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

741–750 of 763 posts

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

#741

Post by phil21 »

dfxm12 wrote: post #578
ptero wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The web still exists very much as it was. As a collection of standards, yes. However, trying to find a host for the content that is perceived to be wrong or questionable by the mainstream is now much more difficult. The submission is a case in point. youtube bans gun-related videos not because it is directly bad for their business (on the contrary -- it seems to have an active following), but because lawmakers and…

Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them. No. Free speech refers to protection from the government censoring or jailing for speech they don't want said. If you're relying on a private company, especially one who retains the rights to take down your video at any time for any reason, to disseminate your speech and you're worried about them doing so…

This is a tired argument. Pretty much everyone knows the legal definition of free speech, pointing it out isn't doing anyone a service on HN.

Free speech is not simply a law. It's a concept society must both value and uphold, or it is a right only the popular and powerful have. If I can't even speak up outside work about my unpopular political beliefs without the economic death penalty - do we really have free speech? I'd argue not really. I don't care too much that the government can't jail me for it - that's a pretty low bar.

While I do agree Youtube has the right to ban whatever they like on their platform, I don't have to think it's a good thing for society - and I will absolutely continue to call these things an erosion of my free speech in society.

Without citizens that vehemently uphold free speech policies, the entire concept folds as soon as we start carving out ever-longer lists of exceptions of those who do not have it.

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

#742

Post by bonzini »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #679
bonzini wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you regulate the training---what if you fail the training that's required to be part of a well-regulated militia? If the right to bear arms would be only contingent to being part of a militia, would the failure void your right to bear arms? (serious question)

Why in your interpretation of government subsidized training/ammo is it a requirement? If the constitution is a document that explains the natural rights of citizens, and is restrictions on the government (which it is)... Then saying A well-regulated militia being necessity to a free state - would imply that government is obligated to train and supply ammo - any requirements for this to be part of your rights would b…

Note that it says "the right of the people" (as a whole), not the right of "people" (all of them).

The right is not there for everyone. It's only applicable inasmuch as you are part of the militia, and can be restricted if you're not.

Regulating the militia (just like saying what e.g. is due process) is up to the law, and can be arbitrarily restrictive as long as the overall right of the American people to form an armed militia is not infringed. For example, prohibiting hunting would be just fine.

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

#743

Post by grzm »

CaptSpify wrote: post #739
grzm wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks. Is this an accurate summary of what you'd like?

- Completely open hardware.

- Completely open software.

- Freedom to load any software you'd like on your device.

- Control over the data that's being sent by your device.

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

#744

Post by CaptSpify »

grzm wrote: post #743
CaptSpify wrote: post #739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks. Is this an accurate summary of what you'd like? - Completely open hardware. - Completely open software. - Freedom to load any software you'd like on your device. - Control over the data that's being sent by your device.

That's probably a good summary, though I do reserve some wiggle room in case I'm forgetting something

FYI, this thread is getting a bit out of hand, so if you'd like to continue this conversation, I don't mind, but LMK how I can contact you because I'm not likely to keep checking for responses |;)

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

#745

Post by grzm »

CaptSpify wrote: post #744
grzm wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Is this an accurate summary of what you'd like? - Completely open hardware. - Completely open software. - Freedom to load any software you'd like on your device. - Control over the data that's being sent by your device.

That's probably a good summary, though I do reserve some wiggle room in case I'm forgetting something FYI, this thread is getting a bit out of hand, so if you'd like to continue this conversation, I don't mind, but LMK how I can contact you because I'm not likely to keep checking for responses |;)

I've only got a few more things:

If that's the case, then you can replace your original

> "Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line."

with

> "If Apple truly cared about privacy, they'd allow open access to their hardware and software"

That would provide actual substance and be less flame-baity. HN strives for substantive discussion. Yes, this conversation may be a bit unwieldy, but it's length is, I'd argue, at least in part a result of your initial comment.

People have different priorities. You acknowledge you can't really know what's going on with the hardware. Acknowledging that having the option is a benefit, you also don't always fully audit or compile your on OS, so you're relying on some level of trust. You're also making a tradeoff by supporting/benefitting from an organization (Alphabet/Google) that does earn its revenue based on collecting user data (in that CyanogenMod is based on Android).

A tradeoff I've made is to go with a vendor that provides good hardware and good software while acknowledging I don't have access to the source. I can disable services on iOS that I don't want to use. You continue to bring up that we can't know that Apple isn't dealing in user data. There's no evidence that they do, and you end up arguing for Russel's Teapot when you continue to bring up this point.

I prefer this than relying on software that doesn't work as I expect it to (yes, that's a preference) and not buy further into the Google system. Android has not created a system with universally more secure hardware and software, while benefitting Google's advertising system, which relies on that user data. I understand you're likely not contributing to that directly, but that's part of the system buying Android-compatible devices supports. Clearly your priorities are different, and that's okay.

If you find anything to take away from this, I hope it's at least two things: it's important to error on the side of substance and balance as opposed to flamebait; and that reasonable people can disagree on their choices and priorities.

Cheers for surviving this long. That's it for me.

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

#746

Post by rphlx »

otakucode wrote: post #621
prepend wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are their morals? If corporations even have morals, the morality based decisions seem purely based on some unknown to me outrage/butthurt quantum. So this fluctuates quite a bit depending on many factors. Interestingly, since social media can be used to manipulate opinion pretty easily (eg, CA) large companies can bootstrap outrage according to their true values. This could end up being a maximizing rule for rev…

Uncertain about Reddit, but Google/Alphabet morals were pretty well laid out in Eric Schmidt's book "A New Digital Age" where he details how because he is rich, it is his duty to determine the morality of society. It's a very old-school viewpoint that's common amongst 'old money' types that see the general public as rabble to be yolked and who must be protected from their own self-destructive natures. It's the mindse…

> Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand.

That was the definition in the 18th century but modern liberalism (neoliberalism, corporate neoliberalism, or whatever you want to call it) - as personified by Blair and Clinton in the mid-90s and then continued more or less in-tact ever since - has diverged very, very far from that philosophy. That's neither an endorsement nor a complaint, but a simple historical fact.

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

#747

Post by rphlx »

jacksmith21006 wrote: post #736

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.

A day may come when your politics differs from theirs, and then you will discover the problem with aggressive political censorship.

In any case, I disagree with the premise that "no ads means no value" for YT. Instead of ads they are just being compensated in other less direct ways. Every video that you watch improves their profile of you, which can and will be used for better ad targeting on other YT videos and other GOOG sites.

Furthermore, some people may come to YT for Alex Jones and then stay to watch other monetized vids. Banning him would reduce that indirect ad rev.

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

#748

Post by kevhito »

sheepmullet wrote: post #684
kevhito wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a game or a horse trade, I win one, you win one. "I'll agree not to shoot your kids today, but only if you let me beat up your cousin instead." That's more or less what your argument sounds like to me. Can we agree that gun violence is a problem in the US, on a level vastly higher than many other parts of the world? Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Let's work together…

> Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Yes - by implementing proven policies and removing ineffectual ones. > You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return. Because we don't trust anti-gun people. > expanding access to and availability of guns. ^ and this is why we don't trust anti-gun people. Like I said above gun free zones have be…

You don't trust "anti-gun people" so you therefore don't want to enact policies that you think will reduce gun violence? You seem to be saying you'd rather have more gun violence than work together with "anti-gun people". I don't understand that, on a fundamental level.

I never said anything about "gun free zones". I'm not sure what they are, I don't know how effective they are, but I don't see how they hurt either. To me, it seems like more guns, easier and cheaper availability of guns, more destructive guns, less strict and less comprehensive / universal background checks are all things that lead pretty clearly to more gun violence. That's why I'm against those things. I'm willing to change my mind. But the NRA is too busy disparaging victims of gun violence.

I really don't see how arming teachers helps. I've heard arguments for it, but those arguments really just don't ring true to me, and it seems that more guns will lead to more violence. I haven't read studies that seem credible and support what you are saying. Do you have any? I've looked, and there is a lot of really contradictory stuff out there. I'm willing to support anything that will reduce gun violence, in general.

I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I think what bothers me is this. If you think expanded background checks (for example) will help reduce gun violence, why will you only support it if you get something else in return? Why can't we find things both sides thinks will help, and enact those things? Why must you hold those things hostage until you get some other thing that the other side fears will make the situation worse?

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

#749

Post by domevent »

jasonkostempski wrote: post #490
domevent wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to run some irc channels back in the early 90’s, and they were true free for all’s. We had a lot of ftp’s, a lot of anonymous users, and it was a full time job keeping it clear of child pornography. Let me tell you, it takes something out of you when you see that stuff, and it’s something you don’t get back. We weren’t even aiming for a free speech utopia, but we were unregulated and that was enough. That kind…

What about a forum where only text is allowed?

Can they post links? People will find a way, if you ban links they’ll obscure them. It’s an army of motivated people with nothing, but free time, vs, you and your mods. I’ve never figured out a lasting solution, sorry.

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

#750

Post by tobylane »

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…

>I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech.

That's then infringing on their freedom of speech (or lack of). It's an interesting opinion but as it's so far away from any other I've read can you explain it more?

Post reply on HN