14 ms·

There is bit of a weird standard when it comes to censoring because of the nature of content, audience, culture and location. There is no perfect solution to th

There is bit of a weird standard when it comes to censoring because of the nature of content, audience, culture and location. There is no perfect solution to this problem. Example - If anyone shares gun videos on social network from a place where carrying guns is a normal practice it may not get censored that quickly or may not even get reported. This is because people feel it is very normal or part of their location specific culture. While on other end someone who maybe coming from an entirely different place or culture may find this offensive or a safety issue.

rubbingalcohol 8y ago
Where does YouTube censoring all videos with gun-assembly instructions fit into a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right? Is it considered justified because a certain portion of the population believes gun ownership shouldn't be a human right? If it is socially acceptable (ie. not specifically discussing "legal" or "good for business") to remove some kind of content because people don't agree with one part of the U.S. Constitution, what's to prevent the same logic from blocking other type of videos relating to human rights (such as videos promoting data privacy via VPN usage - because you know, child pornographers and terrorists do that)? The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. I've been thinking this for awhile now. There are certain systems which are somewhat hazy or flubbery by nature. Legal and political systems fit into this category. Systems of logic and mathematics have more sharply delimited values for truth or falsity. Science is more sharply delimited, but even here, you see some of the haziness creep in. Is this particular grain of sand Ediacaran or Cambrian? There may be no way of saying, one way or another. However, that also isn't of particular import, one way or another. Legal and political systems are particularly bad, since they tend to have very fuzzy distinctions combined with very significant consequences.
  - musage 8y ago
    > Systems of logic and mathematics have more sharply delimited values for truth or falsity. Within them sure, but they don't actually exist in a vacuum. It's like saying Sim City is better than the messy real world because it follows very simple rules 100% -- without that messy real world, there would be no Sim City either, the simulation is not really closed off from the physical world surrounding it. > From a philosophical viewpoint, the danger inherent in the new reality of mankind seems to be that this unity, based on the technical means of communication and violence, destroys all national traditions and buries the authentic origins of all human existence. This destructive process can even be considered a necessary prerequisite for ultimate understanding between men of all cultures, civilizations, races, and nations. Its result would be a shallowness that would transform man, as we have known him in five thousand years of recorded history, beyond recognition. It would be more than mere superficiality; it would be as though the whole dimension of depth, without which human thought, even on the mere level of technical invention, could not exist, would simply disappear. This leveling down would be much more radical than the leveling to the lowest common denominator; it would ultimately arrive at a denominator of which we have hardly any notion today. > As long as one conceives of truth as separate and distinct from its expression, as something which by itself is uncommunicative and neither communicates itself to reason nor appeals to "existential" experience, it is almost impossible not to believe that this destructive process will inevitably be triggered off by the sheer automatism of technology which made the world one and, in a sense, united mankind. It looks as though the historical pasts of the-nations, in their utter diversity and disparity, in their confusing variety and bewildering strangeness for each other, are nothing but obstacles on the road to a horridly shallow unity. This, of course, is a delusion; if the dimension of depth out of which modern science and technology have developed ever were destroyed, the probability is that the new unity of mankind could not even technically survive. Everything then seems to depend upon the possibility of bringing the national pasts, in their original disparateness, into communication with each other as the only way to catch up with the global system of communication which covers the surface of the earth. -- Hannah Arendt, "Men in Dark Times"
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right? Oh, easy. Even if owning a gun were actually a "human right", it wouldn't mean that everyone must be forced to allow you to speak your mind about this. The 2nd amendment isn't "right to bear arms and post videos on YT about it", and "talking about weapons" isn't a protected class. xkcd "showing the door" strip applies: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
  - drak0n1c 8y ago
    There are convoluted and litigious anti-discrimination laws in many states. The question of whether a private business can simply show customers the door is not so easy - especially when the reason is based on matters of belief or identity. For California where these tech companies are based it looks like there was a ruling in favor of your argument: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/baker-can-refuse-make-same-sex-wedding-cakes-judge-rules-n845501 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/baker-can-refuse-mak...
    - russdpale 8y ago
      Its pretty easy to get around these laws if you simply never state why you don't want to serve the customer. You don't have to serve anyone.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      > especially when the reason is based on matters of belief or identity. Yes, and that's why I talked about the protected categories in my post!
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Oh, easy. Even if owning a gun were actually a "human right" Self defense and self determination are human rights. xkcd "showing the door" strip applies That strip is one of the stupidest things Randall Monroe has ever done. For a society to work well, the letter of the law should be a minimum safety net. Someone assiduously supporting free speech only to the letter of the law is like someone assiduously being non-racist only to the letter of the law. As someone who grew up in a "hypo-minority" situation, let me tell you that people being non-racist only to the letter of the law can be pretty darned obnoxious. The future belongs to societies which can support a real marketplace of ideas. It's substantive testing of ideas which brings progress and creates wealth. If a society has to resort to oppression/force/intimidation to enforce its ideas, then it is effectively admitting it has lost to everyone but itself. The history of the 20th century shows this very clearly. It's repression and intellectual dishonesty which is the problem, and which creates the distrust that fuels the worst toxic extremists. It's this kind of extra-legal social repression that people once tried to use to keep homosexuals closeted and Jewish people out of the halls of power and influence. The future doesn't belong to merely those who can muster more force. It belongs to those who can muster the best principles.
- wjn0 8y ago
  > The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. History shows that in the context of policy, especially that of a non-democratic authority, it isn't always a fallacy. It seems absolutely absurd to me that YouTube should ban gun assembly videos. If the idea is to prevent "mass shooting"-type events (e.g. lone gunman, nonspecific victims targeted by social group), why would a website want to drive these videos further into the underground? It strikes me as sort of "selfish" - avoid responsibility, so a news anchor can't say "so-and-so learned how to assemble his AR-15 by watching videos on YouTube", much to the horror of the liberal retirees who still watch the news (/s). I hope it doesn't become a trend.
  - gnarbarian 8y ago
    Totally agree. Gun education, practice, and information make people with guns FAR SAFER. When I buy a new stock/trigger/bolt carrier group I sure as hell appreciate a video showing me how to properly install it. Hiding this information is the gun control equivalent of "abstinence only sex education".
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - yuchi 8y ago
      I have to agree with you — even if I am positively an anti-gun italian non-activist. There’s a little problem in the fact that those video promote the ownership of guns, and makes them socially acceptable, which could be stated as one of the reasons shootings happen.
      - gnarbarian 8y ago
        In most of the US gun ownership is socially acceptable and even celebrated. I think that's a good thing. If it were socially unacceptable we would have fewer people/representatives who were willing to stand up and support our gun rights publicly.
  - commandlinefan 8y ago
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >Where does YouTube censoring all videos with gun-assembly instructions fit into a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right? It fits as part of an international website including many countries that don't see things that way. That's the conundrum the post you're replying to is addressing.
  - 15155 8y ago
    Many dictatorial regimes don't find many rights that we enjoy in the United States as legitimate or legal. Should we, in the United States of America, censor content for our own just because they don't like it?
    - rickycook 8y ago
      i think the word we are looking for is “majority”. if the majority of the world thinks that gun ownership like the US has is dangerous (for those of you insulated from said rest of the world, this is the case), and the appropriate way to deal with it is to sensor the content, then you’re damn right a global site that provides that content should sensor it! i honestly don’t give a damn about your constitution; it doesn’t protect the majority of people in the world
      - stale2002 8y ago
        A majority of people can believe a lot of things. For example, the majority of people in Saudi Arabia believe that gay people should be stoned to death. I personally don't give any legitimatecy to majoritarianism. There are things that are right and things that are wrong, and this doesn't change because a majority of people don't think the same way.
      - tzahola 8y ago
        The “majority of the world” neither supports same-sex marriage. I suppose you’d be fine with removing that kind of content from YouTube as well, right?
        8y ago
- ReverseCold 8y ago
  > The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. If you can prove why x > y means y > z, then it isn't a fallacy. "If you start blocking one thing that doesn't fit your buisness values, you will likely block this other thing because it doesn't fit your buisness values." might not be fallacious. The issue is proving that link (kind of like induction).
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    > If you can prove why x > y means y > z ...let x=2,y=1,z=1. Gotta be more specific on those quantifiers ;-) More seriously, the issue is that "transitive causality", or whatever we want to call it, is sometimes not universally a good model of reality. It's not really a fallacy. It's just a method of reasoning for which there exist errant applications, and therefore you should "use with caution".
- jorvi 8y ago
  > Where does YouTube censoring all videos with gun-assembly instructions fit into a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right? Constitutional rights and human rights are a completely different beast, best not conflated. Straight from Wikipedia: ‘They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being", and which are "inherent in all human beings".’ As you can see owning a gun does not fit that description. Otherwise, is owning a car a human right as well? A computer? Edit: lovely, someone brought in his gunbros to brigade. This went from 1 to -4 in a span of a minute.
  - rubbingalcohol 8y ago
    "The right of the people ... shall not be infringed." The Constitution says very little about property rights, much less things like car ownership (and driving on public roads is more of a privilege)
    - russdpale 8y ago
      Dude, you act like some American dictator called you tube and told them to take the video down. What are you on about? This is another post from here and I think it sums it up: I think the word we are looking for is “majority”. if the majority of the world thinks that gun ownership like the US has is dangerous (for those of you insulated from said rest of the world, this is the case), and the appropriate way to deal with it is to sensor the content, then you’re damn right a global site that provides that content should sensor it! i honestly don’t give a damn about your constitution; it doesn’t protect the majority of people in the world. You tube markets to a global audience. You can always start your own video site free from censorship.
    - s2g 8y ago
      That's not an inalienable human right.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > As you can see owning a gun does not fit that description. Of course it does. The fundamental and inalienable individual right is self defence.
- komali2 8y ago
  Does the bill of rights enumerate human rights? I was under the impression it enumerated rights of people within the United States.
  - gnarbarian 8y ago
    Yes. > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ Then the Bill of Rights enumerates them edit: (not all of them, but important ones which are subject to abuse from the government).
    - s2g 8y ago
      The bill of rights enumerates certain rights, very explicitly stating that it doesn't enumerate all rights.
      - gnarbarian 8y ago
        Thank you. That is an important distinction. I think wikipedia defines it properly as "specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights"
    - komali2 8y ago
      Huh, I read it a different way >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 Given the context of militia and state, I read it more as a right of local governments to keep the means of self defense, not necessarily a "human right." Compare to the language in the UN Declaration on human rights: >Everyone is entitled to ... >All human beings... >Everyone has the right to... The difference being the second amendment is only viable within the context as an enumerated US law, whereas the UN Declaration of human rights enumerates rights that are inherent to existing as a human. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
- teawrecks 8y ago
  I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread conflating a refusal to monetize with removal of content. That's not the same thing at all. If companies had infinite time and resources, advertising companies wouldn't be a thing, companies would work directly with every content creator they were interested in. An ideal advertising company simulates this
  - teawrecks 8y ago
    (cont.) ...so if a company doesn't want to sponsor content about guns, the legality of guns is irrelevant. YouTube hooks product creators with content creators they want to work with, that's their business. Now if YouTube doesn't want to host certain content at all, even if no product creators want to advertise with them, THAT seems ethically questionable.
  - ErikVandeWater 8y ago
    I agree in part with them and in part with you. I agree with you that they are using language loosely and it harms their point - let's not forget, hosting content is not free. YouTube is still subsidizing every video that is de-monetized. Howevery, I think their overall point is that there should be a standard principle regarding content. There should not be "levels" of content where content that advocates a particular view, or comes from a particular group of people is deprioritized, unless that view is heinous or the content itself is dangerous. YouTube wants to be treated a public forum, so should not hold some views over others unless it is actively harmful.
- haZard_OS 8y ago
  >The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. I'm going to be just a little pedantic here and point out that the Slippery Slope fallacy is indeed always a fallacy, it's just that not every argument based on a so-called slippery slope is a fallacy. The fallacy is in the failure to demonstrate that the "first step" leads inexorably to the "final step" which is, of course, portrayed as a step people generally wish to avoid. If one can demonstrate a plausible line of reasoning connecting the first step to the last step, no Slippery Slope fallacy has been committed.
  - hunter2_ 8y ago
    Ah, I think what you're saying is this caveat in the Wikipedia article: > In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome.
- dclowd9901 8y ago
  In your specific case, that information could be material to causing or inflicting great deals of harm. It's no different than a bomb assembly video (which is illegal). If, perhaps, owners of guns were concerned about gun assembly videos being taken down, they could help the general public with efforts to reduce incidents of mass gun violence.
  - spaginal 8y ago
    We view education and information as a pathway to solving social issues now until firearms are involved, then ignorance and stigmatizing turns back into the solution of choice again, yet the issue continues and worsens in certain demographics with this approach. Imagine if we continued to say that the only way to stop teen pregnancy or the spread of hiv is a ban on sexual activity for teenagers and homosexuals. Gun owners want to solve the problem as well, they simply dont agree with the assertion that the only way there is to violate our rights, plunge gun ownership into a dark corner, and paint it as a sin.
  - 15155 8y ago
    > It's no different than a bomb assembly video (which is illegal). Where is this illegal? This most certainly isn't illegal in the United States of America. Showing vs inciting. > If, perhaps, owners of guns were concerned about gun assembly videos being taken down, they could help the general public with efforts to reduce incidents of mass gun violence. Abstinence-only sex education and marijuana prohibition have both worked so well! Let's increase accidental death during gun assembly by purposefully hiding information! That will stop em! In reality: you just do not like guns. That's okay! But hiding perfectly-legal, informative, educational information? You've now violated the First as means to spite the Second.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    > It's no different than a bomb assembly video (which is illegal). Those videos are illegal? I use to build them for fun (homemade fireworks). As long as you aren't trying to harm someone or someone's property, you are allowed to do such (well at least in my state). Fireworks are basically very pretty bombs (and anyone who plays with fireworks would do well to remember they are explosives and they can harm you if you aren't careful).
- r00fus 8y ago
  Gun ownership in the US is a constitutional right, not a human (fundamental) right. Other rights in the US Bill of Rights are more globally accepted as inalienable human rights in all/most jurisdictions. And why would banning assembly videos on a private platform considered going against the 2nd amendment?
  - 15155 8y ago
    > And why would banning assembly videos on a private platform considered going against the 2nd amendment? It's definitely "against the Second Amendment" but it isn't a _violation_ of it - only the government can do that. Hopefully we can enact legislation to prevent companies who take these stances from receiving any kind of government monies.
    - DougWebb 8y ago
      YouTube Banning assembly videos is not "against the Second Amendment" at all. Your right to own a gun is not affected in any way by not being able to watch or post a video about assembling the gun. Worst case, you'll need to read (or write) a manual. It's not even against the First Amendment, because that's only about the government suppressing political speech. Besides, the First Amendment only guarantees your right to speak; it doesn't guarantee that you'll have a platform to spread your speech, or that anyone will listen to you.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    Gun ownership is a Constitutional right because it a fundamental human right. But you may have a different view of what counts as fundamental human rights. And a representative of the Chinese Government would have an even different view. One might even ask if fundamental human rights even exist, since they are constructs of societies and are relative between different societies.
greymeister 8y ago
I think that's why having one company/group/government trying to filter that correctly for everyone as a bad solution. Different groups will have different standards, and a "one-size-fits-worst" solution seems inevitable.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  There is something robust about the way moderation on reddit is handled "by group." This allows for a kind of free market of moderation ideas. The situation on reddit isn't perfect, of course, but such distribution/division might be a step in a better direction for society.
commandlinefan 8y ago
It's the "moderator's dilemma" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7xGcyB7RNdfDe5vxL/moderator-s-dilemma-the-risks-of-partial-intervention https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7xGcyB7RNdfDe5vxL/moderator-...: if you censor/moderate _anything_, you can be held responsible for _everything_.
otakucode 8y ago
There is a perfect solution to the problem, in fact. Because YouTube is not a broadcast medium and instead viewing a video can only happen if the user takes active role in launching it (if the autoplay functionality is problematic it is easily disabled). Those who are offended or disgusted by certain content must actively seek it out. They must look for it, and then choose to view it. At that point, if society were to ascribe responsibility for the emotional response of the viewer with the viewer themselves rather than the creator, the problem is solved.
thankthunk 8y ago
> There is bit of a weird standard when it comes to censoring because of the nature of content, audience, culture and location. There is no perfect solution to this problem. That's why the general internet ideal was no censorship until fairly recently. Pretty much the "hacker/tech/EFF" was the standard "you have the right to be offended". > Example - If anyone shares gun videos on social network from a place where carrying guns is a normal practice it may not get censored that quickly or may not even get reported. What we used to say on the internet was that if you don't like it, then don't consume it. If you don't like porn, guns, marijuana, etc, you don't have to visit the sites or click the video. But there is a small vocal contingent who wants to decide what everyone wants to consume. > While on other end someone who maybe coming from an entirely different place or culture may find this offensive or a safety issue. It's why one should take a principled stance. As a liberal, it's what we learned in civics/philosophy 101 class. I'm genuinely surprised that the media, elites and their liberal allies have been pushing so hard for censorship. It feels like a betrayal of the core principles of the US in particular and the hopes we had for the internet in general.
- userbinator 8y ago
  That's why the general internet ideal was no censorship until fairly recently. Pretty much the "hacker/tech/EFF" was the standard "you have the right to be offended". Alternatively, "offense is in the mind of the beholder." The other notable quote is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
  - UncleMeat 8y ago
    But weirdly advocates only seem to come out of the woodwork to defend speech when it isn't supporting minority groups.
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > That's why the general internet ideal was no censorship until fairly recently. I disagree. To point out the obvious, the Santa Clara Principles are being published now. Not 20 years ago. Going all the way back to BBSs, it was common for there to exist many forums with varying levels of moderator involvement. I never, ever saw the EFF complain about BBSs or web forums that moderated user content. Can you provide one example of EFF complaining about censorship on a private discussion website from the pre-Google/Facebook era? They were much more focused on the freedom to host one's own forum/BBS, and preventing the government from compelling a BBS/forum to go offline. They never took explicit issue with a forum owner's choice to censor. So, actually, I think it's the other way around. Network effects in the eternal September have caused EFF et al. to adopt a new stance on censorship in very large communities. Actually, this is kind of obvious; otherwise, why weren't the Santa Clara Principles published 20 years ago and applied to BBS/forums/newgroups? > It feels like a betrayal of the core principles of the US in particular and the hopes we had for the internet in general. Again, I disagree. It was the eternal September that killed many hopes for the internet in general. Many were hopelessly optimistic about what it would mean to have "everyone" online. Everything else is just the natural progression from that initial disappointment.
danschumann 8y ago
People freak out about gun review videos, done responsibly at shooting ranges, but then watch a childish gambino video where he executes a person graphically, and praise him as a genius. Do they not think a video like that will encourage actual people to commit actual violence? Advertising works, and the cg video is basically an advertisement for graphic violence.
- meheleventyone 8y ago
  Isn’t the latter because fictional violence, even if extremely realistic hasn’t actually been shown to cause or encourage real violence? It makes even less sense in the Childish Gambino case because the context of the video and song is anti-gun violence. In that light it makes sense that people who are able to separate fictionalised violence that makes a point from freaking out about gun reviews on YouTube without that being contradictory?
  - danschumann 8y ago
    I think it depends entirely on the narrative structure in which the fictional violence is portrayed. I'm talking about when it is glamorized, done by the hero, frivolously, randomly, without consequence, gratuitously, used as a depiction of power, etc. People who feel lacking in power in life might resort to violence as a means of feeling a sense of significance, if they have no other viable means of purpose.

rubbingalcohol 8y ago

Where does YouTube censoring all videos with gun-assembly instructions fit into a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right? Is it considered justified because a certain portion of the population believes gun ownership shouldn't be a human right? If it is socially acceptable (ie. not specifically discussing "legal" or "good for business") to remove some kind of content because people don't agree with one part of the U.S. Constitution, what's to prevent the same logic from blocking other type of videos relating to human rights (such as videos promoting data privacy via VPN usage - because you know, child pornographers and terrorists do that)? The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy.

stcredzero 8y ago
The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. I've been thinking this for awhile now. There are certain systems which are somewhat hazy or flubbery by nature. Legal and political systems fit into this category. Systems of logic and mathematics have more sharply delimited values for truth or falsity. Science is more sharply delimited, but even here, you see some of the haziness creep in. Is this particular grain of sand Ediacaran or Cambrian? There may be no way of saying, one way or another. However, that also isn't of particular import, one way or another. Legal and political systems are particularly bad, since they tend to have very fuzzy distinctions combined with very significant consequences.
- musage 8y ago
  > Systems of logic and mathematics have more sharply delimited values for truth or falsity. Within them sure, but they don't actually exist in a vacuum. It's like saying Sim City is better than the messy real world because it follows very simple rules 100% -- without that messy real world, there would be no Sim City either, the simulation is not really closed off from the physical world surrounding it. > From a philosophical viewpoint, the danger inherent in the new reality of mankind seems to be that this unity, based on the technical means of communication and violence, destroys all national traditions and buries the authentic origins of all human existence. This destructive process can even be considered a necessary prerequisite for ultimate understanding between men of all cultures, civilizations, races, and nations. Its result would be a shallowness that would transform man, as we have known him in five thousand years of recorded history, beyond recognition. It would be more than mere superficiality; it would be as though the whole dimension of depth, without which human thought, even on the mere level of technical invention, could not exist, would simply disappear. This leveling down would be much more radical than the leveling to the lowest common denominator; it would ultimately arrive at a denominator of which we have hardly any notion today. > As long as one conceives of truth as separate and distinct from its expression, as something which by itself is uncommunicative and neither communicates itself to reason nor appeals to "existential" experience, it is almost impossible not to believe that this destructive process will inevitably be triggered off by the sheer automatism of technology which made the world one and, in a sense, united mankind. It looks as though the historical pasts of the-nations, in their utter diversity and disparity, in their confusing variety and bewildering strangeness for each other, are nothing but obstacles on the road to a horridly shallow unity. This, of course, is a delusion; if the dimension of depth out of which modern science and technology have developed ever were destroyed, the probability is that the new unity of mankind could not even technically survive. Everything then seems to depend upon the possibility of bringing the national pasts, in their original disparateness, into communication with each other as the only way to catch up with the global system of communication which covers the surface of the earth. -- Hannah Arendt, "Men in Dark Times"
ucaetano 8y ago
> a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right? Oh, easy. Even if owning a gun were actually a "human right", it wouldn't mean that everyone must be forced to allow you to speak your mind about this. The 2nd amendment isn't "right to bear arms and post videos on YT about it", and "talking about weapons" isn't a protected class. xkcd "showing the door" strip applies: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  There are convoluted and litigious anti-discrimination laws in many states. The question of whether a private business can simply show customers the door is not so easy - especially when the reason is based on matters of belief or identity. For California where these tech companies are based it looks like there was a ruling in favor of your argument: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/baker-can-refuse-make-same-sex-wedding-cakes-judge-rules-n845501 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/baker-can-refuse-mak...
  - russdpale 8y ago
    Its pretty easy to get around these laws if you simply never state why you don't want to serve the customer. You don't have to serve anyone.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    > especially when the reason is based on matters of belief or identity. Yes, and that's why I talked about the protected categories in my post!
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Oh, easy. Even if owning a gun were actually a "human right" Self defense and self determination are human rights. xkcd "showing the door" strip applies That strip is one of the stupidest things Randall Monroe has ever done. For a society to work well, the letter of the law should be a minimum safety net. Someone assiduously supporting free speech only to the letter of the law is like someone assiduously being non-racist only to the letter of the law. As someone who grew up in a "hypo-minority" situation, let me tell you that people being non-racist only to the letter of the law can be pretty darned obnoxious. The future belongs to societies which can support a real marketplace of ideas. It's substantive testing of ideas which brings progress and creates wealth. If a society has to resort to oppression/force/intimidation to enforce its ideas, then it is effectively admitting it has lost to everyone but itself. The history of the 20th century shows this very clearly. It's repression and intellectual dishonesty which is the problem, and which creates the distrust that fuels the worst toxic extremists. It's this kind of extra-legal social repression that people once tried to use to keep homosexuals closeted and Jewish people out of the halls of power and influence. The future doesn't belong to merely those who can muster more force. It belongs to those who can muster the best principles.
wjn0 8y ago
> The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. History shows that in the context of policy, especially that of a non-democratic authority, it isn't always a fallacy. It seems absolutely absurd to me that YouTube should ban gun assembly videos. If the idea is to prevent "mass shooting"-type events (e.g. lone gunman, nonspecific victims targeted by social group), why would a website want to drive these videos further into the underground? It strikes me as sort of "selfish" - avoid responsibility, so a news anchor can't say "so-and-so learned how to assemble his AR-15 by watching videos on YouTube", much to the horror of the liberal retirees who still watch the news (/s). I hope it doesn't become a trend.
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  Totally agree. Gun education, practice, and information make people with guns FAR SAFER. When I buy a new stock/trigger/bolt carrier group I sure as hell appreciate a video showing me how to properly install it. Hiding this information is the gun control equivalent of "abstinence only sex education".
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - yuchi 8y ago
    I have to agree with you — even if I am positively an anti-gun italian non-activist. There’s a little problem in the fact that those video promote the ownership of guns, and makes them socially acceptable, which could be stated as one of the reasons shootings happen.
    - gnarbarian 8y ago
      In most of the US gun ownership is socially acceptable and even celebrated. I think that's a good thing. If it were socially unacceptable we would have fewer people/representatives who were willing to stand up and support our gun rights publicly.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
boomboomsubban 8y ago
>Where does YouTube censoring all videos with gun-assembly instructions fit into a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right? It fits as part of an international website including many countries that don't see things that way. That's the conundrum the post you're replying to is addressing.
- 15155 8y ago
  Many dictatorial regimes don't find many rights that we enjoy in the United States as legitimate or legal. Should we, in the United States of America, censor content for our own just because they don't like it?
  - rickycook 8y ago
    i think the word we are looking for is “majority”. if the majority of the world thinks that gun ownership like the US has is dangerous (for those of you insulated from said rest of the world, this is the case), and the appropriate way to deal with it is to sensor the content, then you’re damn right a global site that provides that content should sensor it! i honestly don’t give a damn about your constitution; it doesn’t protect the majority of people in the world
    - stale2002 8y ago
      A majority of people can believe a lot of things. For example, the majority of people in Saudi Arabia believe that gay people should be stoned to death. I personally don't give any legitimatecy to majoritarianism. There are things that are right and things that are wrong, and this doesn't change because a majority of people don't think the same way.
    - tzahola 8y ago
      The “majority of the world” neither supports same-sex marriage. I suppose you’d be fine with removing that kind of content from YouTube as well, right?
      - 8y ago
ReverseCold 8y ago
> The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. If you can prove why x > y means y > z, then it isn't a fallacy. "If you start blocking one thing that doesn't fit your buisness values, you will likely block this other thing because it doesn't fit your buisness values." might not be fallacious. The issue is proving that link (kind of like induction).
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > If you can prove why x > y means y > z ...let x=2,y=1,z=1. Gotta be more specific on those quantifiers ;-) More seriously, the issue is that "transitive causality", or whatever we want to call it, is sometimes not universally a good model of reality. It's not really a fallacy. It's just a method of reasoning for which there exist errant applications, and therefore you should "use with caution".
jorvi 8y ago
> Where does YouTube censoring all videos with gun-assembly instructions fit into a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right? Constitutional rights and human rights are a completely different beast, best not conflated. Straight from Wikipedia: ‘They are commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being", and which are "inherent in all human beings".’ As you can see owning a gun does not fit that description. Otherwise, is owning a car a human right as well? A computer? Edit: lovely, someone brought in his gunbros to brigade. This went from 1 to -4 in a span of a minute.
- rubbingalcohol 8y ago
  "The right of the people ... shall not be infringed." The Constitution says very little about property rights, much less things like car ownership (and driving on public roads is more of a privilege)
  - russdpale 8y ago
    Dude, you act like some American dictator called you tube and told them to take the video down. What are you on about? This is another post from here and I think it sums it up: I think the word we are looking for is “majority”. if the majority of the world thinks that gun ownership like the US has is dangerous (for those of you insulated from said rest of the world, this is the case), and the appropriate way to deal with it is to sensor the content, then you’re damn right a global site that provides that content should sensor it! i honestly don’t give a damn about your constitution; it doesn’t protect the majority of people in the world. You tube markets to a global audience. You can always start your own video site free from censorship.
  - s2g 8y ago
    That's not an inalienable human right.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > As you can see owning a gun does not fit that description. Of course it does. The fundamental and inalienable individual right is self defence.
komali2 8y ago
Does the bill of rights enumerate human rights? I was under the impression it enumerated rights of people within the United States.
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  Yes. > "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/ Then the Bill of Rights enumerates them edit: (not all of them, but important ones which are subject to abuse from the government).
  - s2g 8y ago
    The bill of rights enumerates certain rights, very explicitly stating that it doesn't enumerate all rights.
    - gnarbarian 8y ago
      Thank you. That is an important distinction. I think wikipedia defines it properly as "specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights"
  - komali2 8y ago
    Huh, I read it a different way >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 Given the context of militia and state, I read it more as a right of local governments to keep the means of self defense, not necessarily a "human right." Compare to the language in the UN Declaration on human rights: >Everyone is entitled to ... >All human beings... >Everyone has the right to... The difference being the second amendment is only viable within the context as an enumerated US law, whereas the UN Declaration of human rights enumerates rights that are inherent to existing as a human. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
teawrecks 8y ago
I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread conflating a refusal to monetize with removal of content. That's not the same thing at all. If companies had infinite time and resources, advertising companies wouldn't be a thing, companies would work directly with every content creator they were interested in. An ideal advertising company simulates this
- teawrecks 8y ago
  (cont.) ...so if a company doesn't want to sponsor content about guns, the legality of guns is irrelevant. YouTube hooks product creators with content creators they want to work with, that's their business. Now if YouTube doesn't want to host certain content at all, even if no product creators want to advertise with them, THAT seems ethically questionable.
- ErikVandeWater 8y ago
  I agree in part with them and in part with you. I agree with you that they are using language loosely and it harms their point - let's not forget, hosting content is not free. YouTube is still subsidizing every video that is de-monetized. Howevery, I think their overall point is that there should be a standard principle regarding content. There should not be "levels" of content where content that advocates a particular view, or comes from a particular group of people is deprioritized, unless that view is heinous or the content itself is dangerous. YouTube wants to be treated a public forum, so should not hold some views over others unless it is actively harmful.
haZard_OS 8y ago
>The slippery slope fallacy isn't really a fallacy. I'm going to be just a little pedantic here and point out that the Slippery Slope fallacy is indeed always a fallacy, it's just that not every argument based on a so-called slippery slope is a fallacy. The fallacy is in the failure to demonstrate that the "first step" leads inexorably to the "final step" which is, of course, portrayed as a step people generally wish to avoid. If one can demonstrate a plausible line of reasoning connecting the first step to the last step, no Slippery Slope fallacy has been committed.
- hunter2_ 8y ago
  Ah, I think what you're saying is this caveat in the Wikipedia article: > In a non-fallacious sense, including use as a legal principle, a middle-ground possibility is acknowledged, and reasoning is provided for the likelihood of the predicted outcome.
dclowd9901 8y ago
In your specific case, that information could be material to causing or inflicting great deals of harm. It's no different than a bomb assembly video (which is illegal). If, perhaps, owners of guns were concerned about gun assembly videos being taken down, they could help the general public with efforts to reduce incidents of mass gun violence.
- spaginal 8y ago
  We view education and information as a pathway to solving social issues now until firearms are involved, then ignorance and stigmatizing turns back into the solution of choice again, yet the issue continues and worsens in certain demographics with this approach. Imagine if we continued to say that the only way to stop teen pregnancy or the spread of hiv is a ban on sexual activity for teenagers and homosexuals. Gun owners want to solve the problem as well, they simply dont agree with the assertion that the only way there is to violate our rights, plunge gun ownership into a dark corner, and paint it as a sin.
- 15155 8y ago
  > It's no different than a bomb assembly video (which is illegal). Where is this illegal? This most certainly isn't illegal in the United States of America. Showing vs inciting. > If, perhaps, owners of guns were concerned about gun assembly videos being taken down, they could help the general public with efforts to reduce incidents of mass gun violence. Abstinence-only sex education and marijuana prohibition have both worked so well! Let's increase accidental death during gun assembly by purposefully hiding information! That will stop em! In reality: you just do not like guns. That's okay! But hiding perfectly-legal, informative, educational information? You've now violated the First as means to spite the Second.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  > It's no different than a bomb assembly video (which is illegal). Those videos are illegal? I use to build them for fun (homemade fireworks). As long as you aren't trying to harm someone or someone's property, you are allowed to do such (well at least in my state). Fireworks are basically very pretty bombs (and anyone who plays with fireworks would do well to remember they are explosives and they can harm you if you aren't careful).
r00fus 8y ago
Gun ownership in the US is a constitutional right, not a human (fundamental) right. Other rights in the US Bill of Rights are more globally accepted as inalienable human rights in all/most jurisdictions. And why would banning assembly videos on a private platform considered going against the 2nd amendment?
- 15155 8y ago
  > And why would banning assembly videos on a private platform considered going against the 2nd amendment? It's definitely "against the Second Amendment" but it isn't a _violation_ of it - only the government can do that. Hopefully we can enact legislation to prevent companies who take these stances from receiving any kind of government monies.
  - DougWebb 8y ago
    YouTube Banning assembly videos is not "against the Second Amendment" at all. Your right to own a gun is not affected in any way by not being able to watch or post a video about assembling the gun. Worst case, you'll need to read (or write) a manual. It's not even against the First Amendment, because that's only about the government suppressing political speech. Besides, the First Amendment only guarantees your right to speak; it doesn't guarantee that you'll have a platform to spread your speech, or that anyone will listen to you.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  Gun ownership is a Constitutional right because it a fundamental human right. But you may have a different view of what counts as fundamental human rights. And a representative of the Chinese Government would have an even different view. One might even ask if fundamental human rights even exist, since they are constructs of societies and are relative between different societies.

greymeister 8y ago

I think that's why having one company/group/government trying to filter that correctly for everyone as a bad solution. Different groups will have different standards, and a "one-size-fits-worst" solution seems inevitable.

stcredzero 8y ago
There is something robust about the way moderation on reddit is handled "by group." This allows for a kind of free market of moderation ideas. The situation on reddit isn't perfect, of course, but such distribution/division might be a step in a better direction for society.

commandlinefan 8y ago

It's the "moderator's dilemma" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7xGcyB7RNdfDe5vxL/moderator-s-dilemma-the-risks-of-partial-intervention https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7xGcyB7RNdfDe5vxL/moderator-...: if you censor/moderate _anything_, you can be held responsible for _everything_.

otakucode 8y ago

There is a perfect solution to the problem, in fact. Because YouTube is not a broadcast medium and instead viewing a video can only happen if the user takes active role in launching it (if the autoplay functionality is problematic it is easily disabled). Those who are offended or disgusted by certain content must actively seek it out. They must look for it, and then choose to view it. At that point, if society were to ascribe responsibility for the emotional response of the viewer with the viewer themselves rather than the creator, the problem is solved.

thankthunk 8y ago

> There is bit of a weird standard when it comes to censoring because of the nature of content, audience, culture and location. There is no perfect solution to this problem. That's why the general internet ideal was no censorship until fairly recently. Pretty much the "hacker/tech/EFF" was the standard "you have the right to be offended". > Example - If anyone shares gun videos on social network from a place where carrying guns is a normal practice it may not get censored that quickly or may not even get reported. What we used to say on the internet was that if you don't like it, then don't consume it. If you don't like porn, guns, marijuana, etc, you don't have to visit the sites or click the video. But there is a small vocal contingent who wants to decide what everyone wants to consume. > While on other end someone who maybe coming from an entirely different place or culture may find this offensive or a safety issue. It's why one should take a principled stance. As a liberal, it's what we learned in civics/philosophy 101 class. I'm genuinely surprised that the media, elites and their liberal allies have been pushing so hard for censorship. It feels like a betrayal of the core principles of the US in particular and the hopes we had for the internet in general.

userbinator 8y ago
That's why the general internet ideal was no censorship until fairly recently. Pretty much the "hacker/tech/EFF" was the standard "you have the right to be offended". Alternatively, "offense is in the mind of the beholder." The other notable quote is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- UncleMeat 8y ago
  But weirdly advocates only seem to come out of the woodwork to defend speech when it isn't supporting minority groups.
throwawayjava 8y ago
> That's why the general internet ideal was no censorship until fairly recently. I disagree. To point out the obvious, the Santa Clara Principles are being published now. Not 20 years ago. Going all the way back to BBSs, it was common for there to exist many forums with varying levels of moderator involvement. I never, ever saw the EFF complain about BBSs or web forums that moderated user content. Can you provide one example of EFF complaining about censorship on a private discussion website from the pre-Google/Facebook era? They were much more focused on the freedom to host one's own forum/BBS, and preventing the government from compelling a BBS/forum to go offline. They never took explicit issue with a forum owner's choice to censor. So, actually, I think it's the other way around. Network effects in the eternal September have caused EFF et al. to adopt a new stance on censorship in very large communities. Actually, this is kind of obvious; otherwise, why weren't the Santa Clara Principles published 20 years ago and applied to BBS/forums/newgroups? > It feels like a betrayal of the core principles of the US in particular and the hopes we had for the internet in general. Again, I disagree. It was the eternal September that killed many hopes for the internet in general. Many were hopelessly optimistic about what it would mean to have "everyone" online. Everything else is just the natural progression from that initial disappointment.

danschumann 8y ago

People freak out about gun review videos, done responsibly at shooting ranges, but then watch a childish gambino video where he executes a person graphically, and praise him as a genius. Do they not think a video like that will encourage actual people to commit actual violence? Advertising works, and the cg video is basically an advertisement for graphic violence.

meheleventyone 8y ago
Isn’t the latter because fictional violence, even if extremely realistic hasn’t actually been shown to cause or encourage real violence? It makes even less sense in the Childish Gambino case because the context of the video and song is anti-gun violence. In that light it makes sense that people who are able to separate fictionalised violence that makes a point from freaking out about gun reviews on YouTube without that being contradictory?
- danschumann 8y ago
  I think it depends entirely on the narrative structure in which the fictional violence is portrayed. I'm talking about when it is glamorized, done by the hero, frivolously, randomly, without consequence, gratuitously, used as a depiction of power, etc. People who feel lacking in power in life might resort to violence as a means of feeling a sense of significance, if they have no other viable means of purpose.