38 ms·

Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub

156 points by MrMember 9y ago

zaarn 9y ago
PornHub: The last bastion of a free and good internet. There is also some porn. I think 10 years ago people would have laughed at the idea that a federal law pushed gun enthusiasts into pornographic websites.
- ForHackernews 9y ago
  What federal law? YouTube is a private company and they decided they didn't want this content on their platform.
  - zaarn 9y ago
    SESTA/FOSTA and (probably) CLOUD act. I severely doubt this is because of politics on guns, I'm not a pro-gun enthusiast but I do enjoy videos showing safe gun care or historic guns (or just the slingshot channel). Reddit and Youtube have both removed the same kind of content from their platform, this is not limited to gun enthusiasts but also includes various other content. People like Cody, who runs Cody's Lab, have made videos on how to make a bullet out of mercury. It's entirely impractical for any real world usage but it's nonetheless informative and educational, especially since he explains the safety precautions taken.
    - cabalamat 9y ago
      > I do enjoy videos showing safe gun care or historic guns I like Forgotten Weapons. It has serious historical information, and I will be pissed off if Google deletes it. It seems to be that the principle behind net neutrality -- that of a common carrier -- shouldn't just apply to the ip layer, but should also sometimes apply to higher levels of the technology stack, especially when a provider has a large market share.
      - zaarn 9y ago
        I generally agree, yeah, if a provider has a large or controlling market share then they should be obligated to some form of common carrier principle beyond "they're a private company, they can do business with whoever they want". It's simply a risk that lawmakers or the company itself begin enforcing laws outside their jurisdiction (using the company as proxy) or their personal beliefs and ethics (enforcing rules that seem nonsensical to an affected culture or country)
      - xemdetia 9y ago
        Just want to give Forgotten Weapons a plug here. There is a ton of manufacturing knowledge baked into those episodes as well as some great information on tech paths that didn't pan out that I haven't really gotten from another source. This cultural shift just makes me feel like the old line was obscenity and the new line is appropriate for 5 year olds.
      - ropeadopepope 9y ago
        > I will be pissed off if Google deletes it. They've all been cross-posted here. https://www.full30.com/channels/forgottenweapons https://www.full30.com/channels/forgottenweapons
      - Navarr 9y ago
        Did anyone read the article to see what types of videos Google is taking action against? > YouTube will ban videos that offer instructions on how to make firearms and accessories such as silencers and bump stocks. It will prohibit content in which firearms and accessories are sold, both directly and through other websites. Videos on how to install firearms modifications will also be barred. > While we've long prohibited the sale of firearms, we recently notified creators of updates we will be making around content promoting the sale or manufacture of firearms and their accessories, specifically, items like ammunition, gatling triggers, and drop-in auto sears.
        en4bz 9y ago
        The channel mentioned "Forgotten Weapons" is mostly filmed at auction houses since it's the best place to find a lot of old guns in the same place at one time. As part of his arrangement with the auction centers the creator plugs the upcoming auction for the guns he is reviewing and links it in the description. This would probably be against the rules.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      I'm not even interested in slingshots, but I still watch Joerg Sprave occasionally, just because his raw enthusiasm actually comes through the screen. He's a slingshot hacker, and clearly loves what he does. If his channel were removed, we would all be poorer for it. Also, he would be an awesome Batman accessory character--villain or ally, I don't care. I'm reasonably certain the same would apply for gun enthusiasts, or the people who make archery equipment out of hardware store stuff like PVC pipe and fiberglass rods. And from that perspective, this content-based discrimination seems a lot like bullying. You don't like the same things I like, so I use my power to ban you from my social circle forever. The popular kid is uninviting the nerd kid from their party. They are also uninviting the creepy psycho kid at the same time, of course. No one's quite sure what to do about that one yet, they just don't want to be too close--physically or emotionally--when whatever it is actually happens.
  - twothamendment 9y ago
    If the content of a video is legal, do they have more right to refuse to host it than the baker has to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Aren't both businesses trying to make a decision about who their customer is?
    - zaarn 9y ago
      The baker has no decisive market share, people can reasonably go to another bake and get the exact same cake for the same cost (or even lower cost). People can't reasonably go to another video hosting platform and expect to get the same kind of exposure and income. Some people's income purely depends on youtube's quasi-monopoly on video hosting. A more correct analogy would be if a baking company had 90% of the market and refused to make cakes for gay weddings and every other baker can't afford the volume prices so the cake will be more expensive and possibly of less quality.
- DennisAleynikov 9y ago
  it's unfortunate that the 1st amendment doesn't extend to companies. they can freely remove content their community is currently witchhunting. But its okay since that's how our constitution wanted it, government cannot discriminate but for private business it doesn't matter.
  - orthecreedence 9y ago
    > it's unfortunate that the 1st amendment doesn't extend to companies It does. The companies have the freedom of speech to NOT host or promote speech they do not support.
ironjunkie 9y ago
I think the news from the last couple days, make it clear that the next step is to MOVE OUT of all those platforms. History is repeating. As soon as they got enough power, they use it to exercise their own view of the world, deleting data//videos they don't like or reselling it to 3rd parties. We need to come up with a better solution for non-technical users to post content outside those platforms.
- prepend 9y ago
  Fortuneately we have a distributed network of computers all over the world. With the rise of home fiber and raspberry pi type cheap boxes we can do it with data local and software free. I’m not sure what the business model is. I’m looking to porn and privacy for early examples. This worked for the Internet. AOL chat/porn was a huge use case for early chat/messaging. Music piracy and video piracy before Netflix/Apple Music. Etc etc.
  - ryanmarsh 9y ago
    It’s funny that you say that. 20 years ago nobody had a problem running their personal website or FTP server on an ISDN line into their garage. Today I have 100Mb fiber to my house. I’m pretty sure that’s enough to handle a personal video website for somebody with a modest following. Yet we live on these massive centralized platforms.
    - vinniejames 9y ago
      Check out Plex
      - zingmars 9y ago
        I'm not sure Plex would be a good option for sharing stuff with others. And on that note how many people actually have static IPs these days that allows them to easily host services like that? As the IP shortage worsens expect more carrier grade NATs to pop up.
HEREHESH 9y ago
Hallo, https://d.tube https://d.tube
dkns 9y ago
Why pornhub and not vimeo or dailymotion?
- tnzn 9y ago
  Because those gun enthusiasts are very, very enthusiast.
- StreamBright 9y ago
  Probably because the content is closer to Pornhub's content. :)
- 1337biz 9y ago
  Because you expect porn hosters to have a higher tolerance against those who want to pressure companies into their ideological paradigms. In the end porn hosts might be the savest haven for controversial content as they have become used to creating revenue models independent from image conscious clients.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- digitalneal 9y ago
  Because, to a lot of people, guns are a euphemism for...
hugh4life 9y ago
I'm not saying this is one of those stories, but Pornhub does a lot of PR stunts that exist just to get their name in the news. And since we live in the clickbait economy, outlets will gladly go along with it.
- DennisAleynikov 9y ago
  this seems like the most logical solution since pornhub is a poor place to host not porn. weapons had a home on youtubes educational channels and as uninterested as I am in guns I'm sad to see them go. I upload educational videos on youtube and don't look forward to the day I'm banned for teaching the wrong thing.
  - rwoodley 9y ago
    oh please. stop the hand wringing. What are you teaching, bomb-making? Simple educational videos will never be banned. Guns are a special category obviously.
    - csours 9y ago
      See also Cody's Lab https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj0aP-ricRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj0aP-ricRU
    - sigstoat 9y ago
      how about knives, and knife making? > What are you teaching, bomb-making? plenty of folks on there doing chemistry experiments of the variety that folks enjoy watching.
josteink 9y ago
I know "tits and guns" is an established expression when talking about somewhat simplistic movies... But this is taking it a bit too literal :)
HarrietJones 9y ago
I can't see PornHub continuing to allow these videos. It's not really in keeping with the core product, and previous stunts give the impression that they tend towards the left wing. I give it a week for them to start removing gun videos.
- tmpacc23098 9y ago
  All we need now is "GunHub".
- dreta 9y ago
  I'd say PornHub, and porn in general, is more liberal than left-wing, so i doubt they'll have anything against guns. Still, they could deem the content inapropriate for the site. Though, given the kind of seemingly random videos people upload there, and get aroused by, it's not at all definite.
  - major505 9y ago
    If this become a common thing, they wold problally create a portal just for that. After all, if there is demmand, there is money to be made.
  - Shish2k 9y ago
    > they could deem the content inapropriate for the site In before the gun channels continue exactly as they were, except for the one change that their hosts are now nude
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      Having some 4'11 woman as a regular guest on C&R Arsenal or Forgotton Weapons would be useful for discussing ergonomics and arguable less controversial than some 14yo.
ropeadopepope 9y ago
Not really. There is now an independent streaming service dedicated to shooting sports: https://www.full30.com/ https://www.full30.com/. A lot of the youtube channels are moving there, including InRange (mentioned in the article): https://www.full30.com/channels/inrange https://www.full30.com/channels/inrange
- mason55 9y ago
  The problem with fragmentation is discoverability. If all the videos are on one site you might serendipitously discover that you love shooting videos when you didn’t even know they existed. If cat videos and shooting videos are on totally separate sites then that’s much less likely to happen.
  - vinniejames 9y ago
    That could be solved with an aggregate search tool. Independent video providors can submit results to the video search engine. Using an integrated, distributed signon (like Blockstack or uPort), friction will again be reduced to feel like one unified system
    - chillwaves 9y ago
      This is good but what stops the aggregator from censoring results once it gains critical mass? You literally just described Reddit.
      - che_shirecat 9y ago
        Another aggregator. It could even be a clone (think Voat). It's a free market.
      - maxlybbert 9y ago
        Customers need to prevent that. Aggregators are free to present a Disney or AOL view of the internet, and customers that like that view are happy. Customers that don’t like that view need to make it clear that they would patronize a different company if given the chance.
pavlov 9y ago
It's about time people realize that platforms like YouTube are private publishers. They have full discretion to remove or editorialize content, and there's no expectation of free speech. Expecting YouTube to keep hosting something because of First Amendment rights is as absurd as expecting a printing press to print your pamphlets for free.
- DennisP 9y ago
  Yes, and we have full discretion to decide we don't like them anymore if they do that. I don't think many people believe YouTube could be sued for First Amendment violation.
  - pavlov 9y ago
    You'd be surprised by how many people think their First Amendment rights are trampled on by Twitter/Facebook/Google...
    - chillwaves 9y ago
      People calling it censorship yesterday (on this forum) don't seem to understand the meaning of the word.
      - girvo 9y ago
        I think that’s kind of ignoring the outsized impact these huge companies have on our lives.
        che_shirecat 9y ago
        Youtube holds a pretty dominating market share of video sharing but there are 10+ other relatively large sites that you could host the content in question on. There's a difference between access and an audience - youtube shouldn't be obligated to give an audience to content they don't like. People are free to migrate to other platforms (case in point - phub) if they so choose.
rambossa 9y ago
What's going on with YouTube? FPSRussia is still going... https://www.youtube.com/user/FPSRussia https://www.youtube.com/user/FPSRussia
- sschueller 9y ago
  He hasn't posted in over a year.
- mastax 9y ago
  The policy doesn't become active for a few weeks.
cezar2 9y ago
It's really chilling to see these platforms, within a matter of months, go from shouting from the rooftops to promote net neutrality, to censoring and editorializing legal content.
- tzs 9y ago
  How so? Net neutrality concerns ISPs not interfering with legal content. It has nothing whatsoever to say about or do with what content sites that host or provide content chose to host or provide. Transportation provides a good analogy. Net neutrality is about the roads, not about what goods and services the places you drive to on those roads do and do not offer.
  - hungerstrike 9y ago
    These services own their platform. So, they are justified in doing what they want right? Likewise, the ISPs own the infrastructure and they can do what they wish as well. The Internet is not made up of public roadways. So what's the difference? I think it's just that you want the ISPs to not own the roads. If you separate what you personally want ISPs to be from the rest of your argument, I think you can see that the ISPs and these tech platforms are pretty much the same - they both own their product and should be able to do what they want to.
    - Spivak 9y ago
      The difference I imagine is that YouTube is not infrastructure, they are a publisher that takes full responsibility for the content present on their site. It's not 'X's videos are hosted on YouTube' it's 'X is a YouTuber'. I think you would have a much stronger argument if someone like Amazon said you couldn't host gun videos on AWS.
    - tzs 9y ago
      There are several differences between ISPs and websites. 1. ISPs generally require licenses or leases from the government in order to build and maintain their infrastructure. Wireless ISPs, for example, need to license RF spectrum. Wired ISPs generally need to run their wires on public land. You can't just start a new ISP, like you can a new website. 2. Broadband ISPs are generally monopolies or near monopolies in a given area, especially wired ISPs. This is related to #1. 3. Telecommunications services fall under the Telecommunications Acts of 1934 and 1996. Websites do not.
jacknews 9y ago
Although I'm a firm believer that guns should be illegal to possess outside of licensed shooting ranges, hunting parks, etc, I think enthusiast videos about guns are completely acceptable. This does smack of Orwell, and it's not only gun culture that appears to be being targeted recently. I'm also not a conspiratorialist, but it does seem to me there's a concerted effort behind the scenes to "crack down" on free expression generally - not just youtube acting alone, but many entities acting similarly, and obviously completely un-democratically or accountably.
- madengr 9y ago
  Hunting parks? Isn’t that like a canned trophy shoot? I’ll be satisfied when I can buy a full auto, short barrel, suppressed, 51 caliber, via anonymous mail order, and paid with crypto currency.
  - scrub_tier 9y ago
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? I'm taking a chance here on hacker news with what might have been a troll comment, but please accept my sincere honest intent to understand your point of view. How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better? How does your right contribute to the security of the state? How did you come to believe you needed this capability? At the risk of appealing to authority, we have established case law in all of our rights which to a reasonable extent remove the protection of our rights for the benefit of the community. We aren't allowed to have indentured servitude, but we legally have the draft in times of crisis. We have the freedom to speak and share our world views, but I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater lest I risk my own imprisonment for endangering the lives of others. Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?
    - M_Bakhtiari 9y ago
      >Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? It doesn't directly, but without a private right to bear arms all you're left with is a centralised police force on steroids. The big fault of the American gun rights movement is of course that they ignored that arguably most important part of the 2nd amendment, there is no real popular militia that can be taken seriously in the US. For goodness sakes, when the ATF gets to drive around in M1 Abrams tanks, whether you can have a bump stock or not becomes pretty meaningless. One could of course argue that the American model would just collapse into warlordism, but it would be interesting to see it tried.
giancarlostoro 9y ago
So will PornHub rebrand as "FreedomHub" or something or launch a similar site for those running away from YouTube for censorship issues? Now's the shot for someone to really compete with YouTube in an area where they seem to be failing.
- pizza234 9y ago
  I'm not sure that it's an area where YT is failing, as this subject has no winning scenario. If they put restrictions on a sensitive subject, a part of the population is going to complain; if they don't, the other part will. If they wouldn't put those restrictions, in the light of the current gun-related events, they'll just expose themselves to a string of lawsuits. I think this is implicit in content providers with extremely large audiences, and it's quite difficult (and interesting) to assess what is failure and what success, from a business perspective.
  - legitster 9y ago
    Except, unless there was some hashtag I missed, that no one was asking Google to do anything. So it was kind of lose-lose. People against guns didn't really care, and people who like guns are pissed.
    - sangnoir 9y ago
      > Except, unless there was some hashtag I missed, that no one was asking Google to do anything Advertisers have been asking Google to do something about the the content youtube plays in videos their ads play against for a while now (not just restricted to guns). If the people who like guns are losing Google money and are a political liability in the aftermath of Parklands - well, this is what happens.
  - clarkmoody 9y ago
    The thing about the gun-related stuff is that it's 99% perfectly legal (yes, there are videos about illegal mods, but those were not specifically targeted). I don't think they're worried about lawsuits. This is all about political optics.
KarenSatantsby 9y ago
Gun porn... heh heh
giardini 9y ago
I heard they were moving to voat.co, a reddit-like site.
ufmace 9y ago
Well say goodbye to any goodwill from me regarding Youtube. I will now feel no qualms about using any means at my disposal to block their ads while watching their video and not paying for it. They may not be legally required to allow free speech, but I believe that free speech is a cultural norm that we need to work to preserve. Excusing rampant violations of free speech because it isn't technically illegal or unconstitutional right now is paving the road towards actual government tyranny. And when it comes, nobody will be able to hear you complain about it, because every platform will shut you down while technically not violating the law.
kernelkadafi 9y ago
So one private company uses its agreed-to right to shut down these outlets, whatever you think of censorship is irrelevant, terms and conditions give youtube and google all the power they need to do whatever they want, you agree to this when using the platform. Now, these outlets instead of moving to an open system like steem, dtube for example, they move to another private company and not only that but a porn company, wtf are they thinking?!? Reeks of suspicion... Don't fall for the divisive bull-plop, unite, preferebley on a public alternative.
moosetafa 9y ago
PornHub? Seens right. Now the ammosexuals can masturbate over their gun porn among their equals on a site perfectly suited for such activities.
CompanyLaser 9y ago
Did anyone read YouTube's actual policy? They're restricting direct firearm sales and DIY manufacturing instructions. Seems reasonable for any controlled device.
- SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
  They are book burning. If you don’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you. Almost everything they have removed was 100% legal content that they didn’t like. IDK about you, but I’ll chose to use sites that want to do their job of hosting, and not my job of choosing what I see/learn.
- sb057 9y ago
  >YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don’t allow content that... links to sites that sell firearms or certain firearms accessories.[1] This effectively cuts off any revenue stream other than crowdfunding, as practically every sponsor would sell guns or accessories. Furthermore, direct firearm sales and instructions on how to make (and indeed, actually making) firearms are entirely legal. [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605
- pps43 9y ago
  Not just "direct" firearm sales, but content that "intends to sell firearms". This can mean any review, unboxing, etc. Also "instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition" are expressly prohibited, even though if it is legal for you to possess a gun or ammo, it is also legal to make it for personal use (and with appropriate licence even for sale). There are plenty of gunsmithing and reloading videos that are now going away.
optimuspaul 9y ago
guns == porn, makes sense to me.
cm2187 9y ago
In the same spirit, Hollywood should be prevented from making any favorable reference to gun violence. Like cigarettes, guns should be digitally edited out of existing motion pictures, and replaced with bananas or sausages. We will achieve a very ethical cinema, compliant with the most rigorous liberal canons, although perhaps slightly boring (and Quentin Tarantino may need go back to VHS rentals to survive).

156 points by MrMember 9y ago

PornHub: The last bastion of a free and good internet. There is also some porn. I think 10 years ago people would have laughed at the idea that a federal law pushed gun enthusiasts into pornographic websites.

ForHackernews 9y ago
What federal law? YouTube is a private company and they decided they didn't want this content on their platform.
- zaarn 9y ago
  SESTA/FOSTA and (probably) CLOUD act. I severely doubt this is because of politics on guns, I'm not a pro-gun enthusiast but I do enjoy videos showing safe gun care or historic guns (or just the slingshot channel). Reddit and Youtube have both removed the same kind of content from their platform, this is not limited to gun enthusiasts but also includes various other content. People like Cody, who runs Cody's Lab, have made videos on how to make a bullet out of mercury. It's entirely impractical for any real world usage but it's nonetheless informative and educational, especially since he explains the safety precautions taken.
  - cabalamat 9y ago
    > I do enjoy videos showing safe gun care or historic guns I like Forgotten Weapons. It has serious historical information, and I will be pissed off if Google deletes it. It seems to be that the principle behind net neutrality -- that of a common carrier -- shouldn't just apply to the ip layer, but should also sometimes apply to higher levels of the technology stack, especially when a provider has a large market share.
    - zaarn 9y ago
      I generally agree, yeah, if a provider has a large or controlling market share then they should be obligated to some form of common carrier principle beyond "they're a private company, they can do business with whoever they want". It's simply a risk that lawmakers or the company itself begin enforcing laws outside their jurisdiction (using the company as proxy) or their personal beliefs and ethics (enforcing rules that seem nonsensical to an affected culture or country)
    - xemdetia 9y ago
      Just want to give Forgotten Weapons a plug here. There is a ton of manufacturing knowledge baked into those episodes as well as some great information on tech paths that didn't pan out that I haven't really gotten from another source. This cultural shift just makes me feel like the old line was obscenity and the new line is appropriate for 5 year olds.
    - ropeadopepope 9y ago
      > I will be pissed off if Google deletes it. They've all been cross-posted here. https://www.full30.com/channels/forgottenweapons https://www.full30.com/channels/forgottenweapons
    - Navarr 9y ago
      Did anyone read the article to see what types of videos Google is taking action against? > YouTube will ban videos that offer instructions on how to make firearms and accessories such as silencers and bump stocks. It will prohibit content in which firearms and accessories are sold, both directly and through other websites. Videos on how to install firearms modifications will also be barred. > While we've long prohibited the sale of firearms, we recently notified creators of updates we will be making around content promoting the sale or manufacture of firearms and their accessories, specifically, items like ammunition, gatling triggers, and drop-in auto sears.
      - en4bz 9y ago
        The channel mentioned "Forgotten Weapons" is mostly filmed at auction houses since it's the best place to find a lot of old guns in the same place at one time. As part of his arrangement with the auction centers the creator plugs the upcoming auction for the guns he is reviewing and links it in the description. This would probably be against the rules.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    I'm not even interested in slingshots, but I still watch Joerg Sprave occasionally, just because his raw enthusiasm actually comes through the screen. He's a slingshot hacker, and clearly loves what he does. If his channel were removed, we would all be poorer for it. Also, he would be an awesome Batman accessory character--villain or ally, I don't care. I'm reasonably certain the same would apply for gun enthusiasts, or the people who make archery equipment out of hardware store stuff like PVC pipe and fiberglass rods. And from that perspective, this content-based discrimination seems a lot like bullying. You don't like the same things I like, so I use my power to ban you from my social circle forever. The popular kid is uninviting the nerd kid from their party. They are also uninviting the creepy psycho kid at the same time, of course. No one's quite sure what to do about that one yet, they just don't want to be too close--physically or emotionally--when whatever it is actually happens.
- twothamendment 9y ago
  If the content of a video is legal, do they have more right to refuse to host it than the baker has to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Aren't both businesses trying to make a decision about who their customer is?
  - zaarn 9y ago
    The baker has no decisive market share, people can reasonably go to another bake and get the exact same cake for the same cost (or even lower cost). People can't reasonably go to another video hosting platform and expect to get the same kind of exposure and income. Some people's income purely depends on youtube's quasi-monopoly on video hosting. A more correct analogy would be if a baking company had 90% of the market and refused to make cakes for gay weddings and every other baker can't afford the volume prices so the cake will be more expensive and possibly of less quality.
DennisAleynikov 9y ago
it's unfortunate that the 1st amendment doesn't extend to companies. they can freely remove content their community is currently witchhunting. But its okay since that's how our constitution wanted it, government cannot discriminate but for private business it doesn't matter.
- orthecreedence 9y ago
  > it's unfortunate that the 1st amendment doesn't extend to companies It does. The companies have the freedom of speech to NOT host or promote speech they do not support.

ironjunkie 9y ago

I think the news from the last couple days, make it clear that the next step is to MOVE OUT of all those platforms. History is repeating. As soon as they got enough power, they use it to exercise their own view of the world, deleting data//videos they don't like or reselling it to 3rd parties. We need to come up with a better solution for non-technical users to post content outside those platforms.

prepend 9y ago
Fortuneately we have a distributed network of computers all over the world. With the rise of home fiber and raspberry pi type cheap boxes we can do it with data local and software free. I’m not sure what the business model is. I’m looking to porn and privacy for early examples. This worked for the Internet. AOL chat/porn was a huge use case for early chat/messaging. Music piracy and video piracy before Netflix/Apple Music. Etc etc.
- ryanmarsh 9y ago
  It’s funny that you say that. 20 years ago nobody had a problem running their personal website or FTP server on an ISDN line into their garage. Today I have 100Mb fiber to my house. I’m pretty sure that’s enough to handle a personal video website for somebody with a modest following. Yet we live on these massive centralized platforms.
  - vinniejames 9y ago
    Check out Plex
    - zingmars 9y ago
      I'm not sure Plex would be a good option for sharing stuff with others. And on that note how many people actually have static IPs these days that allows them to easily host services like that? As the IP shortage worsens expect more carrier grade NATs to pop up.

HEREHESH 9y ago

Hallo, https://d.tube https://d.tube

dkns 9y ago

Why pornhub and not vimeo or dailymotion?

tnzn 9y ago
Because those gun enthusiasts are very, very enthusiast.
StreamBright 9y ago
Probably because the content is closer to Pornhub's content. :)
1337biz 9y ago
Because you expect porn hosters to have a higher tolerance against those who want to pressure companies into their ideological paradigms. In the end porn hosts might be the savest haven for controversial content as they have become used to creating revenue models independent from image conscious clients.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
digitalneal 9y ago
Because, to a lot of people, guns are a euphemism for...

hugh4life 9y ago

I'm not saying this is one of those stories, but Pornhub does a lot of PR stunts that exist just to get their name in the news. And since we live in the clickbait economy, outlets will gladly go along with it.

DennisAleynikov 9y ago
this seems like the most logical solution since pornhub is a poor place to host not porn. weapons had a home on youtubes educational channels and as uninterested as I am in guns I'm sad to see them go. I upload educational videos on youtube and don't look forward to the day I'm banned for teaching the wrong thing.
- rwoodley 9y ago
  oh please. stop the hand wringing. What are you teaching, bomb-making? Simple educational videos will never be banned. Guns are a special category obviously.
  - csours 9y ago
    See also Cody's Lab https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj0aP-ricRU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj0aP-ricRU
  - sigstoat 9y ago
    how about knives, and knife making? > What are you teaching, bomb-making? plenty of folks on there doing chemistry experiments of the variety that folks enjoy watching.

josteink 9y ago

I know "tits and guns" is an established expression when talking about somewhat simplistic movies... But this is taking it a bit too literal :)

HarrietJones 9y ago

I can't see PornHub continuing to allow these videos. It's not really in keeping with the core product, and previous stunts give the impression that they tend towards the left wing. I give it a week for them to start removing gun videos.

tmpacc23098 9y ago
All we need now is "GunHub".
dreta 9y ago
I'd say PornHub, and porn in general, is more liberal than left-wing, so i doubt they'll have anything against guns. Still, they could deem the content inapropriate for the site. Though, given the kind of seemingly random videos people upload there, and get aroused by, it's not at all definite.
- major505 9y ago
  If this become a common thing, they wold problally create a portal just for that. After all, if there is demmand, there is money to be made.
- Shish2k 9y ago
  > they could deem the content inapropriate for the site In before the gun channels continue exactly as they were, except for the one change that their hosts are now nude
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    Having some 4'11 woman as a regular guest on C&R Arsenal or Forgotton Weapons would be useful for discussing ergonomics and arguable less controversial than some 14yo.

ropeadopepope 9y ago

Not really. There is now an independent streaming service dedicated to shooting sports: https://www.full30.com/ https://www.full30.com/. A lot of the youtube channels are moving there, including InRange (mentioned in the article): https://www.full30.com/channels/inrange https://www.full30.com/channels/inrange

mason55 9y ago
The problem with fragmentation is discoverability. If all the videos are on one site you might serendipitously discover that you love shooting videos when you didn’t even know they existed. If cat videos and shooting videos are on totally separate sites then that’s much less likely to happen.
- vinniejames 9y ago
  That could be solved with an aggregate search tool. Independent video providors can submit results to the video search engine. Using an integrated, distributed signon (like Blockstack or uPort), friction will again be reduced to feel like one unified system
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    This is good but what stops the aggregator from censoring results once it gains critical mass? You literally just described Reddit.
    - che_shirecat 9y ago
      Another aggregator. It could even be a clone (think Voat). It's a free market.
    - maxlybbert 9y ago
      Customers need to prevent that. Aggregators are free to present a Disney or AOL view of the internet, and customers that like that view are happy. Customers that don’t like that view need to make it clear that they would patronize a different company if given the chance.

pavlov 9y ago

It's about time people realize that platforms like YouTube are private publishers. They have full discretion to remove or editorialize content, and there's no expectation of free speech. Expecting YouTube to keep hosting something because of First Amendment rights is as absurd as expecting a printing press to print your pamphlets for free.

DennisP 9y ago
Yes, and we have full discretion to decide we don't like them anymore if they do that. I don't think many people believe YouTube could be sued for First Amendment violation.
- pavlov 9y ago
  You'd be surprised by how many people think their First Amendment rights are trampled on by Twitter/Facebook/Google...
  - chillwaves 9y ago
    People calling it censorship yesterday (on this forum) don't seem to understand the meaning of the word.
    - girvo 9y ago
      I think that’s kind of ignoring the outsized impact these huge companies have on our lives.
      - che_shirecat 9y ago
        Youtube holds a pretty dominating market share of video sharing but there are 10+ other relatively large sites that you could host the content in question on. There's a difference between access and an audience - youtube shouldn't be obligated to give an audience to content they don't like. People are free to migrate to other platforms (case in point - phub) if they so choose.

rambossa 9y ago

What's going on with YouTube? FPSRussia is still going... https://www.youtube.com/user/FPSRussia https://www.youtube.com/user/FPSRussia

sschueller 9y ago
He hasn't posted in over a year.
mastax 9y ago
The policy doesn't become active for a few weeks.

cezar2 9y ago

It's really chilling to see these platforms, within a matter of months, go from shouting from the rooftops to promote net neutrality, to censoring and editorializing legal content.

tzs 9y ago
How so? Net neutrality concerns ISPs not interfering with legal content. It has nothing whatsoever to say about or do with what content sites that host or provide content chose to host or provide. Transportation provides a good analogy. Net neutrality is about the roads, not about what goods and services the places you drive to on those roads do and do not offer.
- hungerstrike 9y ago
  These services own their platform. So, they are justified in doing what they want right? Likewise, the ISPs own the infrastructure and they can do what they wish as well. The Internet is not made up of public roadways. So what's the difference? I think it's just that you want the ISPs to not own the roads. If you separate what you personally want ISPs to be from the rest of your argument, I think you can see that the ISPs and these tech platforms are pretty much the same - they both own their product and should be able to do what they want to.
  - Spivak 9y ago
    The difference I imagine is that YouTube is not infrastructure, they are a publisher that takes full responsibility for the content present on their site. It's not 'X's videos are hosted on YouTube' it's 'X is a YouTuber'. I think you would have a much stronger argument if someone like Amazon said you couldn't host gun videos on AWS.
  - tzs 9y ago
    There are several differences between ISPs and websites. 1. ISPs generally require licenses or leases from the government in order to build and maintain their infrastructure. Wireless ISPs, for example, need to license RF spectrum. Wired ISPs generally need to run their wires on public land. You can't just start a new ISP, like you can a new website. 2. Broadband ISPs are generally monopolies or near monopolies in a given area, especially wired ISPs. This is related to #1. 3. Telecommunications services fall under the Telecommunications Acts of 1934 and 1996. Websites do not.

jacknews 9y ago

Although I'm a firm believer that guns should be illegal to possess outside of licensed shooting ranges, hunting parks, etc, I think enthusiast videos about guns are completely acceptable. This does smack of Orwell, and it's not only gun culture that appears to be being targeted recently. I'm also not a conspiratorialist, but it does seem to me there's a concerted effort behind the scenes to "crack down" on free expression generally - not just youtube acting alone, but many entities acting similarly, and obviously completely un-democratically or accountably.

madengr 9y ago
Hunting parks? Isn’t that like a canned trophy shoot? I’ll be satisfied when I can buy a full auto, short barrel, suppressed, 51 caliber, via anonymous mail order, and paid with crypto currency.
- scrub_tier 9y ago
  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? I'm taking a chance here on hacker news with what might have been a troll comment, but please accept my sincere honest intent to understand your point of view. How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange make our society better? How does your right contribute to the security of the state? How did you come to believe you needed this capability? At the risk of appealing to authority, we have established case law in all of our rights which to a reasonable extent remove the protection of our rights for the benefit of the community. We aren't allowed to have indentured servitude, but we legally have the draft in times of crisis. We have the freedom to speak and share our world views, but I cannot yell "fire" in the movie theater lest I risk my own imprisonment for endangering the lives of others. Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?
  - M_Bakhtiari 9y ago
    >Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your militia or the freedom of your state and country? It doesn't directly, but without a private right to bear arms all you're left with is a centralised police force on steroids. The big fault of the American gun rights movement is of course that they ignored that arguably most important part of the 2nd amendment, there is no real popular militia that can be taken seriously in the US. For goodness sakes, when the ATF gets to drive around in M1 Abrams tanks, whether you can have a bump stock or not becomes pretty meaningless. One could of course argue that the American model would just collapse into warlordism, but it would be interesting to see it tried.

giancarlostoro 9y ago

So will PornHub rebrand as "FreedomHub" or something or launch a similar site for those running away from YouTube for censorship issues? Now's the shot for someone to really compete with YouTube in an area where they seem to be failing.

pizza234 9y ago
I'm not sure that it's an area where YT is failing, as this subject has no winning scenario. If they put restrictions on a sensitive subject, a part of the population is going to complain; if they don't, the other part will. If they wouldn't put those restrictions, in the light of the current gun-related events, they'll just expose themselves to a string of lawsuits. I think this is implicit in content providers with extremely large audiences, and it's quite difficult (and interesting) to assess what is failure and what success, from a business perspective.
- legitster 9y ago
  Except, unless there was some hashtag I missed, that no one was asking Google to do anything. So it was kind of lose-lose. People against guns didn't really care, and people who like guns are pissed.
  - sangnoir 9y ago
    > Except, unless there was some hashtag I missed, that no one was asking Google to do anything Advertisers have been asking Google to do something about the the content youtube plays in videos their ads play against for a while now (not just restricted to guns). If the people who like guns are losing Google money and are a political liability in the aftermath of Parklands - well, this is what happens.
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  The thing about the gun-related stuff is that it's 99% perfectly legal (yes, there are videos about illegal mods, but those were not specifically targeted). I don't think they're worried about lawsuits. This is all about political optics.

KarenSatantsby 9y ago

Gun porn... heh heh

giardini 9y ago

I heard they were moving to voat.co, a reddit-like site.

ufmace 9y ago

Well say goodbye to any goodwill from me regarding Youtube. I will now feel no qualms about using any means at my disposal to block their ads while watching their video and not paying for it. They may not be legally required to allow free speech, but I believe that free speech is a cultural norm that we need to work to preserve. Excusing rampant violations of free speech because it isn't technically illegal or unconstitutional right now is paving the road towards actual government tyranny. And when it comes, nobody will be able to hear you complain about it, because every platform will shut you down while technically not violating the law.

kernelkadafi 9y ago

So one private company uses its agreed-to right to shut down these outlets, whatever you think of censorship is irrelevant, terms and conditions give youtube and google all the power they need to do whatever they want, you agree to this when using the platform. Now, these outlets instead of moving to an open system like steem, dtube for example, they move to another private company and not only that but a porn company, wtf are they thinking?!? Reeks of suspicion... Don't fall for the divisive bull-plop, unite, preferebley on a public alternative.

moosetafa 9y ago

PornHub? Seens right. Now the ammosexuals can masturbate over their gun porn among their equals on a site perfectly suited for such activities.

CompanyLaser 9y ago

Did anyone read YouTube's actual policy? They're restricting direct firearm sales and DIY manufacturing instructions. Seems reasonable for any controlled device.

SlowRobotAhead 9y ago
They are book burning. If you don’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you. Almost everything they have removed was 100% legal content that they didn’t like. IDK about you, but I’ll chose to use sites that want to do their job of hosting, and not my job of choosing what I see/learn.
sb057 9y ago
>YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don’t allow content that... links to sites that sell firearms or certain firearms accessories.[1] This effectively cuts off any revenue stream other than crowdfunding, as practically every sponsor would sell guns or accessories. Furthermore, direct firearm sales and instructions on how to make (and indeed, actually making) firearms are entirely legal. [1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605
pps43 9y ago
Not just "direct" firearm sales, but content that "intends to sell firearms". This can mean any review, unboxing, etc. Also "instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition" are expressly prohibited, even though if it is legal for you to possess a gun or ammo, it is also legal to make it for personal use (and with appropriate licence even for sale). There are plenty of gunsmithing and reloading videos that are now going away.

optimuspaul 9y ago

guns == porn, makes sense to me.

cm2187 9y ago

In the same spirit, Hollywood should be prevented from making any favorable reference to gun violence. Like cigarettes, guns should be digitally edited out of existing motion pictures, and replaced with bananas or sausages. We will achieve a very ethical cinema, compliant with the most rigorous liberal canons, although perhaps slightly boring (and Quentin Tarantino may need go back to VHS rentals to survive).