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

751–760 of 763 posts

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

#751

Post by prawn »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #259
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?

Ahoy from across the sea! I grew up in Port Lincoln, then moved to Adelaide, and now Launceston. Also, I have family in Queensland. In my experience it isn’t unusual at all for someone to own a gun, or guns, in Australia. My father had guns, my sisters family have multiple guns for pig hunting. Half the guys I work with have a veritable smorgasbord of firearms, I’m talking 10+ firearms, for hunting and just general e…

Funnily enough, I was born in Port Lincoln. Been in Adelaide since.

My father owned a rifle for a time when I was young, but sold it probably 30 years ago. One member of my wife's family has what would be considered a hobby farm and recently bought a rifle for shooting pests. Outside of that, I'm not aware of another gun owner amongst friends and acquaintances.

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

#752

Post by Pinckney »

MrMember wrote: post #445
Pinckney wrote: post #101

Amusingly, InRangeTV and C&RArsenal have both responded by using pornhub as an alternate distribution platform.

Pornhub has an opportunity here to branch out if they wanted to. They have the infrastructure, they could open a more general use, non-pornographic video hosting service.

From user Katie_Pornhub on reddit:

> We've joked about doing something like this in the past but now it's becoming more and more realistic and not so crazy. We'll see!

...

> It would be very difficult to be profitable, one of the main hesitations.

https://www.reddit.com/user/Katie_Pornhub/overview

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

#753

Post by nezzle »

tobylane wrote: post #750
nezzle wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I'm thinking 'telephone network' rather than 'newspaper'. Phone companies were built as monopolies and faced strict regulation. Imagine your phone only working for company approved topics :)

Speech was worthy of protection under the universal declaration of human rights, and these platforms are becoming so fundamental to communication that they should be given the same consideration.

These platforms have become so centralized, powerful, and ubiquitous that censorship on a platform has a greater impact than preventing a person from speaking. That kind of power should never be wielded unchecked by a private entity.

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

#754

Post by sheepmullet »

kevhito wrote: post #748
sheepmullet wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> You don't trust "anti-gun people" so you therefore don't want to enact policies that you think will reduce gun violence?

You have it all wrong. I don't believe they will reduce gun violence.

I'm saying if anti-gun people were trustworthy I'd be willing to try some of these policies - then if they didn't work we could just stop them - no harm done.

> but I don't see how they hurt either.

And that's the problem: You are happy to infringe upon a fundamental right without clear evidence that it's a big win for society.

That mentality needs to be opposed at every step.

> 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.

But the actual evidence for these is not at all conclusive.

What is conclusive is firearms are used for self defence all the time: https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shoo...

Your anti-gun policies can just as easily ensure more women are raped and sexually assaulted.

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

#755

Post by jacksmith21006 »

rphlx wrote: post #747
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 othe…

My politics already are not consistent with Google paying the bills for the Alex Jones content.

I wish no advertisers then Google boot it. You are a private organization so you have zero reason you need to follow freedom of speech.

Google has the most valuable data there is with search data so there is no value in profiles. Google is doing it as they think it is the right thing to do but that is flawed, IMO. Just get rid of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS2der4Ag_s

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

#756

Post by nsfyn55 »

cuckcuckspruce wrote: post #550
craftyguy wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither are instructions for making grandma's famous chocolate chip cookies.

Writing and publishing a recipe is absolutely protected by the First Amendment as an inalienable right.

When are you people going to understand that your first amendment right doesn't protect your right to post on the internet. It just stops the government from making laws that restrict your speech freedoms. Reddit and Youtube can sensor you all day and its perfectly constitutional

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

#757

Post by DINKDINK »

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…

The Dickey Amendment does not prevent individuals from funding studies. Start a community-donation campaign to fund such a study, you cannot be stopped.

>Previous studies have showed that owning a gun increases the odds of injury by gun

No they haven't. The studies show that people who own guns have higher likelihood of being injured. It does not show that owning a gun /increases/ odds of injury.

Places that have wet streets have a higher likelihood of it raining recently. Does that mean that wet streets cause rain?

You are assuming that the non-gun-owning population and the gun-owning population are the same. This is illogical. Perhaps it's the case that people who buy guys are just generally risk takers/more reckless than the general population (which is reasonable given that they're purchasing a gun in the first place). The problem with your logic is that its vulnerable to Simpson's Paradox[1]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox

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

#758

Post by stumpy68 »

jwilk wrote: post #276
oh-kumudo wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cuck is invented/re-invented by alt-righters. "As linguist Mark Liberman explained on Language Log, cuck “was extended figuratively on 4chan to reference ‘relinquished manliness’ and more abstractly ‘selling out, abandoning principles.’”"

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=20701

cuckold is an old word (Shakespeare used it) as well as the shortened cuck I've heard both for nearly 40 years and they are much older than that the usage hasn't even really changed it has always meant an effeminate, weak, or inadequate man don't be a cuck was an insult 30+ years ago.

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

#759

Post by xster »

nezzle wrote: post #687
xster wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My internet history may be a bit hazy but isn't Reddit banning r/pizzagate or whatever it was and u/spez shadow editing people's comments the 2 biggest events of Reddit last year and likely why voat has users?

voat has users?

Apparently 1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co

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

#760

Post by xster »

nezzle wrote: post #687
xster wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My internet history may be a bit hazy but isn't Reddit banning r/pizzagate or whatever it was and u/spez shadow editing people's comments the 2 biggest events of Reddit last year and likely why voat has users?

voat has users?

Apparently #1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co
Post reply on HN