6 ms·

I don't have a problem with the illegal porn ban; people are actually being victimized there. I do have a problem with the gun stuff. Even "how to" videos that

I don't have a problem with the illegal porn ban; people are actually being victimized there. I do have a problem with the gun stuff. Even "how to" videos that result in somehting that's currently illegal. Information should not be banned, and it's a futile effort to try to do that. The internet is too big. Any high school chemistry student learns enough to build a bomb. Should we ban chemistry videos? Ban learning about chemical oxidation? But bottom line, it's Google's service and I guess they can do what they want with it.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
- JshWright 9y ago
  CodysLab is another educational channel having significant issues with strikes.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rocqua 9y ago
    That is true, but it is less obvious of an example. I could see a very careful person actually taking issue with some of his videos. Less so with the other videos.
    - chii 9y ago
      what issues can be had with Cody'sLab videos? They are completely educational, and in the parts that are dangerous, he clearly warns of it, and also tells you how to do it safely.
      - DanBC 9y ago
        CodysLabs is an odd example. Some of the stuff is poorly set up. He's injured himself several times making videos, and it's only luck that he hasn't had a serious injury. He teaches poor habits and bad practice. But, even with all that, he is educational for people with the attention span to watch. He does a minimal amount of "blowing shit up", and even that tends to be small amounts of explosion with lots of explanation. I think it's weird that Youtube would take that channel down because most people aren't going to have the patience to watch it, and they're not going to copy it. Compare that to this fucking idiot, who has a huge and young audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNgIWj8ZM0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNgIWj8ZM0
        amvalo 9y ago
        Cody drank cyanide for fun -- twice. Definitely not a safety oriented channel
- slig 9y ago
  It's really a shame. These channels (+ Cody's) produce awesome content that I'm sure inspire a lot of kids and teens to study STEM.
- jotm 9y ago
  Well, damn, here I thought UK ISP's denying access to drug-discussing forums is bad. So much information and education just taken away by idiots (or maybe it's on purpose).
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
zxcba23sdf23 9y ago
The species through its official bodies has a right to take action against self-harm. The revolutionary war was a reaction to what were then perceived to be unjust theft. An entire war over expropriation of economic effort. Tighter enforcement and policing of content and weapons that pose a real threat to family stability (come on things go nuts when you lose someone, now lose them in a ridiculous mass shooting?) Regardless of the stats, I am not swayed by rigorous math -- nothing in science says we have to abide it, just as much as nothing in science says we have to reach for a Bible to solve problems.
csomar 9y ago
> I don't have a problem with the illegal porn ban; people are actually being victimized there. This is where you are wrong. It is either all or it is not. You can't draw the line. Either information can free flow through your router or it can't. I can't really see it another way.
- austincheney 9y ago
  Google isn't limiting the data flowing through your router. They are limiting content they are willing to store on their servers. Those two are worlds apart and Google can do whatever they choose within the boundaries defined by their terms of service.
  - wcunning 9y ago
    But that distinction makes Google no longer a DMCA safe harbor. Once you start censoring content not actively illegal, you are now liable for any copyright infringement on your site.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      The condition for safe harbor is not knowing that the content is infringing, not that you censor your content or not. YouTube has always censored content (e.g. porn).
ryanwaggoner 9y ago
I don't have a problem with the illegal porn ban; people are actually being victimized there. ... Information should not be banned, and it's a futile effort to try to do that. The internet is too big. If "information should not be banned" and it doesn't work anyway, why are you OK with banning illegal stuff? Also, to point out the obvious, it's OK to not want something on your site.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> But bottom line, it's Google's service and I guess they can do what they want with it. By the same token, everyone else can also do whatever they want. Including publicly criticizing Google for removing lawful information, advocating that everyone stop using their services until they change their policy, then using, promoting or creating competing services that don't censor, etc.
- chii 9y ago
  > advocating that everyone stop using their services until they change their policy, then using, promoting or creating competing services that don't censor, etc. except that due to youtube and google's near monopoly on consumers, none of this is going to happen. This is why google can choose to censor (or in fact, do whatever the fuck they want), because they know their customers (i mean products) don't have anywhere else to go to.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    There is a fair argument that Google has market power in e.g. search advertising. If you want to buy search advertising from somebody else, good luck ever reaching as many people. The idea that they have a monopoly in email or video hosting is ridiculous. They have a thousand competitors and it's easy for customers to switch. They still have a huge slice of those markets for the same reason Microsoft used to have a huge slice of the browser market -- they're the default on the most popular OS (once Windows, now Android). But Mozilla et al took a huge chunk out of Microsoft's browser share after customers got sick of all of Microsoft's anti-user behavior. Because people will stay with the defaults unless they have a reason to switch. But if you do give them a reason, like banning legitimate content they want to view and create, that's another story. And the more people switch, the better the alternatives get and the easier it is for more people to join them.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

JshWright 9y ago
CodysLab is another educational channel having significant issues with strikes.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rocqua 9y ago
  That is true, but it is less obvious of an example. I could see a very careful person actually taking issue with some of his videos. Less so with the other videos.
  - chii 9y ago
    what issues can be had with Cody'sLab videos? They are completely educational, and in the parts that are dangerous, he clearly warns of it, and also tells you how to do it safely.
    - DanBC 9y ago
      CodysLabs is an odd example. Some of the stuff is poorly set up. He's injured himself several times making videos, and it's only luck that he hasn't had a serious injury. He teaches poor habits and bad practice. But, even with all that, he is educational for people with the attention span to watch. He does a minimal amount of "blowing shit up", and even that tends to be small amounts of explosion with lots of explanation. I think it's weird that Youtube would take that channel down because most people aren't going to have the patience to watch it, and they're not going to copy it. Compare that to this fucking idiot, who has a huge and young audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNgIWj8ZM0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeNgIWj8ZM0
      - amvalo 9y ago
        Cody drank cyanide for fun -- twice. Definitely not a safety oriented channel
slig 9y ago
It's really a shame. These channels (+ Cody's) produce awesome content that I'm sure inspire a lot of kids and teens to study STEM.
jotm 9y ago
Well, damn, here I thought UK ISP's denying access to drug-discussing forums is bad. So much information and education just taken away by idiots (or maybe it's on purpose).

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

zxcba23sdf23 9y ago

The species through its official bodies has a right to take action against self-harm. The revolutionary war was a reaction to what were then perceived to be unjust theft. An entire war over expropriation of economic effort. Tighter enforcement and policing of content and weapons that pose a real threat to family stability (come on things go nuts when you lose someone, now lose them in a ridiculous mass shooting?) Regardless of the stats, I am not swayed by rigorous math -- nothing in science says we have to abide it, just as much as nothing in science says we have to reach for a Bible to solve problems.

csomar 9y ago

> I don't have a problem with the illegal porn ban; people are actually being victimized there. This is where you are wrong. It is either all or it is not. You can't draw the line. Either information can free flow through your router or it can't. I can't really see it another way.

austincheney 9y ago
Google isn't limiting the data flowing through your router. They are limiting content they are willing to store on their servers. Those two are worlds apart and Google can do whatever they choose within the boundaries defined by their terms of service.
- wcunning 9y ago
  But that distinction makes Google no longer a DMCA safe harbor. Once you start censoring content not actively illegal, you are now liable for any copyright infringement on your site.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    The condition for safe harbor is not knowing that the content is infringing, not that you censor your content or not. YouTube has always censored content (e.g. porn).

ryanwaggoner 9y ago

I don't have a problem with the illegal porn ban; people are actually being victimized there. ... Information should not be banned, and it's a futile effort to try to do that. The internet is too big. If "information should not be banned" and it doesn't work anyway, why are you OK with banning illegal stuff? Also, to point out the obvious, it's OK to not want something on your site.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> But bottom line, it's Google's service and I guess they can do what they want with it. By the same token, everyone else can also do whatever they want. Including publicly criticizing Google for removing lawful information, advocating that everyone stop using their services until they change their policy, then using, promoting or creating competing services that don't censor, etc.

chii 9y ago
> advocating that everyone stop using their services until they change their policy, then using, promoting or creating competing services that don't censor, etc. except that due to youtube and google's near monopoly on consumers, none of this is going to happen. This is why google can choose to censor (or in fact, do whatever the fuck they want), because they know their customers (i mean products) don't have anywhere else to go to.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  There is a fair argument that Google has market power in e.g. search advertising. If you want to buy search advertising from somebody else, good luck ever reaching as many people. The idea that they have a monopoly in email or video hosting is ridiculous. They have a thousand competitors and it's easy for customers to switch. They still have a huge slice of those markets for the same reason Microsoft used to have a huge slice of the browser market -- they're the default on the most popular OS (once Windows, now Android). But Mozilla et al took a huge chunk out of Microsoft's browser share after customers got sick of all of Microsoft's anti-user behavior. Because people will stay with the defaults unless they have a reason to switch. But if you do give them a reason, like banning legitimate content they want to view and create, that's another story. And the more people switch, the better the alternatives get and the easier it is for more people to join them.