is fairly bullshit. I can compile my own OS and additional software I can put tools on my phone that severely limit it's contact with Google's servers, although I suspect that there…

Thanks for elaborating. Where do you get your software? Do you compile it all yourself? Have you audited the code? Which servers do you connect to using your devices? Which services do you use? Do you run the tools you mention that limit network access to specific servers?

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

#735

Post by juliangoldsmith » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

intopieces wrote: post #731

juliangoldsmith wrote: post #721

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 con…

I think our difference in opinion here can be summarized as what constitutes “freedom.” You mention that YouTube is effectively the only game in town because it’s difficult to get subscribers or views for speech. But that is not what is protected as freedom of speech. There are other video platforms. Vimeo. PornHub. Facebook. Twitter. Uploading your videos to a private server and sending out links. Those things are n…

>In the same way that the government should not be in the business of arbitrarily shutting down unpopular speech, it should not be in the business of forcing corporations to promote it by using their resources.

I would agree. My real argument is that this should be applied consistently. There is no material difference between a content provider, such as YouTube, and an ISP. If one is required to carry content that they don't want to, both should be required to.

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

#736

Post by jacksmith21006 » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 6:17 PM UTC

Have zero problem with Reddit and Google doing this.

But Google footing the bill for Alex Jones on YouTube is wrong. No advertisers then remove the content. Otherwise Google is spending money to support the alt right and I have a problem with that.

Come on Google do not be a wimp and remove.

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

#737

Post by jacksmith21006 » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 6:20 PM UTC

otakucode wrote: post #623

this_user wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes to attract them. Take 4chan as an example: For years they were struggling to find anyone who would want to advertise there, and that is not entirely surprising. Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would appear they are attempting to make…

That was the excuse YouTube used. It was a lie. A plain fabrication. We know this because Alphabet released their earnings and made crystal clear that no 'adpocalypse' ever occurred at all. There was no dip in advertising revenue. In fact, it has only increased. Their motive is not driven by skittish advertisers.

What? When no advertisers Google is footing the bill. So Google having Alex Jones on YT means Google is paying the bills.

On guns tons and tons and tons of companies have cut ties with the NRA. Yet Google still has the NRA channel.

Data does not support your post.

Personal!y I wish Google would remove content with no advertisers and we can get rid of the alt right crap.

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

#738

Post by jacksmith21006 » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

After Google sees the record numbers of people protesting tomorrow against guns they will see them and Reddit made the right decision.

I have 8 kids and me and wife and every one of my kids and many of their friends will be out tomorrow. I have a blow horn ready.

Now why on Earth is Google paying the bills for Alex Jones and other alt right figures as no advertisers? Google should just boot them when no revenues.

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

#739

Post by CaptSpify » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 6:40 PM UTC

grzm wrote: post #734

CaptSpify wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, my apologies then for assuming the intent of your question. My current phone is somewhat open-source (cyanogenmod), though I think Google's version of "open-source, but you totally need to rely on our stuff to get basic functionality" is fairly bullshit. I can compile my own OS and additional software I can put tools on my phone that severely limit it's contact with Google's servers, although I suspect that there…

Thanks for elaborating. Where do you get your software? Do you compile it all yourself? Have you audited the code? Which servers do you connect to using your devices? Which services do you use? Do you run the tools you mention that limit network access to specific servers?

I typically download it from the official website or a mirror. Sometimes I compile it, sometimes I don't. I typically only try to connect to my own servers, but I obviously connect to the open web in some circumstances. I sometimes do audit the code, but not always. I run a bunch of my own services, including a mail-server and some social-media stuff. The tools that I use to limit connections typically just turn off access to the internet as a whole, rather than to specific servers, though some of my firewall rules only allow certain things to hit certain servers.

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

#740

Post by cgiles » Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 6:42 PM 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…

I wasn't really attempting to express an opinion on how valid or likely this claim is, just to clarify what I took to be GP's point.

But for fun, I'll try to address the question. I live in a conservative state and do some work with public health policy, working with local politicians and have friends in LEO and military. Here are the common arguments/viewpoints (I am not endorsing them):

- The biggest proportion of gun deaths are suicides, so focusing on random massacres or inner-city violence, which are tiny blips on the mortality radar, is not a productive or a good-faith basis for banning guns.

- There is a (somewhat justified IMO) fear of a slippery-slope approach to gun regulation. It is not controversial or speculative to say there is a large contingent on the left that would like to totally ban them if it were possible.

- Guns are very limited in the damage they can do. A bomb in a high-school assembly could do a lot more damage than the most well-prepared shooter, and with much less risk to the perpetrator. At best, guns are not the most dangerous thing to be focused on and at worst, banning them could push psychopaths into more dangerous alternatives.

LEOs and military folks lean conservative. That means they tend to generally distrust or even fear the very government they work for. LEOs in particular are well acquainted with the damage guns do on a daily basis but frequently do not see banning them as a solution because:

- It is impractical

- The people killing each other with them are for the most part poor or (by definition) criminals, so no one cares about them

- The original intention of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from the government that, again, they distrust and fear, so even if banning guns would save lives, which they would dispute, it is a worthwhile cost to pay to protect against tyranny.

- There is a viewpoint that gun control actually increases violent crime, and therefore deaths, because guns serve as a deterrent. I have been in an extremely long-running debate with a local politician about whether this is the case.

As a result of all these arguments, I think a serious effort to confiscate guns would make many, many people in conservative states, including LEOs and military, very highly irritated. Irritated enough to rebel? I have no idea.

Again, I am not endorsing most of this, but there is one argument that resonates with me from a public health perspective. Gun homicide is an extremely rare cause of death. I personally feel that it would be orders of magnitude more helpful if the left would channel its energy into increasing funding for your friendly neighborhood National Institutes of Health.