5 ms·

They have removed ALOT of gun channels as well. Most of the bigger Gun channels now just talk about news / reviews not really educational for that it is moved

by syshum 6y ago

They have removed ALOT of gun channels as well. Most of the bigger Gun channels now just talk about news / reviews not really educational for that it is moved to BitChute or other YT Alternatives

kace91 6y ago
I had never heard of bitchute. Going in, the first recommended video is: "A Jew asks why do people deny The Holocaust?...and admits the 6 Million figure is fake" from the account "Holocaust Lies Explained". Soo... yeah. Par for the course for "uncensored alternative" sites I guess?
- syshum 6y ago
  Yes uncensored sites will have distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content. That is a GOOD thing, and a FEATURE not a deterrent. You do not defeat bad ideas, and repugnant ideologies with suppression of speech. Sorry it does not work that way no matter how much the Authoritarian Left and the Authoritarian Right would love it to
  - gamacodre 6y ago
    You don't defeat bad ideas by promoting them either; you defeat them with shame, i.e. consequences for being willfully ignorant or acting like a jackass. But the internet rarely delivers meaningful feedback to the folks that craft this type of "distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content." Now, you might be the sort of person that would choose to live with a group of sadistic trolls for the edification that might result. I suspect most humans would react badly to that type of environment; our psychology is not well adapted to a constant barrage of persuasive deception and emotional manipulation. Personally, I hope this latest crop of trashtube sites is driven offline and into bankruptcy; the sooner, the better.
    - vetinari 6y ago
      You can't defeat bad ideas with shaming; shaming means you don't have an argument and are approaching the topic as a belief. You cannot persuade others with your beliefs. You can defeat ideas only with better, well argumented ideas.
      - gamacodre 6y ago
        I used to believe that as well. But it seems that even a "well argumented" idea can get very little traction unless the circumstances are right, i.e. your interlocutor doesn't care much about the topic. There was some study about this a little bit ago, where pointing out problems with an erroneous but established "fact" just caused people to dig further into their position, even after the "fact" their position was supposedly based on was proved to be completely and irredeemably false. This is the problem with letting idiots and hucksters push out garbage "facts" - they build communities that are uninterested in counter-arguments. It doesn't even matter if the "facts" are somehow eventually refuted, because the attitudes informed by them have already hardened. And, the only way I can think of to prevent those idiots and hucksters from being so effective is to introduce some kind of social restraint - thus, shame.
  - kace91 6y ago
    The point was not "there are repugnant ideas". The point was "the first thing shown to me, on the front page, are repugnant ideas". Big difference. Free alternative sites always seem to end up being just, or at least mainly, a place for hosting extremists. call it the voat effect if you will. And to be clear, I do think that having that kind of content being offered a platform is not, at all, good. But I don't think you need to agree with that to agree with the specific point I was making.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    And the reason those sites will never see mainstream success is because the selection bias is too strong. They all are inherently seeded by highly disproportionate numbers of users that are outcasts from other services, and that sets the tone of the community from the start.
  - raarts 6y ago
    Also, to know what ideas you oppose and why, you need to be able to look into them.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
I really miss the discussions of manufacturing improvements and design revisions that Ian Mc-whatever has in his older videos. Even if he's uploading elsewhere he's tailoring he newer stuff to the YT rules so he's not discussing manufacturing as much. Which is stupid when you consider that so much of the stuff he deals with is historical curiosities from over a century ago and incremental manufacturing innovations of the industrial revolution was what spurred the creation of a lot of the stuff he deals with.
- progre 6y ago
  > Ian Mc-whatever We just call him Gun Jesus
- rgblambda 6y ago
  They don't let him talk about manufacturing? That makes no sense. Though I guess he's just reverse engineering the rules so it could be some random thing he's mentioned a few times when discussing manufacturing that YouTube takes offence to.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Well he probably could and defend it since it's historical education but Youtube's enforcement is so sporadic and heavy handed and the appeals process is so broken it's not worth the risk.

by syshum 6y ago

They have removed ALOT of gun channels as well. Most of the bigger Gun channels now just talk about news / reviews not really educational for that it is moved to BitChute or other YT Alternatives

kace91 6y ago

I had never heard of bitchute. Going in, the first recommended video is: "A Jew asks why do people deny The Holocaust?...and admits the 6 Million figure is fake" from the account "Holocaust Lies Explained". Soo... yeah. Par for the course for "uncensored alternative" sites I guess?

syshum 6y ago
Yes uncensored sites will have distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content. That is a GOOD thing, and a FEATURE not a deterrent. You do not defeat bad ideas, and repugnant ideologies with suppression of speech. Sorry it does not work that way no matter how much the Authoritarian Left and the Authoritarian Right would love it to
- gamacodre 6y ago
  You don't defeat bad ideas by promoting them either; you defeat them with shame, i.e. consequences for being willfully ignorant or acting like a jackass. But the internet rarely delivers meaningful feedback to the folks that craft this type of "distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content." Now, you might be the sort of person that would choose to live with a group of sadistic trolls for the edification that might result. I suspect most humans would react badly to that type of environment; our psychology is not well adapted to a constant barrage of persuasive deception and emotional manipulation. Personally, I hope this latest crop of trashtube sites is driven offline and into bankruptcy; the sooner, the better.
  - vetinari 6y ago
    You can't defeat bad ideas with shaming; shaming means you don't have an argument and are approaching the topic as a belief. You cannot persuade others with your beliefs. You can defeat ideas only with better, well argumented ideas.
    - gamacodre 6y ago
      I used to believe that as well. But it seems that even a "well argumented" idea can get very little traction unless the circumstances are right, i.e. your interlocutor doesn't care much about the topic. There was some study about this a little bit ago, where pointing out problems with an erroneous but established "fact" just caused people to dig further into their position, even after the "fact" their position was supposedly based on was proved to be completely and irredeemably false. This is the problem with letting idiots and hucksters push out garbage "facts" - they build communities that are uninterested in counter-arguments. It doesn't even matter if the "facts" are somehow eventually refuted, because the attitudes informed by them have already hardened. And, the only way I can think of to prevent those idiots and hucksters from being so effective is to introduce some kind of social restraint - thus, shame.
- kace91 6y ago
  The point was not "there are repugnant ideas". The point was "the first thing shown to me, on the front page, are repugnant ideas". Big difference. Free alternative sites always seem to end up being just, or at least mainly, a place for hosting extremists. call it the voat effect if you will. And to be clear, I do think that having that kind of content being offered a platform is not, at all, good. But I don't think you need to agree with that to agree with the specific point I was making.
- kube-system 6y ago
  And the reason those sites will never see mainstream success is because the selection bias is too strong. They all are inherently seeded by highly disproportionate numbers of users that are outcasts from other services, and that sets the tone of the community from the start.
- raarts 6y ago
  Also, to know what ideas you oppose and why, you need to be able to look into them.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

I really miss the discussions of manufacturing improvements and design revisions that Ian Mc-whatever has in his older videos. Even if he's uploading elsewhere he's tailoring he newer stuff to the YT rules so he's not discussing manufacturing as much. Which is stupid when you consider that so much of the stuff he deals with is historical curiosities from over a century ago and incremental manufacturing innovations of the industrial revolution was what spurred the creation of a lot of the stuff he deals with.

progre 6y ago
> Ian Mc-whatever We just call him Gun Jesus
rgblambda 6y ago
They don't let him talk about manufacturing? That makes no sense. Though I guess he's just reverse engineering the rules so it could be some random thing he's mentioned a few times when discussing manufacturing that YouTube takes offence to.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Well he probably could and defend it since it's historical education but Youtube's enforcement is so sporadic and heavy handed and the appeals process is so broken it's not worth the risk.