41 ms·

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

448 points by IronWolve 9y ago

Today Youtube has started to roll out bans on gun sales, accessories and howto channels. Reddit followed with multiple bans on content including sales of multiple products. Youtube policy update. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en Intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales (e.g., private sales by individuals) or links to sites that sell these items. These accessories include but may not be limited to accessories that enable a firearm to simulate automatic fire or convert a firearm to automatic fire (e.g., bump stocks, gatling triggers, drop-in auto sears, conversion kits), and high capacity magazines (i.e., magazines or belts carrying more than 30 rounds). Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above. This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities. Shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications. Reddit policy update. https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/863xcj/new_addition_to_sitewide_rules_regarding_the_use/ We want to let you know that we have made a new addition to our content policy forbidding transactions for certain goods and services. As of today, users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services, including: * Firearms, ammunition, or explosives; * Drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or any controlled substances * Paid services involving physical sexual contact; * Stolen goods; * Personal information; * Falsified official documents or currency

IronWolve 9y ago
I read the craft beer forums got hit hard, since they cant sell alcohol. Also cigars trading and buy clubs are now banned. The finally got all the dark net, and idtheft, shoplifting subs. Sexsells is still up, but thats a political discussion sub, not for advertising. I know my local WA_Gun sub is purging all its trade/sell posts, since they allowed it, since all transactions are done at a dealer under law here. Gun forums are in massive purge if they allowed any swaps or sales. (More work!) For youtube, no idea the scope of the channels banned, but looks like all legal accessories that are "Fun" are banned from youtube. 30 rounds max? Really, its still legal in many states. BTW, Pot still seems to be legal everywhere on Youtube and Reddit, even r/WeedDeals is still up, so thats interesting rule breaker they allow. AND now Weeddeals is banned. The ban process is rolling on still. Also, appears the banned subs are moving over to voat. http://www.voat.co/v/gundeals http://www.voat.co/v/gundeals
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- soneil 9y ago
  Not just selling alcohol, "transactions". Which means no more swaps. Trading local brews or homebrews are fun communities, and they just got wiped out with zero warning.
  - hvidgaard 9y ago
    That is insane, and either an oversight, or deal with large breweries.
  - JorgeGT 9y ago
    Plenty of alcohol is gifted in Reddit's own gift exchange: https://www.redditgifts.com/gallery/simple-pleasures-exchange/gift/whiskey-12/ https://www.redditgifts.com/gallery/simple-pleasures-exchang..., I wonder if they will ban their own sponsored exchange.
- swiley 9y ago
  only /r/darknetmarkets seems banned /r/darknet is still there.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  You complaining about all this is rich. You are the moderator of r/Ask_the_Donald, and banned me from there for having the audacity to point out an inaccuracy in one of your comments. So much for free speech, huh?
- pjc50 9y ago
  Banning alcohol references but not weed is bizarre; it sounds like they simply haven't thought this through.
  - whywhywhywhy 9y ago
    Can't shake the feeling weed gets different rules just because /r/trees is a big part of the culture on the more "wholesome" side of Reddit that they prefer to promote.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
This is due to US Section 230 legislation changing this week, spurred by the actions and legal battles of backpage.com https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/59... "The Backpage saga has galvanized lawmakers to act on bills amending Section 230 with the goal of stemming online sex trafficking. The legislation allows more state and civil lawsuits against websites related to online sex trafficking, for "knowingly assisting, supporting or facilitating" crimes. The Senate passed the bill Wednesday, sending it to President Trump for his signature. The White House has supported the legislation." And the most important quote: "If the technology companies do not wake up to their responsibilities — and use the power 230 gives them — to better protect the public against sex trafficking and countries that try to hack our political system, you bet that companies can expect (this legislation) will not be the last challenge for them."
- djrogers 9y ago
  How does Section 230 relate to banning videos about completely legal firearms accessories?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Section 230 protects against all kinds of collateral and contributory liability that a publisher of information might have, not just direct liability for publishing content that is illegal without regard to context. Weakening 230 means that online services are closer to needing to treat everything that crosses the platform as the kind of legal risk it would be if it were produced and published directly by the company, considering, including in the worst case of conduct that people might allege it contributed to, with the consideration of how attractive the firm is as a deep pockets piñata for lawsuits where the other side has little to lose and much (even if it is unlikely) to gain. Which is the whole problem 230 was adopted to solve, but conduct by publishers who were found liable even with 230 in place, proving it doesn't need to be weakened to address the conduct has, nevertheless, provided a pretext for an attack on it.
jayess 9y ago
So no links to licensed gun dealers either, then?
- Rebelgecko 9y ago
  Nope, otherwise /r/gundeals wouldn't have been banned
  - SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
    So when they say “we want common sense things like background checks” then ban avenues that require background checks - you can get an idea of what they really want. The truest words I’ve ever heard on the gun debate is that “they don’t hate guns, they love guns, they surround themselves guns, it’s you they hate”.
jayess 9y ago
Who wants to open a free-speech based forum site?
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  Isn't that 4chan?
- platinumrad 9y ago
  Voat already exists and already has a reputation for being both terrible and a ghost town.
  - benmmurphy 9y ago
    The problem with voat is it basically the dregs of reddit so no-one respectable wants to be associated with it. But if reddit bans enough stuff that is semi-respectable and those people are able to hold their nose to migrate to voat they might end up making voat respectable enough to overcome their current poor reputation.
    - platinumrad 9y ago
      Maybe that will happen but I don't think the site will be Voat. Its reputation is far too toxic at this point.
    - superkuh 9y ago
      It has reached that point. I'm moving to voat.
      - kadenshep 9y ago
        Let us know what kind of riveting discussions you have with racists, sexists, and conspiracy theorists.
        krapp 9y ago
        Unfortunately, racists, sexists and conspiracy theorists appear to be the only people who still believe in freedom of speech, and are willing to fight to keep it. Even many of the "hackers" around here seem to support regulation and censorship.
Rebelgecko 9y ago
This is very dismaying to see I have used Youtube in the past for seeing how to install gun accessories, put guns together, how to fix malfunctions, etc. Watching those videos has made me a more knowledgeable, and hence more responsible gun owner. This is an especially large blow for people who are part of niche communities, like reloading ammo for 100+ year old rifles. A lot of historical content will be lost. The new youtube rules will also get rid of entertainment channels like Hickock45 and Demolition Ranch (the proceeds of which help subsidize the creator's other channel, Vet Ranch) I'm also pretty disappointed in Reddit. They made a new admin account yesterday to anonymously post the new rules. I believe this is the first time that's been done for an announcement, usually they're posted by a CEO or a specific individual. /r/gundeals was a fantastic community and I don't know if anything comparable exists elsewhere online. There were lots of links posted by regular users, but when dealers posted themselves they really made an effort to engage with buyers. Crappy vendors/products were usually called out in the comments. Other than optics, I can't imagine why reddit would ban strictly law-abiding communities while allowing illegal and toxic ones to flourish.
- seany 9y ago
  gundeals was the only sub that I had ever actually made a direct bookmark too. I've never seen another community quite like it.
- MrMember 9y ago
  I've deleted both my YouTube and reddit accounts. I've been trying to de-Google my life, this will probably accelerate that. Just need a proper mobile Linux device and I can finally dump Android.
  - collias 9y ago
    Why not an iPhone? At least Apple seems to care about privacy, and they aren't an ad-tech company like Google or FB.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line.
CydeWeys 9y ago
Great, so /r/gundeals, which was nothing more than a sales aggregator for law-abiding online retailers, is gone, but /r/the_donald, a vile, rampantly bigoted, conspiracy-theory-peddling shithole, is allowed to stay?
- tylersmith 9y ago
  This sweep seems to have had a very narrow focus on facilitating sales. r/darknetmarketnoobs was allowed to stay[1] even though it's intimately related to r/darknetmarkets, which was banned, because they have been careful to push most market discussion to the latter sub. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarketsNoobs/comments/8641hg/rdarknetmarkets_banned/dw27k9e/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarketsNoobs/comments/8641hg...
- SpikeDad 9y ago
  You added "law-abiding". How do you know this?
  - Rebelgecko 9y ago
    I checked /r/gundeals on nearly a daily basis and never saw anything illegal[0]. I can't find the full rules to the sub anymore [1], but I believed they banned posting gun sales that weren't through an FFL (which is actually stricter than the law). [0] there were products that aren't legal in certain states or cities, but nothing that is illegal at the fed level.
    - MrMember 9y ago
      Yeah, gundeals was strictly dealers only. There were other subs (probably banned now too) for legal person to person sales.
  - emusan 9y ago
    The vast majority of retailers on gundeals sold accessories which is legal for anyone to do. Those that did sell guns were federally licensed retailers, gundeals did not (to my knowledge) allow for private sellers to post. All federally licensed (FFL) retailers must perform a background check (or transfer to another FFL to perform one) before transferring to a purchaser. I don't see how any of that could be considered as not "law-abiding". All of that applies only to the US of course, but I'm not aware of other countries having deals there.
zombieprocesses 9y ago
Are the big social media companies working together to ban content? What are the odds that reddit and youtube ban similar content on the same day? What a sad day. Reddit used to be something so special. If only tech giants stood together and fought the corporate interests and NGOs pushing censorship on them. I've pretty much stopped using reddit because it's full of political nonsense now anyways. If they are going to be banning subs every 6 months, what's the point of reddit anymore?
- Miner49er 9y ago
  This is probably all about advertising. Advertisers likely told these platforms to get rid of this stuff or they'll stop using their sites to advertise. It's possibly the same advertiser(s) on both sites asking for it. That could explain why it's happening on the same day.
  - Zak 9y ago
    reddit already had a policy to show ads only on whitelisted subreddits, so it would have taken something stronger than just "I don't want my ad shown next to X".
    - themacguffinman 9y ago
      The reputation of reddit as a whole still matters to advertisers. An advertiser might not want to advertise on The Daily Stormer, for example, even if its ads are only shown on boards focused on cute animal photos.
collias 9y ago
This is the 21st century equivalent to burning books.
- ragequitta 9y ago
  If those books were nothing but gun sale magazines and escort service advertisements I suppose you're right.
  - Rebelgecko 9y ago
    and also manuals for how to build things that the librarians dont like
- guelo 9y ago
  No, it's more like a bookstore not selling books they don't like.
  - dilap 9y ago
    Well, the subs themselves contained lots of content that was wiped without warning, so in that sense it is like book burning. Anyway, hopefully this'll all help stimulate the creation of actually-censorship-resistant platforms.
  - dingo_bat 9y ago
    Only if that bookstore is the world's only reasonable choice to buy books.
  - manfredo 9y ago
    More like bookstores refusing to sell any books on chemistry, out of fear that they will be held liable if some person uses one to make a bomb. Plenty of the things forbidden by these policy guidelines are entirely legal. Manufacturing firearms, manufacturing ammunition, and manufacturing magazines is legal in most states.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    Reminds me of the RATM song, Bulls on Parade: "They don't gotta burn tha books, they just remove 'em While arms warehouses fill as quick as tha cells Rally round tha family, pocket full of shells"
driverdan 9y ago
Mods: Why is this being deranked? This is a legitimate discussion.
- zombieprocesses 9y ago
  ycombinator funded reddit. And ycombinator is part of the group at the forefront of the internet censorship movement. > This is a legitimate discussion. Since when did that matter. It's discussion they don't want, legitimate or not.
  - dang 9y ago
    Who funded Reddit has zero to do with how HN is moderated. This is the sort of explanation people reach for at the first sign of anything that's partially consistent with it. If you think about it, that's already enough to tell you that the logic is wrong: it explains way too much! (As for the bit about YC, it sounds pretty weird to me but I don't know what you're referring to.)
- dang 9y ago
  It set off the software's flamewar detector a.k.a. overheated discussion detector. I've turned the penalty off and rolled back the clock on the story to compensate. Posts without URLs (Ask HN, Tell HN, etc.) also start off with a penalty, and I've turned that off too.
  - driverdan 9y ago
    Thank you.
lettergram 9y ago
There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... If I take my car (a Jeep Grand Cherokee) and ram it into a crowd - I'm confident that can take out more people than I can with a gun, knife, probably even bomb. Point being, I understand not facilitating trade, but for the love of god, videos? You really want to push the right over the edge? We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of the first and most protected rights. The ability to defend yourself and country in the face of tyrany. Look at what happened in Ukraine, Syria, etc. A government doesn't fuck with a populace that has guns, so it increases stability. When you don't have the ability to defend your rights, you don't have rights anymore. Further, violence isn't associated with guns - it's associated with people being suppressed or by mental issues. The weather is more associated with murder than guns... I even understand trying to reduce ways to kill massive amounts of people easily. But again, I have a car, I know how to make chlorine gas, so on and so forth. Address the actual problem and stop making this political. We know you're afraid of guns - that's fine. I'm affraid of dogs, but I'm not going to support banning them (look at them, they are built to kill things human size). Stop talking about mass murders and start talking about tragedies, do a black out on mass murders names. That'd probably fix the issue in time. Then teach everyone about gun safety, how to use them, the dangers, etc. I'm telling you right now, by removing these videos you're arming people, and exhasborating the problem. In fact, they just pushed me to buy a weapon. \flip table and walk out
- themihai 9y ago
  >> There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... Yeah but guns are "cool" while ramming a car into a crowd it's not that cool. I believe people should be allowed to bear arms but that doesn't mean the guns should be sold and advertised as lollipops.
  - lettergram 9y ago
    I think we should be given one in school, trained, and make it normal. The problem is you're right, they are being advertised. Although, what I will say is I don't know a single person who treats them as toys (I live in a pretty rural area, so pretty much everyone has one). Every gun is taken care of and very well managed. It always amazes me, because I'm one of the few people who refuse to have a gun in my house (might change). People in the bay area (where I lived for two years, before leaving) have absolutely no idea how common and really safe guns are. I think it leads to a lot of fear mongering.
Pinckney 9y ago
Amusingly, InRangeTV and C&RArsenal have both responded by using pornhub as an alternate distribution platform.
- MrMember 9y ago
  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.
  - wvenable 9y ago
    If they're smart they'll stick to hosting stuff that is non-controversial: porn. There's no reason to get involved in deep political fights.
  - Pinckney 9y ago
    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 https://www.reddit.com/user/Katie_Pornhub/overview
hartator 9y ago
I suppose net neutrality doesn't have a wide definition. /s
Waterluvian 9y ago
This continues to distract from the problem: systemic issues in American culture and society that perpetually re-primes a powder keg of fear and divisiveness. That sounds wordy but I just don't have the skill to articulate my feelings. There's just... something fundamentally wrong with how everything can feel so zero-sum.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  People don't value tolerance anymore. You only need tolerance for things you don't like or understand. Honestly, these sorts of things would work better if people acted locally more. It's human to be upset about the Parkland incident. It's not appropriate for a resident of Spokane to have strong feelings about Florida gun laws, let alone actually lobby for them. Discussing current events can be healthy, but only to the extent that it helps us develop our thoughts about how our local communities should work.
  - kerbalspacepro 9y ago
    You're confusing valuing tolerance for tolerating the intolerable.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      It should be tolerable for someone to do something stupid "over there" to sell their hipster beer if you're not involved. There are few issues where we have to actually force a nation-wide conflict to decide on a particular outcome. Whoever is doing it, convincing YouTube and Reddit to force internet-wide struggles over these issues isn't choosing the right battles.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Censoring the symptoms of these systemic issues is like putting a bandaid on an infected boil. It may not look as bad upon first glance, but it's only going to fester and get worse.
finnthehuman 9y ago
Yet another step narrowing the internet towards the same bland and pre-mediated window of thought seen as TV. It's too bad.
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Per the Reddit regulations, item 6: Do they mean counterfeit currency ("Falsified official currency") or was there supposed to be a comma, meaning all currency? That would rule out any sales transaction as they "involve" currency. Wasn't sale of counterfeit already ruled out?
prepend 9y ago
The more social media applies arbitrary rules to speech, the more likely they are to be regulated as common carriers. This puts a lot of restrictions and “the Internet” was against it. But these items are not illegal speech (although sometimes). These are private orgs and can legally ban whatever they want. However, phone companies are private too, but they have regulation controlling what is and is not allowed. The issue is that banning legal speech is a slippery slope. I imagine how I would respond if YouTube banned howtos on ripping DVDs. They can legally do that and it’s based on an illegal activity. This also opens the door for countries with restrictive laws to forbid speech about what is illegal in China, etc.
- dangoor 9y ago
  It seems to me that social media aren't the same as common carriers in that people can very easily switch from one to another. I saw a headline saying that one gun video channel on YouTube was moving its videos to another site. They will no longer have access to YouTube's audience, but they are still free to post their videos in a publicly-accessible fashion.
  - exabrial 9y ago
    Just curious, what site is that? Cody's Lab and AVE, two of the most informative educational channels, already have a crap ton of problems with YouTube (granted AVE pokes the bear with a stick). With the #DeleteFacebook movement in full swing, I'd love to see a #LoseTheTube and go to a platform that promotes free expression but can actually classify stuff correctly (giving the user the power to filter what they don't want to see).
    - taborj 9y ago
      Many are moving over to full30.com
    - dangoor 9y ago
      I had to go back to find the article, because it was just a headline that appeared in the sidebar of an article I was reading this morning. This wouldn't appear to be a general solution, they're moving to Pornhub: https://www.buzzfeed.com/leticiamiranda/a-gun-demo-youtube-channel-with-24-million-subscribers-is https://www.buzzfeed.com/leticiamiranda/a-gun-demo-youtube-c... (The slug in that URL is wrong. They changed the headline to be "24 million views".)
toomanybeersies 9y ago
I am concerned about how this will affect some educational channels. A good example is Forgotten Weapons (https://www.youtube.com/user/ForgottenWeapons https://www.youtube.com/user/ForgottenWeapons). It's a vlog about interesting old firearms. These are often supplied for the videos by an auction house that is selling them, so the guns are literally for sale. But these are massively expensive, antique weapons, many of which require a Federal Firearms Licence to own. The same goes for manufacturing ammunition. Handloading is very common in the precision shooting and hunting community. I don't see how it would facilitate gun violence. I would suspect that less than 1% of firearms related murders use hand loaded ammunition.
- dageshi 9y ago
  I would suspect Forgottenweapons is screwed on youtube, he gets access to many of the most interesting old guns at auction houses in return for publicising the auctions. I'd be surprised if he can continue to do that under these rules.
matt_s 9y ago
This is a site about startups and tech and hacking. Doesn't this sound like a golden opportunity for someone to stand up a video service dedicated to this niche? Basically Google and Reddit are stating that they don't want to lose ad revenue from other channels which they deem as more important. Sure they are wrapping it up as being socially conscious or something but it comes down to money. They are ad companies. Large ad firms for large brands might pull their stuff if they keep firearm channels around. A service for this niche would probably get all of the firearm ad revenue that is leaving those platforms.
- nickysielicki 9y ago
  Already exists and is popular: http://www.full30.com http://www.full30.com This is where most channels are intending to move.
- thinkingemote 9y ago
  I'm guessing here... I think ad companies would be happy but it's their clients which are reacting to consumer lobbying. I also think YT and Reddit are also reacting based on this pressure. For a similar effect see StopFundingHate in the UK.
- noxToken 9y ago
  The issues is getting your audience to follow. That's another website, another app, another feed to track. Ecosystems and walled-gardens work, because they allow easy interoperability with other products and services already offered. Starting a competitor against something like that tends to not get enough marketshare. This isn't saying that someone shouldn't try - it's just tough to do.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
EasyTiger_ 9y ago
It's absolutely stunning what's happened to Reddit. Between the speech clampdowns like this and the soul-crushing amount of political astroturfing going on it's clearly time for a new challenger (not Voat).
- wan23 9y ago
  What's wrong with voat besides that it's a cesspool? It seems like it has all the technical features that make Reddit work, and the lack of moderation that makes it so disgusting is the result of not having speech clampdowns.
  - zbentley 9y ago
    > What's wrong with voat besides that it's a cesspool? That. Past a certain point, the (not really/apocryphal) Voltaire "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" argument results in really, really nasty communities for out-group people to inhabit.
- leetcrew 9y ago
  why not voat?
jacksmith21006 9y ago
But Google still has the NRA channel. The list of companies that have cut ties with the NRA are very long but do not include Google. "One By One, Companies Cut Ties With The NRA" https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/23/588233273/one-by-one-companies-cut-ties-with-nra https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/23/588233273...
thrownaway954 9y ago
it was eventual. once you get big, you have to follow these guidelines or run the risk of ad revenue disappearing or getting sued by the government. with success comes the spotlight. it will be sad the day when they ban r/pomeranians and other animal channels cause it will be consider animal cruelty to put eyebrows on your pom or a pickle behind your cat.
fastball 9y ago
So Reddit is banning "paid services including physical sexual contact". Does that mean people will no longer be able to sell their used panties on Reddit? It would be a tragic loss to the internet if this was the case. /s
chubasco 9y ago
Do you want to get regulated? Because that's how you get regulated.
exabrial 9y ago
The youtube ones "no demo of high capacity magazines" leaves me scratching my head, what exactly is that accomplishing?
- zrobotics 9y ago
  I wonder if that could be applied to film/tv. Is Rambo bannable? Can gaming channels be banned?
zaarn 9y ago
I wonder if Reddit will then ban subreddits relating to Cody's Lab. Maybe youtube will finally ban Cody forever for showing us how to do explosives or make mercury based ammunition in guns! hurray!
- zrobotics 9y ago
  What I don't understand is how on earth king of random hasn't had the same kinds of problems as cody's lab. I mean, the guy was arrested on explosives charges, and his channel is very clearly aimed at a young audience, while cody's channel doesn't seem particularly aimed at kids. And king of random has to be one of the worst offenders i've seen for showing something dangerous w/o explaining the hazards, such as exposed/poorly insulated mains connections or frankly dangerous tool usage.
SCHiM 9y ago
There they go again, the big nanny corporations. They are part of the social fabric of our society. The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there. Saying that they have a right to censor their platform is OK, if this was the case from the outset. As it is, once these platforms were free and unrestricted. It's only after they grew big, are became protected by network effects that allows them to do stuff like this. This is censorship plain and simple, it's disgusting, risk-averse behavior that displays a debasing obedience to safe money and corporate interests. I don't know exactly why this angers me so much, party because it is a bait & switch like I said above. Party because it futile, users will simply go somewhere else. Partly because much of the content that I like to watch and learn about these days is probably on some goody two-shoe's shit list. I despise that they get to decide these things on platforms that have profited to much from an unrestricted and free Internet and online culture. They are hating the players, not the game.
- aninhumer 9y ago
  >The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there. If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which is itself a violation of freedom of speech. And this is the problem with a simplistic idea like "Freedom of Speech". It is not possible for everyone to hear everyone else's point of view, so some speech will always be restricted. Therefore, our society inevitably makes decisions about which speech to amplify and which to silence, and just because that decision is not being made directly by government, does not mean it is not being made. In practice when people complain about censorship, what they mean is that these implicit decisions are not being made in a way that they like. And in saying this, I'm not trying to imply that their criticisms are wrong, or that they're being disingenuous or malicious in trying to change those decisions. I'm saying this to reframe the debate, because framing it as if access to speech can only be controlled by intentional malicious restriction prevents us from questioning the ways in which society already controls access to speech. The most common way speech is restricted is economic. The rich can afford to amplify their speech, and the poor cannot. We have historically accepted this without question as an economic reality, but then the rise of social media gave us a glimpse of a world where economic restrictions are not as big a factor, and so when these restrictions start to re-assert themselves we question them. People call it "censorship" and demand "free speech", because this is the most pervasive set of ideas we have to understand this dissonance, but the reality is we are always censored, and speech is never truly free, and unless we accept that, we will not be able to ask real questions about what kind of societal discourse we truly value.
stvsun 9y ago
what?
myt6fore 9y ago
Forcing a community out carries a host of side-effects, example: a group moves underground... Though knowing that, both reddit and youtube modelled their business around reinforcement and segregation of biased groups (echo-chambers), all the while promoting themselves as _the_ platforms of the free (speech) internet. Turns out ousting such groups is okay- just like axing a product, no?
stesch 9y ago
Fun fact: Had to read about the Reddit announcement in another sub because it got downvoted. An important announcement and most people don't see it unless they read a subreddit that cares about it.
cjslep 9y ago
How long until every site is like Oratyria, where users can freely censor each other for everyone else?
el_cid 9y ago
I'll stop using both reddit. HN is much better anyway. I'll be waiting for the new wave of migration, as it was the case from digg to reddit initially.
emanreus 9y ago
Such a shame. I don't own a gun, and I don't intend to. But I really appreciate some channels and communities, especially those about historical weapons that will be severely damaged by this.
Moodles 9y ago
I understand the concern here on HN. However, what do we propose to do? At the end of the day, these are private companies and they can enforce whatever arbitrary guidelines they want within the laws of the countries they operate in. E.g. if you were president Trump, would you do anything about it? Genuinely curious.
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  > However, what do we propose to do? 1. Ideally, we don't allow corporations to control so much of our communications. 2. Barring 1, we should set the expectation that communication platforms should protect their users' freedom of speech, with laws to enforce this. > At the end of the day, these are private companies and they can enforce whatever arbitrary guidelines they want within the laws of the countries they operate in. This is descriptive of reality but not prescriptive of how reality should be. As far as I am concerned, corporations don't have rights, people do, and when corporations start infringing on the rights of people (such as the right to free speech) that's a problem.
  - Moodles 9y ago
    > Ideally, we don't allow corporations to control so much of our communications. What laws would you propose to actually implement this? I like free speech a lot as well, but it seems that boundaries get a bit fuzzy here. E.g. if you were to run your own forum like HN, don't you think you should be allowed to ban material from, say, KKK supporters?
    - kerkeslager 9y ago
      >> Ideally, we don't allow corporations to control so much of our communications. > What laws would you propose to actually implement this? I didn't. Note that I didn't bring up laws until #2 in my previous post. Programs which educated people on the dangers of social media the same way we educate people around the dangers of drugs and alcohol might go toward changing the way we treat these things in our culture, but on the other hand, there's enough problems with i.e. DARE that they might be counterproductive. > I like free speech a lot as well, but it seems that boundaries get a bit fuzzy here. E.g. if you were to run your own forum like HN, don't you think you should be allowed to ban material from, say, KKK supporters? I think if you combine topic-based moderation with a vote system, you don't need to ban KKK supporters. On a system like HN where all posts are in the same data stream, racist posts are going to be downvoted fairly quickly. And if someone posts racist comments on a post that isn't about race, it's off-topic, so topic-based moderation says it's okay to delete it. It's not a restriction on free speech--it's keeping topics organized to maintain the functioning of the forum. The key exception here is that when the topic is race, then you don't delete racist comments. This is uncomfortable, but racism doesn't simply go away because you censor it--if anything, censoring a racist makes them feel they are a martyr, and strengthens their beliefs. Instead, if you leave the posts up, users will respond to them with the truth. Countering lies with truth is more powerful than countering lies with censorship. There's a tendency, I think, to see bigotry as a monolithic problem in a person, without any reasoning behind it. But if you actually listen to bigots, you'll often discover that behind the bigotry they have legitimate fears and problems, and they think bigotry is the solution to those problems. Part of the problem we have in the US that those who value equality and acceptance too often see bigots as just bigots, and forget that they are people. If we see them as just bigots, then they can't change, or aren't worth changing, and we can discard them. But that hasn't worked--that's why we have the administration we have now. Instead, I think we need to see bigots as people, and try to address their fears and problems with facts and truth. (Most) bigots don't benefit from their bigotry--bigotry doesn't solve their problems, and prevents them from seeing the real solutions. So if we can show them the real solutions to their problems, they might see they don't need bigotry any more. Civil rights leaders of the past understood that a conversation about race had to be an actual conversation, not just shouting your ideals and silencing your opponents. If you refuse to listen to bigots they will refuse to listen to you. It's not us versus them, it's us and them versus ignorance.
Endy 9y ago
So YouTube and Reddit are again saying that they're not okay with potentially illegal conduct on their platform. The only difference is that this time they're being much more direct and specific.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  The documents from the Snowden leaks were illegally obtained/distributed. How long before that type of stuff is censored?
  - Endy 9y ago
    I'm not disagreeing with you, but at the same time, I don't think that likely the first place to release a major government leak is on YouTube or Reddit. There will always be some platform that's "freer" than some others, and there will always be some that are more moderated. This may smack of censorship in some ways, and if it was a government agency, it certainly would be. Unfortunately, the core of the problem that a lot of people are dancing around is that we've come to expect private businesses on the Internet to care about anything other than their profits - but that's asking them to violate their corporate morality of "profit at all costs". They're not going to do that; we are either the customer or the product. This is those private companies forcing their moderation policies, so as to continue increasing their userbase and advertising income. Reddit and YouTube/Google are essentially moderated private platforms and if they decided that tomorrow all that could be posted on their sites are cat pictures, they would be well within their rights to do that.
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      >This may smack of censorship in some ways, and if it was a government agency, it certainly would be This is a common misconception. Nowhere is it defined that only a government can conduct censorship.
thinkingemote 9y ago
"Reddit and Youtube are shooting themselves in the foot!" some would say. "I'm moving to this other site!" those directly affected say. And the rest of the users and the sites say "bye! Good riddance!", thinking that they have just surgically removed a small portion of the site. But they are wrong, the effect will be huge and far reaching and here's why: What Reddit and those cheering the migration of gun and sex enthusiasts is that those people are also frequent contributors to the funny, light subreddits. If they go, not only do other, straight, subreddits lose out, but the alternatives they go to start to get straighter too. People will indeed move to something better. And they will move quickly. We have seen it with myspace to facebook and digg to reddit. So far, the alternatives, to me, seem not that attractive, but I imagine it would only take a few people to move to make it so. It only takes a few sane early adopters.
- typon 9y ago
  ?? Are you somehow suggesting that people involved in gun sales or drug sales on reddit are somehow meme generators keeping the culture alive?? People made the same arguments when /r/fatpeoplehate was banned and /r/niggers was banned, and before that when /r/jailbait was banned. Nothing changed except the site got a bit better because a bunch of the assholes migrated to voat or remade those subreddits under different names.
  - thinkingemote 9y ago
    Yes, I am saying that gun enthusiasts, the millions of normal Americans and people around the world who like guns, or even craft beer, or historical re-enactment, also like to tell jokes. They do not go to reddit to only talk about guns, but to other subreddits. It's quite easy to understand. I am not saying they are the only people keeping the site alive, that would be silly. I'm saying that people that like to tell jokes will make the alternatives they go to better and more attractive, and make Reddit a bit less attractive. Your examples of previous banning was about toxic subreddits where the main focus was on toxic "jokes". I'd agree with you, toxic joke tellers are probably going to always joke toxicly. But a gun enthusiast, a craft beer lover, a historical re-enactment, an adult porn star, they are not primarily makers of toxic jokes. I hope you can see the difference here.
userbinator 9y ago
This reminds me of this quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson I wonder if he would be considered a terrorist today...
- IAmEveryone 9y ago
  If you want to die for your country, please do it alone.
kirykl 9y ago
Another lesson in the dangers of digital share cropping
AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
YouTube and Reddit should be like paper and pencil. If I used paper and pencil to break the law, then it's between law enforcement and me, I would be super annoyed if the pencil refused to write what I want to write because the pencil manufacturer thought it might be illegal or just simply undesired. What the Content Providers are doing is anti-thesis of neutrality towards ideas and the supporting arguments. If someone breaks the law using their platform then let the someone file a complaint and let law enforcement handle it. Should the burrito truck ban you from utilizing the calories from the breakfast burrito if you intend to do some insider trading that morning? If the burrito place can't block you from eating, then why should YouTube and Reddit be able to block you from saying what you have to say? Can't believe that the hacker news crowd was jumping up and down for months at a time for neutrality of packets as if ISP is going to stop you from saying what you want to say, but all the while Facebook/Google/Twitter/Reddit can stop you from saying what you say anytime they feel like it, and those advocating "Neutrality of service providers" are perfectly fine with it. Can folks be little more realistic about what the real danger is? Out packets are not threatened, our thoughts are.
nailer 9y ago
I wonder if they'll enforce this: > * Paid services involving physical sexual contact; Not 'sexual content' - actual prostitution on Reddit is rare (though does happen in terms of submission of film/video content by sex workers in places where prostition is legal, eg in Australia). But a large part of the sex subreddits are 'donate to my patreon and I'll give you access to my private Snapchat' which is clearly: a) 'paid services' b) sex work.
leojg 9y ago
The issue here is that the internet consist basically in monopolies. Its even more alarming when you consider that many of those monopolies are in the hands of just one company. (Google)
TravelTechGuy 9y ago
The second line in the Reddit list has been cut short. The full item says: * Drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or any controlled substances (except advertisements placed in accordance with our advertising policy); Meaning they are not against drugs and alcohol, if they can make a buck out of it.
z0r 9y ago
Just a coincidence, or any relationship to this story? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-... (discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641900)
madengr 9y ago
Is Youtube going to ban the many 80% lower videos? Will they ban my reloading video? I'm a Youtube Red subscriber (I hate commercials). I think it's about time I canceled my subscription. Hell, at least they think a high capacity magazine is > 30 rounds. That won't last long. Soon it will be anything > 5 rounds.
vit05 9y ago
It makes me unhappy to know that Reddit is choosing to make written rules rather than choosing changes and improvements in its code. Having opportunities to market and discuss products could be a great source of income if well done. real opinion, honest and who is not a paid advertising on a product and humanize the business relationship are very difficult questions to find on the internet.Especially about artisans products and local productions. Craft beers is a market that depends on suggestions and evaluations of people. Facebook has been trying to provide a marketplace opportunity that makes it easier for local and more human businesses. But is horrible. Reddit could offer something in this vacuum. But they preferred to walk away.
logfromblammo 9y ago
If YouTube could go ahead and also ban all those videos that take 30+ minutes to convey the same information that I could have read from a text document with static images in 2 minutes, that would be great.
question_that 9y ago
The bigger problem is that even if they create their own platform - let's say the NRA rolls out guntube - they're still at the mercy of registrars. Don't read TheDailyStormer (unless you really want to) but do read about how much trouble they're having keeping free speech on the internet - gab.ai is in many ways a similarly objectionable site which has been threatened with the same treatment. I agree that platforms have the right to police content but I disagree strongly with registrars seizing domain names without a court order. Everything might go back to normal if these bans ever see a California courtroom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
> 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/Untappd/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonSocialClub/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonSocialClub/
- TheAdamist 9y ago
  /r/beertrade got banned. several beer groups that used to feature beer trades have stopped allowing it, trying to avoid being banned.
Proven 9y ago
Fascist scumbags
jacksmith21006 9y ago
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.
- rphlx 9y ago
  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.
  - jacksmith21006 9y ago
    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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS2der4Ag_s
jacksmith21006 9y ago
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.

448 points by IronWolve 9y ago

IronWolve 9y ago

I read the craft beer forums got hit hard, since they cant sell alcohol. Also cigars trading and buy clubs are now banned. The finally got all the dark net, and idtheft, shoplifting subs. Sexsells is still up, but thats a political discussion sub, not for advertising. I know my local WA_Gun sub is purging all its trade/sell posts, since they allowed it, since all transactions are done at a dealer under law here. Gun forums are in massive purge if they allowed any swaps or sales. (More work!) For youtube, no idea the scope of the channels banned, but looks like all legal accessories that are "Fun" are banned from youtube. 30 rounds max? Really, its still legal in many states. BTW, Pot still seems to be legal everywhere on Youtube and Reddit, even r/WeedDeals is still up, so thats interesting rule breaker they allow. AND now Weeddeals is banned. The ban process is rolling on still. Also, appears the banned subs are moving over to voat. http://www.voat.co/v/gundeals http://www.voat.co/v/gundeals

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
soneil 9y ago
Not just selling alcohol, "transactions". Which means no more swaps. Trading local brews or homebrews are fun communities, and they just got wiped out with zero warning.
- hvidgaard 9y ago
  That is insane, and either an oversight, or deal with large breweries.
- JorgeGT 9y ago
  Plenty of alcohol is gifted in Reddit's own gift exchange: https://www.redditgifts.com/gallery/simple-pleasures-exchange/gift/whiskey-12/ https://www.redditgifts.com/gallery/simple-pleasures-exchang..., I wonder if they will ban their own sponsored exchange.
swiley 9y ago
only /r/darknetmarkets seems banned /r/darknet is still there.
enraged_camel 9y ago
You complaining about all this is rich. You are the moderator of r/Ask_the_Donald, and banned me from there for having the audacity to point out an inaccuracy in one of your comments. So much for free speech, huh?
pjc50 9y ago
Banning alcohol references but not weed is bizarre; it sounds like they simply haven't thought this through.
- whywhywhywhy 9y ago
  Can't shake the feeling weed gets different rules just because /r/trees is a big part of the culture on the more "wholesome" side of Reddit that they prefer to promote.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

This is due to US Section 230 legislation changing this week, spurred by the actions and legal battles of backpage.com https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/59... "The Backpage saga has galvanized lawmakers to act on bills amending Section 230 with the goal of stemming online sex trafficking. The legislation allows more state and civil lawsuits against websites related to online sex trafficking, for "knowingly assisting, supporting or facilitating" crimes. The Senate passed the bill Wednesday, sending it to President Trump for his signature. The White House has supported the legislation." And the most important quote: "If the technology companies do not wake up to their responsibilities — and use the power 230 gives them — to better protect the public against sex trafficking and countries that try to hack our political system, you bet that companies can expect (this legislation) will not be the last challenge for them."

djrogers 9y ago
How does Section 230 relate to banning videos about completely legal firearms accessories?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Section 230 protects against all kinds of collateral and contributory liability that a publisher of information might have, not just direct liability for publishing content that is illegal without regard to context. Weakening 230 means that online services are closer to needing to treat everything that crosses the platform as the kind of legal risk it would be if it were produced and published directly by the company, considering, including in the worst case of conduct that people might allege it contributed to, with the consideration of how attractive the firm is as a deep pockets piñata for lawsuits where the other side has little to lose and much (even if it is unlikely) to gain. Which is the whole problem 230 was adopted to solve, but conduct by publishers who were found liable even with 230 in place, proving it doesn't need to be weakened to address the conduct has, nevertheless, provided a pretext for an attack on it.

jayess 9y ago

So no links to licensed gun dealers either, then?

Rebelgecko 9y ago
Nope, otherwise /r/gundeals wouldn't have been banned
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  So when they say “we want common sense things like background checks” then ban avenues that require background checks - you can get an idea of what they really want. The truest words I’ve ever heard on the gun debate is that “they don’t hate guns, they love guns, they surround themselves guns, it’s you they hate”.

jayess 9y ago

Who wants to open a free-speech based forum site?

peterwwillis 9y ago
Isn't that 4chan?
platinumrad 9y ago
Voat already exists and already has a reputation for being both terrible and a ghost town.
- benmmurphy 9y ago
  The problem with voat is it basically the dregs of reddit so no-one respectable wants to be associated with it. But if reddit bans enough stuff that is semi-respectable and those people are able to hold their nose to migrate to voat they might end up making voat respectable enough to overcome their current poor reputation.
  - platinumrad 9y ago
    Maybe that will happen but I don't think the site will be Voat. Its reputation is far too toxic at this point.
  - superkuh 9y ago
    It has reached that point. I'm moving to voat.
    - kadenshep 9y ago
      Let us know what kind of riveting discussions you have with racists, sexists, and conspiracy theorists.
      - krapp 9y ago
        Unfortunately, racists, sexists and conspiracy theorists appear to be the only people who still believe in freedom of speech, and are willing to fight to keep it. Even many of the "hackers" around here seem to support regulation and censorship.

Rebelgecko 9y ago

This is very dismaying to see I have used Youtube in the past for seeing how to install gun accessories, put guns together, how to fix malfunctions, etc. Watching those videos has made me a more knowledgeable, and hence more responsible gun owner. This is an especially large blow for people who are part of niche communities, like reloading ammo for 100+ year old rifles. A lot of historical content will be lost. The new youtube rules will also get rid of entertainment channels like Hickock45 and Demolition Ranch (the proceeds of which help subsidize the creator's other channel, Vet Ranch) I'm also pretty disappointed in Reddit. They made a new admin account yesterday to anonymously post the new rules. I believe this is the first time that's been done for an announcement, usually they're posted by a CEO or a specific individual. /r/gundeals was a fantastic community and I don't know if anything comparable exists elsewhere online. There were lots of links posted by regular users, but when dealers posted themselves they really made an effort to engage with buyers. Crappy vendors/products were usually called out in the comments. Other than optics, I can't imagine why reddit would ban strictly law-abiding communities while allowing illegal and toxic ones to flourish.

seany 9y ago
gundeals was the only sub that I had ever actually made a direct bookmark too. I've never seen another community quite like it.
MrMember 9y ago
I've deleted both my YouTube and reddit accounts. I've been trying to de-Google my life, this will probably accelerate that. Just need a proper mobile Linux device and I can finally dump Android.
- collias 9y ago
  Why not an iPhone? At least Apple seems to care about privacy, and they aren't an ad-tech company like Google or FB.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line.

CydeWeys 9y ago

Great, so /r/gundeals, which was nothing more than a sales aggregator for law-abiding online retailers, is gone, but /r/the_donald, a vile, rampantly bigoted, conspiracy-theory-peddling shithole, is allowed to stay?

tylersmith 9y ago
This sweep seems to have had a very narrow focus on facilitating sales. r/darknetmarketnoobs was allowed to stay[1] even though it's intimately related to r/darknetmarkets, which was banned, because they have been careful to push most market discussion to the latter sub. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarketsNoobs/comments/8641hg/rdarknetmarkets_banned/dw27k9e/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarketsNoobs/comments/8641hg...
SpikeDad 9y ago
You added "law-abiding". How do you know this?
- Rebelgecko 9y ago
  I checked /r/gundeals on nearly a daily basis and never saw anything illegal[0]. I can't find the full rules to the sub anymore [1], but I believed they banned posting gun sales that weren't through an FFL (which is actually stricter than the law). [0] there were products that aren't legal in certain states or cities, but nothing that is illegal at the fed level.
  - MrMember 9y ago
    Yeah, gundeals was strictly dealers only. There were other subs (probably banned now too) for legal person to person sales.
- emusan 9y ago
  The vast majority of retailers on gundeals sold accessories which is legal for anyone to do. Those that did sell guns were federally licensed retailers, gundeals did not (to my knowledge) allow for private sellers to post. All federally licensed (FFL) retailers must perform a background check (or transfer to another FFL to perform one) before transferring to a purchaser. I don't see how any of that could be considered as not "law-abiding". All of that applies only to the US of course, but I'm not aware of other countries having deals there.

zombieprocesses 9y ago

Are the big social media companies working together to ban content? What are the odds that reddit and youtube ban similar content on the same day? What a sad day. Reddit used to be something so special. If only tech giants stood together and fought the corporate interests and NGOs pushing censorship on them. I've pretty much stopped using reddit because it's full of political nonsense now anyways. If they are going to be banning subs every 6 months, what's the point of reddit anymore?

Miner49er 9y ago
This is probably all about advertising. Advertisers likely told these platforms to get rid of this stuff or they'll stop using their sites to advertise. It's possibly the same advertiser(s) on both sites asking for it. That could explain why it's happening on the same day.
- Zak 9y ago
  reddit already had a policy to show ads only on whitelisted subreddits, so it would have taken something stronger than just "I don't want my ad shown next to X".
  - themacguffinman 9y ago
    The reputation of reddit as a whole still matters to advertisers. An advertiser might not want to advertise on The Daily Stormer, for example, even if its ads are only shown on boards focused on cute animal photos.

collias 9y ago

This is the 21st century equivalent to burning books.

ragequitta 9y ago
If those books were nothing but gun sale magazines and escort service advertisements I suppose you're right.
- Rebelgecko 9y ago
  and also manuals for how to build things that the librarians dont like
guelo 9y ago
No, it's more like a bookstore not selling books they don't like.
- dilap 9y ago
  Well, the subs themselves contained lots of content that was wiped without warning, so in that sense it is like book burning. Anyway, hopefully this'll all help stimulate the creation of actually-censorship-resistant platforms.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  Only if that bookstore is the world's only reasonable choice to buy books.
- manfredo 9y ago
  More like bookstores refusing to sell any books on chemistry, out of fear that they will be held liable if some person uses one to make a bomb. Plenty of the things forbidden by these policy guidelines are entirely legal. Manufacturing firearms, manufacturing ammunition, and manufacturing magazines is legal in most states.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  Reminds me of the RATM song, Bulls on Parade: "They don't gotta burn tha books, they just remove 'em While arms warehouses fill as quick as tha cells Rally round tha family, pocket full of shells"

driverdan 9y ago

Mods: Why is this being deranked? This is a legitimate discussion.

zombieprocesses 9y ago
ycombinator funded reddit. And ycombinator is part of the group at the forefront of the internet censorship movement. > This is a legitimate discussion. Since when did that matter. It's discussion they don't want, legitimate or not.
- dang 9y ago
  Who funded Reddit has zero to do with how HN is moderated. This is the sort of explanation people reach for at the first sign of anything that's partially consistent with it. If you think about it, that's already enough to tell you that the logic is wrong: it explains way too much! (As for the bit about YC, it sounds pretty weird to me but I don't know what you're referring to.)
dang 9y ago
It set off the software's flamewar detector a.k.a. overheated discussion detector. I've turned the penalty off and rolled back the clock on the story to compensate. Posts without URLs (Ask HN, Tell HN, etc.) also start off with a penalty, and I've turned that off too.
- driverdan 9y ago
  Thank you.

lettergram 9y ago

There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... If I take my car (a Jeep Grand Cherokee) and ram it into a crowd - I'm confident that can take out more people than I can with a gun, knife, probably even bomb. Point being, I understand not facilitating trade, but for the love of god, videos? You really want to push the right over the edge? We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of the first and most protected rights. The ability to defend yourself and country in the face of tyrany. Look at what happened in Ukraine, Syria, etc. A government doesn't fuck with a populace that has guns, so it increases stability. When you don't have the ability to defend your rights, you don't have rights anymore. Further, violence isn't associated with guns - it's associated with people being suppressed or by mental issues. The weather is more associated with murder than guns... I even understand trying to reduce ways to kill massive amounts of people easily. But again, I have a car, I know how to make chlorine gas, so on and so forth. Address the actual problem and stop making this political. We know you're afraid of guns - that's fine. I'm affraid of dogs, but I'm not going to support banning them (look at them, they are built to kill things human size). Stop talking about mass murders and start talking about tragedies, do a black out on mass murders names. That'd probably fix the issue in time. Then teach everyone about gun safety, how to use them, the dangers, etc. I'm telling you right now, by removing these videos you're arming people, and exhasborating the problem. In fact, they just pushed me to buy a weapon. \flip table and walk out

themihai 9y ago
>> There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin... Yeah but guns are "cool" while ramming a car into a crowd it's not that cool. I believe people should be allowed to bear arms but that doesn't mean the guns should be sold and advertised as lollipops.
- lettergram 9y ago
  I think we should be given one in school, trained, and make it normal. The problem is you're right, they are being advertised. Although, what I will say is I don't know a single person who treats them as toys (I live in a pretty rural area, so pretty much everyone has one). Every gun is taken care of and very well managed. It always amazes me, because I'm one of the few people who refuse to have a gun in my house (might change). People in the bay area (where I lived for two years, before leaving) have absolutely no idea how common and really safe guns are. I think it leads to a lot of fear mongering.

Pinckney 9y ago

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

MrMember 9y ago
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.
- wvenable 9y ago
  If they're smart they'll stick to hosting stuff that is non-controversial: porn. There's no reason to get involved in deep political fights.
- Pinckney 9y ago
  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 https://www.reddit.com/user/Katie_Pornhub/overview

hartator 9y ago

I suppose net neutrality doesn't have a wide definition. /s

Waterluvian 9y ago

This continues to distract from the problem: systemic issues in American culture and society that perpetually re-primes a powder keg of fear and divisiveness. That sounds wordy but I just don't have the skill to articulate my feelings. There's just... something fundamentally wrong with how everything can feel so zero-sum.

humanrebar 9y ago
People don't value tolerance anymore. You only need tolerance for things you don't like or understand. Honestly, these sorts of things would work better if people acted locally more. It's human to be upset about the Parkland incident. It's not appropriate for a resident of Spokane to have strong feelings about Florida gun laws, let alone actually lobby for them. Discussing current events can be healthy, but only to the extent that it helps us develop our thoughts about how our local communities should work.
- kerbalspacepro 9y ago
  You're confusing valuing tolerance for tolerating the intolerable.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    It should be tolerable for someone to do something stupid "over there" to sell their hipster beer if you're not involved. There are few issues where we have to actually force a nation-wide conflict to decide on a particular outcome. Whoever is doing it, convincing YouTube and Reddit to force internet-wide struggles over these issues isn't choosing the right battles.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Censoring the symptoms of these systemic issues is like putting a bandaid on an infected boil. It may not look as bad upon first glance, but it's only going to fester and get worse.

finnthehuman 9y ago

Yet another step narrowing the internet towards the same bland and pre-mediated window of thought seen as TV. It's too bad.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

Per the Reddit regulations, item 6: Do they mean counterfeit currency ("Falsified official currency") or was there supposed to be a comma, meaning all currency? That would rule out any sales transaction as they "involve" currency. Wasn't sale of counterfeit already ruled out?

prepend 9y ago

The more social media applies arbitrary rules to speech, the more likely they are to be regulated as common carriers. This puts a lot of restrictions and “the Internet” was against it. But these items are not illegal speech (although sometimes). These are private orgs and can legally ban whatever they want. However, phone companies are private too, but they have regulation controlling what is and is not allowed. The issue is that banning legal speech is a slippery slope. I imagine how I would respond if YouTube banned howtos on ripping DVDs. They can legally do that and it’s based on an illegal activity. This also opens the door for countries with restrictive laws to forbid speech about what is illegal in China, etc.

dangoor 9y ago
It seems to me that social media aren't the same as common carriers in that people can very easily switch from one to another. I saw a headline saying that one gun video channel on YouTube was moving its videos to another site. They will no longer have access to YouTube's audience, but they are still free to post their videos in a publicly-accessible fashion.
- exabrial 9y ago
  Just curious, what site is that? Cody's Lab and AVE, two of the most informative educational channels, already have a crap ton of problems with YouTube (granted AVE pokes the bear with a stick). With the #DeleteFacebook movement in full swing, I'd love to see a #LoseTheTube and go to a platform that promotes free expression but can actually classify stuff correctly (giving the user the power to filter what they don't want to see).
  - taborj 9y ago
    Many are moving over to full30.com
  - dangoor 9y ago
    I had to go back to find the article, because it was just a headline that appeared in the sidebar of an article I was reading this morning. This wouldn't appear to be a general solution, they're moving to Pornhub: https://www.buzzfeed.com/leticiamiranda/a-gun-demo-youtube-channel-with-24-million-subscribers-is https://www.buzzfeed.com/leticiamiranda/a-gun-demo-youtube-c... (The slug in that URL is wrong. They changed the headline to be "24 million views".)

toomanybeersies 9y ago

I am concerned about how this will affect some educational channels. A good example is Forgotten Weapons (https://www.youtube.com/user/ForgottenWeapons https://www.youtube.com/user/ForgottenWeapons). It's a vlog about interesting old firearms. These are often supplied for the videos by an auction house that is selling them, so the guns are literally for sale. But these are massively expensive, antique weapons, many of which require a Federal Firearms Licence to own. The same goes for manufacturing ammunition. Handloading is very common in the precision shooting and hunting community. I don't see how it would facilitate gun violence. I would suspect that less than 1% of firearms related murders use hand loaded ammunition.

dageshi 9y ago
I would suspect Forgottenweapons is screwed on youtube, he gets access to many of the most interesting old guns at auction houses in return for publicising the auctions. I'd be surprised if he can continue to do that under these rules.

matt_s 9y ago

This is a site about startups and tech and hacking. Doesn't this sound like a golden opportunity for someone to stand up a video service dedicated to this niche? Basically Google and Reddit are stating that they don't want to lose ad revenue from other channels which they deem as more important. Sure they are wrapping it up as being socially conscious or something but it comes down to money. They are ad companies. Large ad firms for large brands might pull their stuff if they keep firearm channels around. A service for this niche would probably get all of the firearm ad revenue that is leaving those platforms.

nickysielicki 9y ago
Already exists and is popular: http://www.full30.com http://www.full30.com This is where most channels are intending to move.
thinkingemote 9y ago
I'm guessing here... I think ad companies would be happy but it's their clients which are reacting to consumer lobbying. I also think YT and Reddit are also reacting based on this pressure. For a similar effect see StopFundingHate in the UK.
noxToken 9y ago
The issues is getting your audience to follow. That's another website, another app, another feed to track. Ecosystems and walled-gardens work, because they allow easy interoperability with other products and services already offered. Starting a competitor against something like that tends to not get enough marketshare. This isn't saying that someone shouldn't try - it's just tough to do.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

EasyTiger_ 9y ago

It's absolutely stunning what's happened to Reddit. Between the speech clampdowns like this and the soul-crushing amount of political astroturfing going on it's clearly time for a new challenger (not Voat).

wan23 9y ago
What's wrong with voat besides that it's a cesspool? It seems like it has all the technical features that make Reddit work, and the lack of moderation that makes it so disgusting is the result of not having speech clampdowns.
- zbentley 9y ago
  > What's wrong with voat besides that it's a cesspool? That. Past a certain point, the (not really/apocryphal) Voltaire "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" argument results in really, really nasty communities for out-group people to inhabit.
leetcrew 9y ago
why not voat?

jacksmith21006 9y ago

But Google still has the NRA channel. The list of companies that have cut ties with the NRA are very long but do not include Google. "One By One, Companies Cut Ties With The NRA" https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/23/588233273/one-by-one-companies-cut-ties-with-nra https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/02/23/588233273...

thrownaway954 9y ago

it was eventual. once you get big, you have to follow these guidelines or run the risk of ad revenue disappearing or getting sued by the government. with success comes the spotlight. it will be sad the day when they ban r/pomeranians and other animal channels cause it will be consider animal cruelty to put eyebrows on your pom or a pickle behind your cat.

fastball 9y ago

So Reddit is banning "paid services including physical sexual contact". Does that mean people will no longer be able to sell their used panties on Reddit? It would be a tragic loss to the internet if this was the case. /s

chubasco 9y ago

Do you want to get regulated? Because that's how you get regulated.

exabrial 9y ago

The youtube ones "no demo of high capacity magazines" leaves me scratching my head, what exactly is that accomplishing?

zrobotics 9y ago
I wonder if that could be applied to film/tv. Is Rambo bannable? Can gaming channels be banned?

zaarn 9y ago

I wonder if Reddit will then ban subreddits relating to Cody's Lab. Maybe youtube will finally ban Cody forever for showing us how to do explosives or make mercury based ammunition in guns! hurray!

zrobotics 9y ago
What I don't understand is how on earth king of random hasn't had the same kinds of problems as cody's lab. I mean, the guy was arrested on explosives charges, and his channel is very clearly aimed at a young audience, while cody's channel doesn't seem particularly aimed at kids. And king of random has to be one of the worst offenders i've seen for showing something dangerous w/o explaining the hazards, such as exposed/poorly insulated mains connections or frankly dangerous tool usage.

SCHiM 9y ago

There they go again, the big nanny corporations. They are part of the social fabric of our society. The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there. Saying that they have a right to censor their platform is OK, if this was the case from the outset. As it is, once these platforms were free and unrestricted. It's only after they grew big, are became protected by network effects that allows them to do stuff like this. This is censorship plain and simple, it's disgusting, risk-averse behavior that displays a debasing obedience to safe money and corporate interests. I don't know exactly why this angers me so much, party because it is a bait & switch like I said above. Party because it futile, users will simply go somewhere else. Partly because much of the content that I like to watch and learn about these days is probably on some goody two-shoe's shit list. I despise that they get to decide these things on platforms that have profited to much from an unrestricted and free Internet and online culture. They are hating the players, not the game.

aninhumer 9y ago
>The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there. If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which is itself a violation of freedom of speech. And this is the problem with a simplistic idea like "Freedom of Speech". It is not possible for everyone to hear everyone else's point of view, so some speech will always be restricted. Therefore, our society inevitably makes decisions about which speech to amplify and which to silence, and just because that decision is not being made directly by government, does not mean it is not being made. In practice when people complain about censorship, what they mean is that these implicit decisions are not being made in a way that they like. And in saying this, I'm not trying to imply that their criticisms are wrong, or that they're being disingenuous or malicious in trying to change those decisions. I'm saying this to reframe the debate, because framing it as if access to speech can only be controlled by intentional malicious restriction prevents us from questioning the ways in which society already controls access to speech. The most common way speech is restricted is economic. The rich can afford to amplify their speech, and the poor cannot. We have historically accepted this without question as an economic reality, but then the rise of social media gave us a glimpse of a world where economic restrictions are not as big a factor, and so when these restrictions start to re-assert themselves we question them. People call it "censorship" and demand "free speech", because this is the most pervasive set of ideas we have to understand this dissonance, but the reality is we are always censored, and speech is never truly free, and unless we accept that, we will not be able to ask real questions about what kind of societal discourse we truly value.

stvsun 9y ago

what?

myt6fore 9y ago

Forcing a community out carries a host of side-effects, example: a group moves underground... Though knowing that, both reddit and youtube modelled their business around reinforcement and segregation of biased groups (echo-chambers), all the while promoting themselves as _the_ platforms of the free (speech) internet. Turns out ousting such groups is okay- just like axing a product, no?

stesch 9y ago

Fun fact: Had to read about the Reddit announcement in another sub because it got downvoted. An important announcement and most people don't see it unless they read a subreddit that cares about it.

cjslep 9y ago

How long until every site is like Oratyria, where users can freely censor each other for everyone else?

el_cid 9y ago

I'll stop using both reddit. HN is much better anyway. I'll be waiting for the new wave of migration, as it was the case from digg to reddit initially.

emanreus 9y ago

Such a shame. I don't own a gun, and I don't intend to. But I really appreciate some channels and communities, especially those about historical weapons that will be severely damaged by this.

Moodles 9y ago

I understand the concern here on HN. However, what do we propose to do? At the end of the day, these are private companies and they can enforce whatever arbitrary guidelines they want within the laws of the countries they operate in. E.g. if you were president Trump, would you do anything about it? Genuinely curious.

kerkeslager 9y ago
> However, what do we propose to do? 1. Ideally, we don't allow corporations to control so much of our communications. 2. Barring 1, we should set the expectation that communication platforms should protect their users' freedom of speech, with laws to enforce this. > At the end of the day, these are private companies and they can enforce whatever arbitrary guidelines they want within the laws of the countries they operate in. This is descriptive of reality but not prescriptive of how reality should be. As far as I am concerned, corporations don't have rights, people do, and when corporations start infringing on the rights of people (such as the right to free speech) that's a problem.
- Moodles 9y ago
  > Ideally, we don't allow corporations to control so much of our communications. What laws would you propose to actually implement this? I like free speech a lot as well, but it seems that boundaries get a bit fuzzy here. E.g. if you were to run your own forum like HN, don't you think you should be allowed to ban material from, say, KKK supporters?
  - kerkeslager 9y ago
    >> Ideally, we don't allow corporations to control so much of our communications. > What laws would you propose to actually implement this? I didn't. Note that I didn't bring up laws until #2 in my previous post. Programs which educated people on the dangers of social media the same way we educate people around the dangers of drugs and alcohol might go toward changing the way we treat these things in our culture, but on the other hand, there's enough problems with i.e. DARE that they might be counterproductive. > I like free speech a lot as well, but it seems that boundaries get a bit fuzzy here. E.g. if you were to run your own forum like HN, don't you think you should be allowed to ban material from, say, KKK supporters? I think if you combine topic-based moderation with a vote system, you don't need to ban KKK supporters. On a system like HN where all posts are in the same data stream, racist posts are going to be downvoted fairly quickly. And if someone posts racist comments on a post that isn't about race, it's off-topic, so topic-based moderation says it's okay to delete it. It's not a restriction on free speech--it's keeping topics organized to maintain the functioning of the forum. The key exception here is that when the topic is race, then you don't delete racist comments. This is uncomfortable, but racism doesn't simply go away because you censor it--if anything, censoring a racist makes them feel they are a martyr, and strengthens their beliefs. Instead, if you leave the posts up, users will respond to them with the truth. Countering lies with truth is more powerful than countering lies with censorship. There's a tendency, I think, to see bigotry as a monolithic problem in a person, without any reasoning behind it. But if you actually listen to bigots, you'll often discover that behind the bigotry they have legitimate fears and problems, and they think bigotry is the solution to those problems. Part of the problem we have in the US that those who value equality and acceptance too often see bigots as just bigots, and forget that they are people. If we see them as just bigots, then they can't change, or aren't worth changing, and we can discard them. But that hasn't worked--that's why we have the administration we have now. Instead, I think we need to see bigots as people, and try to address their fears and problems with facts and truth. (Most) bigots don't benefit from their bigotry--bigotry doesn't solve their problems, and prevents them from seeing the real solutions. So if we can show them the real solutions to their problems, they might see they don't need bigotry any more. Civil rights leaders of the past understood that a conversation about race had to be an actual conversation, not just shouting your ideals and silencing your opponents. If you refuse to listen to bigots they will refuse to listen to you. It's not us versus them, it's us and them versus ignorance.

Endy 9y ago

So YouTube and Reddit are again saying that they're not okay with potentially illegal conduct on their platform. The only difference is that this time they're being much more direct and specific.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
The documents from the Snowden leaks were illegally obtained/distributed. How long before that type of stuff is censored?
- Endy 9y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you, but at the same time, I don't think that likely the first place to release a major government leak is on YouTube or Reddit. There will always be some platform that's "freer" than some others, and there will always be some that are more moderated. This may smack of censorship in some ways, and if it was a government agency, it certainly would be. Unfortunately, the core of the problem that a lot of people are dancing around is that we've come to expect private businesses on the Internet to care about anything other than their profits - but that's asking them to violate their corporate morality of "profit at all costs". They're not going to do that; we are either the customer or the product. This is those private companies forcing their moderation policies, so as to continue increasing their userbase and advertising income. Reddit and YouTube/Google are essentially moderated private platforms and if they decided that tomorrow all that could be posted on their sites are cat pictures, they would be well within their rights to do that.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    >This may smack of censorship in some ways, and if it was a government agency, it certainly would be This is a common misconception. Nowhere is it defined that only a government can conduct censorship.

thinkingemote 9y ago

"Reddit and Youtube are shooting themselves in the foot!" some would say. "I'm moving to this other site!" those directly affected say. And the rest of the users and the sites say "bye! Good riddance!", thinking that they have just surgically removed a small portion of the site. But they are wrong, the effect will be huge and far reaching and here's why: What Reddit and those cheering the migration of gun and sex enthusiasts is that those people are also frequent contributors to the funny, light subreddits. If they go, not only do other, straight, subreddits lose out, but the alternatives they go to start to get straighter too. People will indeed move to something better. And they will move quickly. We have seen it with myspace to facebook and digg to reddit. So far, the alternatives, to me, seem not that attractive, but I imagine it would only take a few people to move to make it so. It only takes a few sane early adopters.

typon 9y ago
?? Are you somehow suggesting that people involved in gun sales or drug sales on reddit are somehow meme generators keeping the culture alive?? People made the same arguments when /r/fatpeoplehate was banned and /r/niggers was banned, and before that when /r/jailbait was banned. Nothing changed except the site got a bit better because a bunch of the assholes migrated to voat or remade those subreddits under different names.
- thinkingemote 9y ago
  Yes, I am saying that gun enthusiasts, the millions of normal Americans and people around the world who like guns, or even craft beer, or historical re-enactment, also like to tell jokes. They do not go to reddit to only talk about guns, but to other subreddits. It's quite easy to understand. I am not saying they are the only people keeping the site alive, that would be silly. I'm saying that people that like to tell jokes will make the alternatives they go to better and more attractive, and make Reddit a bit less attractive. Your examples of previous banning was about toxic subreddits where the main focus was on toxic "jokes". I'd agree with you, toxic joke tellers are probably going to always joke toxicly. But a gun enthusiast, a craft beer lover, a historical re-enactment, an adult porn star, they are not primarily makers of toxic jokes. I hope you can see the difference here.

userbinator 9y ago

This reminds me of this quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson I wonder if he would be considered a terrorist today...

IAmEveryone 9y ago
If you want to die for your country, please do it alone.

kirykl 9y ago

Another lesson in the dangers of digital share cropping

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago

YouTube and Reddit should be like paper and pencil. If I used paper and pencil to break the law, then it's between law enforcement and me, I would be super annoyed if the pencil refused to write what I want to write because the pencil manufacturer thought it might be illegal or just simply undesired. What the Content Providers are doing is anti-thesis of neutrality towards ideas and the supporting arguments. If someone breaks the law using their platform then let the someone file a complaint and let law enforcement handle it. Should the burrito truck ban you from utilizing the calories from the breakfast burrito if you intend to do some insider trading that morning? If the burrito place can't block you from eating, then why should YouTube and Reddit be able to block you from saying what you have to say? Can't believe that the hacker news crowd was jumping up and down for months at a time for neutrality of packets as if ISP is going to stop you from saying what you want to say, but all the while Facebook/Google/Twitter/Reddit can stop you from saying what you say anytime they feel like it, and those advocating "Neutrality of service providers" are perfectly fine with it. Can folks be little more realistic about what the real danger is? Out packets are not threatened, our thoughts are.

nailer 9y ago

I wonder if they'll enforce this: > * Paid services involving physical sexual contact; Not 'sexual content' - actual prostitution on Reddit is rare (though does happen in terms of submission of film/video content by sex workers in places where prostition is legal, eg in Australia). But a large part of the sex subreddits are 'donate to my patreon and I'll give you access to my private Snapchat' which is clearly: a) 'paid services' b) sex work.

leojg 9y ago

The issue here is that the internet consist basically in monopolies. Its even more alarming when you consider that many of those monopolies are in the hands of just one company. (Google)

TravelTechGuy 9y ago

The second line in the Reddit list has been cut short. The full item says: * Drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or any controlled substances (except advertisements placed in accordance with our advertising policy); Meaning they are not against drugs and alcohol, if they can make a buck out of it.

z0r 9y ago

Just a coincidence, or any relationship to this story? https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-... (discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641900 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641900)

madengr 9y ago

Is Youtube going to ban the many 80% lower videos? Will they ban my reloading video? I'm a Youtube Red subscriber (I hate commercials). I think it's about time I canceled my subscription. Hell, at least they think a high capacity magazine is > 30 rounds. That won't last long. Soon it will be anything > 5 rounds.

vit05 9y ago

It makes me unhappy to know that Reddit is choosing to make written rules rather than choosing changes and improvements in its code. Having opportunities to market and discuss products could be a great source of income if well done. real opinion, honest and who is not a paid advertising on a product and humanize the business relationship are very difficult questions to find on the internet.Especially about artisans products and local productions. Craft beers is a market that depends on suggestions and evaluations of people. Facebook has been trying to provide a marketplace opportunity that makes it easier for local and more human businesses. But is horrible. Reddit could offer something in this vacuum. But they preferred to walk away.

logfromblammo 9y ago

If YouTube could go ahead and also ban all those videos that take 30+ minutes to convey the same information that I could have read from a text document with static images in 2 minutes, that would be great.

question_that 9y ago

The bigger problem is that even if they create their own platform - let's say the NRA rolls out guntube - they're still at the mercy of registrars. Don't read TheDailyStormer (unless you really want to) but do read about how much trouble they're having keeping free speech on the internet - gab.ai is in many ways a similarly objectionable site which has been threatened with the same treatment. I agree that platforms have the right to police content but I disagree strongly with registrars seizing domain names without a court order. Everything might go back to normal if these bans ever see a California courtroom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago

> 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/Untappd/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonSocialClub/ https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonSocialClub/

TheAdamist 9y ago
/r/beertrade got banned. several beer groups that used to feature beer trades have stopped allowing it, trying to avoid being banned.

Proven 9y ago

Fascist scumbags

jacksmith21006 9y ago

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.

rphlx 9y ago
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.
- jacksmith21006 9y ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS2der4Ag_s

jacksmith21006 9y ago

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.