YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos, Entering the Gun Control Debate (bloomberg.com) 667
YouTube has quietly introduced tighter restrictions on videos involving weapons, becoming the latest battleground in the U.S. gun-control debate. "YouTube will ban videos that promote or link to websites selling firearms and accessories, including bump stocks, which allow a semi-automatic rifle to fire faster," reports Bloomberg. "Additionally, YouTube said it will prohibit videos with instructions on how to assemble firearms." From the report: "We routinely make updates and adjustments to our enforcement guidelines across all of our policies," a YouTube spokeswoman said in a statement. "While we've long prohibited the sale of firearms, we recently notified creators of updates we will be making around content promoting the sale or manufacture of firearms and their accessories." The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry lobbying group, called YouTube's new policy "worrisome." "We suspect it will be interpreted to block much more content than the stated goal of firearms and certain accessory sales," the foundation said in a statement. "We see the real potential for the blocking of educational content that serves instructional, skill-building and even safety purposes. Much like Facebook, YouTube now acts as a virtual public square. The exercise of what amounts to censorship, then, can legitimately be viewed as the stifling of commercial free speech."
The new YouTube policies will be enforced starting in April, but at least two video bloggers have already been affected. Spike's Tactical, a firearms company, said in a post on Facebook that it was suspended from YouTube due to "repeated or severe violations" of the video platform's guidelines.
The new YouTube policies will be enforced starting in April, but at least two video bloggers have already been affected. Spike's Tactical, a firearms company, said in a post on Facebook that it was suspended from YouTube due to "repeated or severe violations" of the video platform's guidelines.
CatTube (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't be long before all they have are cat videos.
Re:CatTube (Score:5, Insightful)
This is probably going to have the opposite effect of what the idiots at Google believe. Where once someone might have turned to a video on YouTube to learn about gun safety, disassembly/assembly, cleaning, etc. they will now attempt it with no knowledge and end up hurting themselves or others. Way to go Google.
On the positive side, with Google turning YouTube into a children's only web site, it's the perfect opportunity for someone else to end Google's monopoly on user driven video sites.
Re:CatTube (Score:5, Interesting)
On the positive side, with Google turning YouTube into a children's only web site, it's the perfect opportunity for someone else to end Google's monopoly on user driven video sites.
Nothing would make me happier. YouTube is my final obstacle to living a Google-free life. Even with ad block, I feel guilty about giving YouTube my traffic, but there's just no credible alternative yet.
Re:CatTube (Score:4, Insightful)
...there's just no credible alternative yet.
There's PornHub [bbc.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile, there's Hooktube.
https://hooktube.com/ [hooktube.com]
Re:CatTube (Score:4, Insightful)
This is probably going to have the opposite effect of what the idiots at Google believe
Yeah, it will make people look for alternatives to Youtube. Not many at first (I don't think many people look at gun assembly videos), but if they keep banning videos, more and more people will look for alternatives.
Re: (Score:3)
I was watching a series where a person made a M1911 .45 cal semiautomatic pistol from blocks of steel, quite interesting even if you were only interested in the machine shop techniques. But you are correct about content providers looking for other venues for their work. Youtube has been playing a lot of games with providers like demonitizing their video when released, then correcting their "mistake" after the providers have lost revenue form a 100K views.
Many content providers have evolved to have sets with
Re:CatTube (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what gets me....
I can understand them not wanting to allow illegal content, but this stuff is 101% legal to do.
It is perfectly legal for you to manufacture your own gun.
It is perfectly legal to modify your weapon in most ways (exception, can't legally modify to full auto)....
It is legal and actually a good idea to break down, clean and reassemble your weapon.
So, this is clearly NOTHING more than politically motivated.
Re: CatTube (Score:3)
Re: CatTube (Score:5, Insightful)
That points to a deficiency in YouTube's system.
There are plenty of gun related industries that would be more than happy to have their brands advertised on Hickock45, for instance.
The idiots at Youtube seems to only be able to completely remove advertising from a channel rather than to target it. Strange since Googles targets all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
They long ago de-monitized most all of the gun related channels, so, they're NOT any ads playing over these videos and haven't been for at least a year or so.
Re:CatTube (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is....WHY is YouTube banning videos that are showing PERFECTLY LEGAL activities with perfectly legal to own tools? (yes, a gun is nothing more than a tool).
Youtube is run by a Social Justice Warrior, Susan Wojcicki, and before anyone refutes that, they just need to DDG on her name. And she is sinking her claws deeply into YouTube now.
That is the WHY? of YouTube's pogrom. She, along with Google's new Social Justice mission, is creating a safe space for those people who cannot handle anything other than their personal opinion.
They've been targeting firearms, Men's rights, and I wonder if they will shut down the UNiversity of Nottingham's Periodic Table of Videos soon. who knows what things could be made if someone has a knowledge of the elements.
Re: CatTube (Score:4, Insightful)
No, we have the URL full30.com. Gun owners are now in full swing fuck you youtube mode. This attitude leftists have will slowly bring Google to its knees. We as gun owners are also promoting duckduckgo for a search engine as well. Basically anything to get away from true facists.
Re:CatTube (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who needs to look up a youtube video to learn about gun safety, assembly/disassembly or cleaning should not be handling guns.
While I understand your sentiment, I have to call BS. Utilizing a quick internet video to quickly relearn how to field strip a particular weapon is very handy. Especially when one owns many guns that don't get fired very often.
Re: (Score:3)
Whereas the YouTube gun vids that are most helpful are produced by someone who experienced the same learning curve the viewers
Re: (Score:3)
Stripping and cleaning a weapon is not Rocket Science. That said, there are some aspects that are not exactly intuitive.
Having the weapon disassembled before you, on video, with commentary such as, "Push this pin here to release the mechanism" is extremely helpful.
As far as your general attitude that people shouldn't complain, I assume you don't think people should be bitching about Facebook? After all it's a third party site an you voluntarily joined, so what they provide to others is no bug deal, right?
Re:CatTube (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with youtube, google, facebook, twitter, reddit... we took this open platform of the internet where anyone could do anything and we gave control over our behavior to a few big players because their products were slick and had a lot of cash invested in them. We centralized... and in centralizing we gave control over this free wheeling space of the internet to a handful of companies.
And now we're seeing the problem with that. The same problem we had before with the handful of media companies that provided our TV, Newspapers, Radio, etc...The freedom is gone if you centralize.
We have to decentralize. Put the power in so many hands that no one would even dream they could stop anything.
Re: (Score:3)
We have to decentralize. Put the power in so many hands that no one would even dream they could stop anything.
Yes. The funny thing about clouds is that they tend to form one bigger and bigger cloud until they become sometimes destructive storms and then fall apart under their own weight.
One sided debate (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One sided debate (Score:4, Insightful)
Jesus fucking Christ people. Free speech only keeps the government from impeding your speech. No one else, NO ONE ELSE, has to bear the burden of spreading your speech if they choose not to.
I sent in all my pro trump articles to the NYT and they wont publish them... CENSORSHIP!!!!1!
Re:One sided debate (Score:5, Insightful)
Shut up and bake the damn cake!
Not sure why you brought up free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Itâ(TM)s not a free-speech violation. That doesnâ(TM)t mean itâ(TM)s not censorship.
Re:Not sure why you brought up free speech (Score:5, Funny)
Itâ(TM)s not a free-speech violation. That doesnâ(TM)t mean itâ(TM)s not censorship.
I think Slashdot is censoring your apostrophes.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, they're just trademarked.
Re:One sided debate (Score:5, Informative)
Jesus fucking Christ people. Free speech only keeps the government from impeding your speech.
Incorrect.
There are 3 aspects which you are conflating: Free speech, censorship, and the First Amendment. Only the last is limited to the United States government.
"Free speech" is a concept--a recognized human right in more countries than just the United States. Free speech can be constrained by anyone from a government down to a bully with a baseball bat and an a violent agenda.
"Censorship" can be--and IS-- practiced by governments, employers, media outlets, schools, and more.
"The First Amendment" is a specific part of the US Constitution which constrains the US government from impeding your human right of Free Speech.
Mod parent up! Granular definitions are good ... (Score:3, Funny)
Define terms first.
Then debate.
Debate class 101.
Thank you for defining terms more precisely for this debate.
Who am I kidding? This is Slashdot! ;-)
Still does not apply here (Score:3)
Re:One sided debate (Score:4, Insightful)
A car is private property, with no right to public access. Youtube is a business and all about public access.
Please, tell me more about gay wedding cakes...
Re:One sided debate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:One sided debate (Score:4, Insightful)
OP said "censoring", which isn't limited to the government.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
That is, freedom of speech is something that pre-exists the government, and the First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing it.
The New York Times doesn't claim to be a neutral platform that publishes submissions in general. YouTube does, and allowing something to be uploaded, publishing it, then taking it down later, is censorship.
Any questions?
Re:One sided debate (Score:5, Informative)
YouTube never made the claim that they would publish everything. Their community guidelines have always imposed limits on what can be posted.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just proving the point: YouTube doesn't choose what is posted, they choose what they take down.
Re: One sided debate (Score:2, Flamebait)
Jesus fucking Christ people. Free speech only keeps the government from impeding your speech.
Jesus fucking Christ retard. Censorship doesn't just refer to government action.
Re: One sided debate (Score:2)
Fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Then YouTube can do without my views (or content).
I know that my dropping YT doesn't matter much, but I won't feel like I'm supporting censorship,even if they have the right on their platform.
Time also to change my default search engine from Google to something else even if it's not as good.
Strat
Gab tv just went online (Score:5, Interesting)
And just today, Gab TV [gab.ai] went online.
Seriously - why do these companies think they need to direct our thoughts and actions into "acceptable" channels?
There's an interesting set of "public forum" lawsuits [callawyer.com] that discuss this. Especially this one [dww.com] from CA.
Basically, if a system becomes the equivalent of the town bulletin board, then freedom of speech must be enforced.
(I recall a man suing a mall for taking down his (otherwise legal) posts on *their* builletin board. They claimed that their board was private property, and could decide what was allowed. He claimed that the mall replaced the supermarket which used to be there, and the mall bulletin-board now became the public forum that used to be the supermarket bulletin-board.)
I think the dividing line would have to be public access. If you *pay* someone to write (for example) articles for your paper, then you can control what they write and choose to publish or not. If you *let anyone* post commentary or opinions, then first amendment must be enforced.
(Oh and if you disagree, can you please show why companies don't need to enforce freedom of speech, while bakeries must make custom gay wedding cakes when they don't want to? They're both 1st amendment issues.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If Gab exists then why isn't that enough? You don't say specifically but your argument seems to be that YouTube is the most popular service so should be forced to publish videos.
Can you explain why it's so important to be on YouTube and Gab isn't good enough?
As for the bakery, it's obvious. Sexual orientation is a protected trait, gun enthusiast isn't.
Re:Gab tv just went online (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you explain why it's so important to be on YouTube and Gab isn't good enough?
Market share. Why were people upset with Microsoft's shenanigans, when Linux was always an option?
Ha! Not a car analogy for once.
Re: (Score:3)
The decision to make gays a protected class is purely political, so it's equivalent.
Re: (Score:3)
Sexuality is not a choice. Politics are.
It's not at all equivalent.
Re:Gab tv just went online (Score:4, Interesting)
And just today, Gab TV [gab.ai] went online.
My experience with gab was first that I was like "Yay! No censorship of political opinions! I am there."
Turns out that, while it is not that uncensored speech is inherently bad speech, when only a few forums permit that then they become magnets for those prohibited elsewhere. I am not one of those people who is afraid of exposure to opinions which I oppose, but let me put it this way: There was a limit to how many times I could see some variation or another on "Jews suck!" before I was like, well, I don't really want to waste my time looking at this crap.
Re:Gab tv just went online (Score:4, Informative)
Yer doin' it wrong. If you read the mass feed, you'll get all the garbage (seriously, would you read here at a default of -1 ??) Far better is to make an account, then find and follow a few people you like, and branch off by checking out people they repost, and so on. No reason to read the raw-sewage feed (tho you can do so at any time by putting * in the Search box). Meanwhile, you can mute keywords for shit you don't want to see.
I have a Gab Pro account solely because it lets me makes Lists, so I can sort out a few specialized feeds for when my Followed group is too much to skim through.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure. Cut off your nose to spite your face.
I'm honestly on the fence about the ban. I'm lukewarm on it ending promotions that benefit firearms manufacturers, because it will take with it some really good educational content and reviews. But the ban completely misses the really wacky NRATV-like content that is made by true-believers. I'd really like to stop running into that that tripe. It is really unnerving stuff.
This is said by someone who really enjoys shooting, whether hunting, long-range target, or
Re:Fine (Score:4, Informative)
If I were to shoot an unarmed robber in my home, I'd likely end up in jail.
Where I live, shooting an intruder armed or not who entered my home is perfectly legal and is also a defense in a civil trial. In fact, I can legally shoot a robber any place I am legally allowed to be. So if somebody tries to rob my car in a parking lot or mug me on the sidewalk, I can legally shoot them and they (or their estate should I be a good shot) won't successfully sue me in civil court. I'm not saying I WOULD take a shot at somebody on a public street only that I have that right. Most places would allow you to defend your home and shoot any intruder, armed or not.
Where do you live anyway? I'd be moving if I didn't have the right to shoot an unarmed intruder in my house. Self defense is a basic natural right.
Re: (Score:3)
Not what I said.
In TEXAS you can defend yourself (and others) using a firearm. In your home, the assumption is that any intruder (A person who is not a resident or a guest) is engaged in a crime and you can legally defend yourself with deadly force. So, if the evidence shows you shot an intruder who was either in or attempting to enter your home, it was legal. You don't have to establish criminal intent or wait for a crime, in your home, you can shoot first and ask questions later.
However, you cannot jus
Re: (Score:2)
Did you also quit Slashdot when they censored the n word?
Re:Fine (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you also quit Slashdot when they censored the n word?
I for one was really pissed that they crossed that line. But it's Slashdot's dying days, and I have this stupid nostalgia for what it once was.
Re: (Score:3)
Well played, sir troll.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except Fox News generally isn't in the business of trying to get other people to create content for their site.
For the moment. Given the market-share YouTube has on video content sharing and it being in many respects a public square, you will see increased pushes to require them to take a more even handed approach with regards to what kind of content they block.
This is no
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Net Neutrality Round 2 will be against Google, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and so on.
That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm a run-off-the-mill educated European left-wing liberal and nevertheless occasionally like watching US firearms videos like FPSRussia shooting bazookas at Zombie clown figures.
Its not just that... This has huge potential to also affect channels like ForgottenWeapons, BlokeOnTheRange, and Kickok45. Those all show demos of firearms almost daily, from new production to 100+ years old antiques, rarely-seen, and one-off developmental arms; along with discussions of the firearm containing massive amounts of historical, cultural, and production method documentation. A majority of the firearms ForgottenWeapons is able to showcase are from James D Julia Auctioneers and Rock Island Auction
Re: (Score:3)
You can demo firearms as much as you want; as long as you're not showing off how to install or manufacture the banned accessories, or how to construct firearms or manufacture ammunition, etc. The policy update [google.com]
Prohibits attempting to then sell firearms or certain firearm accessories through direct private sale or linking to a website....
Re: (Score:3)
I'm wondering how they justify prohibiting links to one type of merchandise while allowing links to others. I also wonder if someday merch links will only function as affiliate links where Google gets a cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "puny" (Score:2)
But an AT4 [youtube.com] would do nicely...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Define "puny" (Score:5, Informative)
According to the US Constitution, American citizens can be trusted with weapons. There is no — and there can not be — any higher authority deciding, whether to allow a particular person to exercise their right and any law to the contrary is just that, unconstitutional.
BTW, no one seeks to "arm people" — just allow people to arm themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is driving a truck at you, your puny weapons wouldn't do shit.
Come to Texas. We'll show you a man's gun.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, no one seeks to "arm everyone" — as in "hand out weapons to everyone like Universal Basic Income". Simply allow people to carry, what they procure (or already own) themselves. Second, real "bad guys" (pro criminals) are already armed — regardless of whether it is legal or not — just witness Chicago, where guns are so illegal, a museum had to remove a historical rifle from the exposition, but people are shot regularly anyway.
Third, in many situations the bad guys aren't actually armed — because weapon-ownership requires some level of planning and forethought. Rioting mob is dangerous even when not armed — but an armed defender can put an end to the outrage even without actually shooting anyone [youtube.com].
And lastly, even when all are armed, the defending party has an advantage against assailants. A homeowner, for example, defending his house against 5 bandits has a chance, if he is armed — even if they are as well. He has no chance without a weapon, even when the attackers have none either.
Re: (Score:3)
About Europe: No, No. Completely wrong, No.
It's easy to legally get a gun in Europe. Do you have a need for a gun? Are you not a criminal, not crazy and not violent? Do you accept waiting a short time? Congratulations - you can buy a gun!
It's hard to get a permit to carry a gun for protection, generally very hard. Look at the statistics of gun related accidents in the US to understand why.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
Defending yourself from what exactly? I'm 58 years old. I've never had to defend myself. Not here in the U.S. Not anywhere in Europe (I think I've been to pretty much every country in western Europe and a few in eastern Europe. I've been in Africa, India, and Japan..Never. Once. Needed. To. Defend. Myself. I think you live in some prolonged fantasy where you think you might be attacked and will be some sort of amazing Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry type who saves himself with amazing feats of marksmanship or something. Amirite?
So happy that you've led a sheltered life. You might consider that other people live in other circumstances. I've been robbed, mugged, assaulted by strangers, and generally developed a fine appreciation for defending oneself.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think conflating the two is very relevant to the debate. Gun control is strongly favored in cities. Gun ownership is strongly favored in rural areas. I don't think this is a coincidence or due to any of the silly reasons proffered by both sides (that rural people are ignorant hicks, or urban people are sheep). Police response times are shorter in densely packed cities, so urban residents are more comfortable with the idea of calling 911 and waiting for police to show up. Police response times are a lot longer in rural areas, so rural residents will feel more comfortable having some means to defend themselves rather than wait 20-45 minutes for police to arrive.
Other means of defending yourself rely your physical strength exceeding that of an attacker. You have to be able to physically fight off an assailant(s). Guns are an equalizer - they remove physical strength from the equation. They're also fairly effective at equalizing an imbalance in numbers.
Re: (Score:3)
Most countries have bad parts of town, in some towns. People live there.
Re: (Score:2)
Kill us all, let $DEITY sort us out.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
It normalises and encourages people to own guns. It drives sales of guns, and helps the NRA. It's indirect but it's there.
You could argue that instructional videos improve gun safety, but are people really using YouTube for safety lessons and given the quality of content on there is that a good thing?
Right, it does good on multiple axes. But you don't even have the First Amendment, let alone the Second, so we'll understand that you're a bit behind and don't get it yet.
Re:That's odd (Score:5, Insightful)
Gun ownership is a good thing.
The NRA is only relevant because of shit like what Youtube is doing; attacking reasonable people for no good reason.
Normalizing censorship is a lot worse than normalizing gun ownership. YouTube and the UK are doing more harm than any gun video.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you want me to quantify that?
Should I start that even on the low end of 500,000 (to as much as 3 million) instances of defensive gun use dramatically outnumber the 30,000 gun deaths.
2/3 of all gun deaths are from suicide. US is average for suicide so reducing guns does not affect suicide rates.
Reducing guns does not reduce violence as seen in many instances of the US and around the world.
Guns ownership has increased or been steady in the US yet violent crime has fallen.
That doesn't even mention the i
Slowly killing themselves (Score:2)
Like many big companies end up doing. In time, YouTube will join Myspace and Facebook in the hall of internet has-beens.
Dethrone Youtube (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Next up, (Score:2)
Don't worry (Score:2)
Unlike the ISPs, there's dozens of viable competitors to YouTube out there. Absolutely no need to regulate the platform providers like they're common carriers. No siree, YouTube will be replaced in no time by a more free speech friendly alternative...
Amirite...?
Re: (Score:3)
Where?
I tried looking, and the closest semi-popular ones that I could find were DailyMotion and Vimeo, Unfortunately, neither one seems to have a great deal of content. I like retro tech and photography vids. Not a huge amount to choose from.
Also, a lot of people earn MONEY from YouTube, and people make a living off of their videos. If you can't monetize, you probably can't afford to make the videos. AFAIK, neither DailyMotion or Vimeo pays mon
Feels like a political statement (Score:5, Insightful)
It's as if they're saying, "Let's at least make a political statement on gun control," statement.
Also, from the tin foil hat department - How far will this go back in Youtube's HQ? While it sounds crazy today, what will the Youtube owners say about working on cars in a decade, when many people are riding around in autonomous cars? What will happen when a "terrorist" uses an old-fashioned car with a steering wheel, gas pedal, and no autobraking system to mow down dozens of people in a random city? Is Youtube going to remove auto mechanic HOWTO videos so we can't modify (or even fix) our own cars? Slippery slope 101.
Re: (Score:2)
While it sounds crazy today, what will the Youtube owners say about working on cars in a decade, when many people are riding around in autonomous cars? What will happen when a "terrorist" uses an old-fashioned car with a steering wheel, gas pedal, and no autobraking system to mow down dozens of people in a random city?
I've been telling people for years now, Demolition Man [youtube.com] has been damn near 100% on it's predictions for cars.
HTML5 Video (Score:2)
Uploaded to a file server.
YouTube is becoming pointless anyway as they move to shovel more advertising [slashdot.org] down our throats.
And SmarterEveryDay's (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite smarter every day moment of all time is when someone gets a drinks stuck up in a tree and destin says "son, go get your rifle" and his aunt shoots the branch the drone is stuck on to get the drone down.
Google Culture (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is increasingly made up of left leaning philosophies.
Their logic is: kids are mass murdering with guns: lets stop teaching them how to use them lest we are complicit.
The logic is flawed because they really should be asking:
Why are so many young men so angry at the world that they want to wreak destruction on it. That is the right question, because there are societies with lots of guns (eg switzerland) that don't have young men shooting up schools. Guns are a symptom of a deeper cultural problem.
The left are trying to divide everyone into social groups that are victims. This doesn't help angry young men and only makes the problem worse especially white ones who are told they are the new scum of the earth.
The message needs to be: the world is chaos, and your job is to reduce the chaos through sacrifice. Find something in the world that needs fixing, that makes the world a better place, and strive as hard as you can to fix it. Sacrifice means putting off todays gratification for a better future. A surgeon spends 15 years of hard work before he is an expert saving lives and creating order.
So while I get what youtube is trying to do, I think it will be entirely ineffective.
Re: (Score:3)
Google is increasingly made up of left leaning philosophies.
Google has always been made up of left leaning philosophies, like most of Silicon valley.
What you are seeing is them starting to play hardball in response to what they interpret to be an aggressive conservative agenda.
I'd expect to see more of it in the future given the way that US politics seems to be evolving.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a reason why Peterson was "accidentally" banned from google entirely for a short period. The message you're implying to be good is seen as the greatest evil by the far left ideologues (note - not left leaning but far left leaning), because it implies that people have agency and should use it for personal betterment.
In far left ideology, personal betterment can only come from the collective. Individualism is the original sin, and cause of all evil. That is why many of the people who were sent to gula
Re: (Score:3)
So, you claim I don't care about democracy or human rights based on what I said? That's going to be a hard claim to defend.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Business Opportunity. (Score:4, Informative)
I saw that one well-known gun vlogger has started posting his videos on PornHub. If PH plays their cards right, they could launch a site with more general branding "vidhub"?
Actually "gun fetish" is already a category on pornhub. ;)
Stupid, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, it's stupid. YouTube is really going to pay dearly for this. Taking any stance on any issue is not what YouTube should be doing. BUT! They're well within their right to shoot themselves in the foot.
As a side note, opening this can of worms is going to be a complete nightmare for Google. Once you take one stance on one issue, now you're going to be expected take more stances on issues someone feels is critical. Also, now that you've put your card on the table, refusing to take a stance when demanded to will always result in the most negative position being assumed. Sorry about that Google, but you have my sympathy.
They, we, and everyone would have been much better off if YouTube kept silent and just said, 'We store and redistribute our user's videos, nothing more. Each user is responsible for the content of their videos.'
Re: (Score:3)
The SJW have lists of content they never want linked and found.
Now they know all that have to do is push an issue and they will get their content bans.
Art?
History?
Politics?
News?
Books?
Movies?
Comedy?
Its all next with SJW getting their demands in.
The US freedom of speech and freedom after speech is looking great with every SJW demand for more censorship.
The Anarchist Cookbook Then vs Gun Videos Now (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember supporting the freedom of information even though "the bad guys" might also find it?
Remember when ISPs and server operators did it we called it censorship just as if the government had done it?
Remember when geeks showed finesse rather than imposed their will with a hammer?
Anyone remember?
Nah?
Full30 (Score:2)
https://www.full30.com/ [full30.com] has it covered. Hickok45 right on the front page.
Cancel pay subscriptions, don't click through (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gun nuts (Score:5, Informative)
Gun nuts will start bleating about the Constitution. Guess what, you AREN'T part of a well regulated militia.
First.... This isn't a constitutional issue at all, not even the first amendment is involved. U-Tube can refuse to host any material they find objectionable. I don't agree that such videos are objectionable, but I'm not going to complain they don't have the right to refuse them.
Second... the "Well Regulated Militia" phrase has not been interpreted by the courts as you'd like. The Right to bear arms is an "individual right" as interpreted by the Supreme Court, which means it is a right enjoyed by the individual and doesn't require you to be a member of any group or engage in any specific activity. One gets to bear arms (i.e. own and carry firearms) and this right cannot be infringed by the 2nd amendment.
I can forgive that you don't understand this given the 2008 Heller decision is what clearly established the individual right to bear arms. But do please try to keep up, it's been 9 years now.
Might not be his fault (Score:5, Interesting)
I can forgive that you don't understand this given the 2008 Heller decision is what clearly established the individual right to bear arms. But do please try to keep up, it's been 9 years now.
It might not be his fault.
Note that some school textbooks [wp.com] show the amendment rewritten to promote that view.
I have to wonder, with this and all the one-sided bans and anti-right policies, if we really are at the start of a civil war.
Re:Might not be his fault (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to wonder, with this and all the one-sided bans and anti-right policies, if we really are at the start of a civil war.
I hope not.. The last Civil War was a disaster for the USA. But I do see where one side of this whole debate is ready to rip up the constitution and the legal basis of this country by hook or crook. So, maybe it is, but what a mess that would be.
Re: (Score:3)
I can forgive that you don't understand this given the 2008 Heller decision is what clearly established the individual right to bear arms. But do please try to keep up, it's been 9 years now.
He does not even understand the 1939 Miller decision which specifically states that weapons suitable for a militia are protected.
Re: (Score:3)
Shame for your argument that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
The Heller decision was pretty decisive on the individual right to bear arms. Plus, I don't see them reversing this any time soon.
Re: (Score:3)
Gun nuts will start bleating about the Constitution. Guess what, you AREN'T part of a well regulated militia.
Those citizen militia on Flight 93 should have followed government instructions and allowed the plane to be flown into its target in Washington, DC. We would all have been better off.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Nobody on the left want to have any kind of "meaningful dialog", it's all about following by the book their marxist doctrine.
Ha! And you're doing such a bang up job of demonstrating how you want a "meaninful dialog", aren't cha?
Crocodile tears [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
More people die in auto accidents. Ban car videos when?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm thinking that bans like this are going to foster the growth of the "Conservative Internet", where people who are getting sick of Google/Reddit/Facebook's restrictions on things like guns and cryptocurrency ads will start their own competing sites.
Sure, most of these sites will be lame Libertarian clones of the existing social media sites out there, but who knows... This crackdown on the "undesirables" might spur the invention of the next Facebook or Google.