YouTube and Reddit Banning Firearms Related Content

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by DooKey, Mar 22, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. crono15

    crono15 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    177
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006

    what do you by that.
     
  2. lcpiper

    lcpiper [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,565
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008

    He does have a point.
     
  3. Unoid

    Unoid [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,049
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    I would add that it's true a private entity can restrict however when they are in a dominant monopolistic position, infringing of rights does come into play. Youtube needs to be broken up. And reddit "the bastion of free speach" is full of utter crap.
     
    Madoc and GoldenTiger like this.
  4. Dead Parrot

    Dead Parrot 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,567
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    I do as well but I think the baker is an idiot for turning away a paying customer. Its a business, not a moral compass.
     
  5. Trinode

    Trinode n00b

    Messages:
    39
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2015
    I'm less concerned in the why Youtube thought it was ok to ban certain videos based on their political position, and more concerned they thought banning videos they do not like was an acceptable action to be taken at all.

    I don't know enough about Reddit or the gun sales subreddit to comment on. I would posit that facilitating personal gun sales is little more controversial than promoting sales through federally licensed firearm dealers.
     
  6. crono15

    crono15 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    177
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    You actually said it better than I did. That is what I was meaning to say. Yet, there are many other videos that can depict same thing and they get to like them. Now, for these private company, their platform is no longer neutral one. Their agendas become more clear.
     
  7. cyclone3d

    cyclone3d [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    13,103
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Unless it was government mandated.
     
  8. gonz480

    gonz480 n00b

    Messages:
    11
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2015

    A normal private company wouldn't have a problem. A private company thats CEOs, public messaging and marketing purports itself as a supporter of free speech could have a legal problem if they don't actually support it and actively suppress contentious or unpopular content that is legal. Especially one that has the influence to swing an election based on how it manipulates messaging to its users.

    I don't want to see social media regulated. I hope a viable alternative takes off. One that actually supports free speech and doesn't content filter based on user complaints.
     
    Spartacus and GoldenTiger like this.
  9. Nolan7689

    Nolan7689 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,429
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Now for the real important stuff, is Nerf still allowed??
     
  10. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,650
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    I see your point, and I agree that this has the potential to become a real problem, but it is not one that is covered by the first amendment.

    The exact text of the amendment is as follows:


    So, all it says is that congress shall make no law restricting the speech (and other things), and in this case, Congress isn't doing that.

    It would seem additional legislation over and beyond what the first amendment guarantees would be necessary in order to protect speech on 3rd party sites. Maybe classifying them as public utilities would give government the power needed to enforce this?

    That being said its also problematic, because if you do so, you may be forcing someone to carry content they find objectionable, which violates a whole other section of peoples rights, and usually isn't considered OK, unless you are dealing with a protected class of people who are being discriminated against.

    The legal implications here are significant, and any action here would likely wind up with the supreme court one way or another to be decided by people way more knowledgeable of constitutional law than me, your humble forum arguing engineer.
     
    MarkVI likes this.
  11. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    A platform where anyone can say and do anything sounds like a great idea. Until it's not.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
    IdiotInCharge likes this.
  12. mynamehere

    mynamehere [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,762
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    The key problem is that they don't know (or intentionally fail to differentiate) the difference between assembly and manufacture. The only manufacture of firearms I see is completing 80% lowers and frames.
    Just like their guidelines...it all depends on your interpretation.
     
  13. crono15

    crono15 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    177
    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006

    I never said that, gonz480 said that.
     
    heatlesssun likes this.
  14. Kinestron

    Kinestron [H]Lite

    Messages:
    101
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2018
    With the 2nd Amendment gone or neutered, you will have a difficult time defending the 1st.
     
  15. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    This is the kind of thing that sounds great in a historical context but in this day and age if someone says they're going to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights and fight YouTube, well, what?
     
  16. Galvin

    Galvin 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,695
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2002
    First it was banning ads of crypto. And I said that sets a bad precedent. Now we're banning gun stuff. You see where this going.
    Youtube, twitter, facebook, etc. Have so many users, that when they ban something. Its just as bad as if the govt banned it them selves.
     
  17. Briteball

    Briteball n00b

    Messages:
    49
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Well what about all the shows that are on youtube tv that have guns... lots of cop shows on tv these days
     
  18. Azphira

    Azphira [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,821
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    YouTube isn't like this yet though.

    man_file_1053469_MENS_Frozen_01_clockwork-orange_Photofest_clockwork_fr_1920b.jpg
     
  19. heatlesssun

    heatlesssun [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    44,157
    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    But the size of these companies also increases their liability and exposure when stuff goes south. This isn't a zero sum game.
     
    MarkVI likes this.
  20. N4CR

    N4CR 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,969
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    It is great. It's called imageboards.
     
  21. MavericK

    MavericK Zero Cool

    Messages:
    29,006
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    No, they banned any subreddits that conducted SALES of items like firearms/alcohol/etc. because they are unable to police that shit and make sure things are sold legitimately.

    Whether or not you agree with their actions, saying they just "banned guns" is a huge misrepresentation of what happened.
     
  22. velusip

    velusip [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,577
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
  23. Azphira

    Azphira [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,821
    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2003
    Just thinking, is the violation of the first amendment by proxy? Government makes liability so companies have to fear free speech and thus restrict it....
     
  24. dgingeri

    dgingeri 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,830
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Sorry, can't be done. The kit may not be defined as a "working firearm", but there is one key piece of an AR-15 that is considered a firearm and can't be sold without a background check.

    Stop the false information. Know the truth.
     
    Crackinjahcs likes this.
  25. raz-0

    raz-0 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,550
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Because public speech is a first amendment issue. And the internet is essentially the place where the bulk of public speech takes place. It is also, more than likely, to be determined to be a place of public accommodation, albeit a virtual place. That argument about "it isn't censorship if it isn't the government doing it" is a load of bullshit spewed by people who don't understand the history of the law.

    Granted, this is all at the edges of the first amendment and it's protections, but it is an area worthy of debate, especially because of the scale of the entities involved. This is where you get into the notion of the internet being a utility and FCC regulation and such. It's not clearly a first amendment issue, but it's also not NOT a first amendment issue. It can be argued either way, and we all really have a vested interest in how that pans out.
     
  26. dgingeri

    dgingeri 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,830
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
  27. DarthBeavis

    DarthBeavis 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,225
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    People who do not understand the Constitution are the problem. That includes the 1st and 2nd Amendment. You really should read up on it as you will be at a huge disadvantage otherwise. I think people have pointed your HUGE error with regard to the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Also read the Federalist Papers to understand the 2nd Amendment.
     
  28. DarthBeavis

    DarthBeavis 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,225
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    What part of GOVERNMENT do you not understand? Is your ISP run by the government? No? Then they are NOT restrained by the First Amendment.

    This thread makes me sad. What are schools teaching?
     
    MarkVI likes this.
  29. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,650
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    I'm by no means an expert, and I've never tried this, but a guy at work who hunts a lot was telling me how you could buy a fixture and some sort of blanks from them and create all the relevant parts yourself using just a regular drill, thus bypassing background checks.

    Once you did, you'd still be legally required to register it, I presume, but you'd still have a working firearm in your hands without having to have gone through the background checks.

    I have nothing to base this on other than his assertions, as I do not know enough about the innards of the AR15 to make heads or tails of the stuff I am seeing on that 80% Arms site, but he is pretty knowledgeable when it comes to firearms, and seemed pretty certain this workaround was real.
     
  30. velusip

    velusip [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,577
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    I think the banning of gundeals provided an interesting take on their own policy. "...may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services..."

    That's a broad use of the word solicit. I feel they could have rephrased that to clarify they also ban any info or link to external transactions/gifts of these goods/services.
     
  31. dgingeri

    dgingeri 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,830
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Can be done, yes, and as soon as it is caught, the person can, and probably will, be prosecuted for manufacturing firearms without a permit, which is a sentence of 20-40 years in federal prison.

    A semi-talented machine smith can manufacturer an AR upper receiver in a matter of half an hour from a block of aluminum, too. There is no avoid this aspect, with any gun. With a CnC machine, I could make an entire custom firearm. With simply a metal pipe and a pin, anyone with average intelligence could make a .22 firearm that would shoot. (A pop-gun) The same laws apply, though. Manufacturing a firearm without a license is a federally mandated minimum of 20 years in prison. If found to be done to specifically avoid background checks, it can be considered "egregious" and could end up with a sentence of up to 40 years.
     
    Crackinjahcs likes this.
  32. viper1152012

    viper1152012 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,025
    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Nope, Service Provider, not public utility..... You have no freedom here
     
  33. DarthBeavis

    DarthBeavis 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,225
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Wrong. The GOVERNMENT is NOT abridging your speech. Case law is pretty clear. ONLY when a private entity is acting as an AGENT of government can the First Amendment apply.
     
    Madoc likes this.
  34. SomeoneElse

    SomeoneElse [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,832
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2007
    This is just yet another brick in the wall of the media agenda. Propaganda at its finest, everyone talks about North Korea being suppressed. This country is well down the road into the same thing, our freedom has eroded so far from where we once were. It must suck for those who live in fear every single day......
     
  35. DarthBeavis

    DarthBeavis 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,225
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    You Tube can ban you from posting ANY thing for ANY reason and you have NO recourse under the First Amendment. Period. Not even debatable. Disagree. Try posting, see it taken down,and then sue. Let's see how far you get.
     
    Jim Kim likes this.
  36. variant

    variant Gawd

    Messages:
    785
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    The government provides certain liability protections to large social media websites under the CDA on conditions they don't start censoring stuff.
     
  37. dgingeri

    dgingeri 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,830
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Yes, the first amendment is phrased as such:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

    It applies only to Congress and the Federal government, and the agencies of that government. It does no apply to private groups, companies, or persons. It technically doesn't even apply to state governments, as phrased, but case law has expanded that to include state governments.

    It's funny, too, all the amendments except the second in the first ten apply directly to the Federal government, and are only extended to state governments through case law over the next 50 years after the adoption of the Constitution. Yet, the second amendment is specifically stated "shall not be abridged", as if to state that it applies to ALL entities, including state, local, and even private parties. Technically, ALL the "gun free" zones are in violation of the second amendment, no matter if they are a matter of private property or not. It is simply that the right to bear arms "shall not be abridged".
     
  38. Well, that's silly, and overkill. The VAST majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. Gun-related vids can be very instructive, reading subreddits about guns, ditto. This is not the problem, and it won't amount to anything but the smallest of speed bumps for mentally sick people from planning their shooting sprees.
     
    FrgMstr and Armenius like this.
  39. Armenius

    Armenius I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital

    Messages:
    19,176
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2014
    1st Amendment issue or not, free speech must be absolute or else there is no free speech. When private entities control all the speech platforms, what difference does it make whether or not the government is involved?

    Besides that point, this was a gross overreaction to the recent passing of the FOSTA (Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act). Left-leaning organizations such as these just probably took the opportunity to lump firearms with their actions.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2018
    Master_shake_ likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.