4 ms·

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 p

by 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.
        mrguyorama 9y ago
        YouTube routinely skirts its own rules for popular channels
      - mastax 9y ago
        In addition to en4bz' point Forgotten Weapons almost always disassembles the gun being discussed to show how it works. This could be construed as showing 'how to make guns'. They may be technically allowed, but try convincing an algorithm or non-expert poorly-paid censor that.
    - major505 9y ago
      Forgoten Weapons, British Muzzle Loaders Cap and Ball C&Rsenal vbbsmyt Good, informative, and educational channels, that will problally be banned from youtube in the future.
  - 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.

by zaarn 9y ago

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.
      - mrguyorama 9y ago
        YouTube routinely skirts its own rules for popular channels
    - mastax 9y ago
      In addition to en4bz' point Forgotten Weapons almost always disassembles the gun being discussed to show how it works. This could be construed as showing 'how to make guns'. They may be technically allowed, but try convincing an algorithm or non-expert poorly-paid censor that.
  - major505 9y ago
    Forgoten Weapons, British Muzzle Loaders Cap and Ball C&Rsenal vbbsmyt Good, informative, and educational channels, that will problally be banned from youtube in the future.
- 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.