
YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans - IronWolve
Today Youtube has started to roll out bans on gun sales, accessories and howto channels.  Reddit followed with multiple bans on content including sales of multiple products.<p>Youtube policy update.<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.google.com&#x2F;youtube&#x2F;answer&#x2F;7667605?hl=en<p>Intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales (e.g., 
private sales by individuals) or links to sites that sell these items. These accessories include but may not be limited to accessories that enable a firearm to simulate automatic fire or convert a firearm to automatic fire (e.g., bump stocks, gatling triggers, drop-in auto sears, conversion kits), and high capacity magazines (i.e., magazines or belts carrying more than 30 rounds).<p>Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers&#x2F;suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above.<p>This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities.<p>Shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications.<p>Reddit policy update.<p>https:&#x2F;&#x2F;np.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;announcements&#x2F;comments&#x2F;863xcj&#x2F;new_addition_to_sitewide_rules_regarding_the_use&#x2F;<p>We want to let you know that we have made a new addition to our content policy forbidding transactions for certain goods and services. As of today, users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services, including:<p><pre><code>  * Firearms, ammunition, or explosives;
  * Drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or any controlled   substances 
  * Paid services involving physical sexual contact;
  * Stolen goods;
  * Personal information;
  * Falsified official documents or currency</code></pre>
======
Rebelgecko
This is very dismaying to see

I have used Youtube in the past for seeing how to install gun accessories, put
guns together, how to fix malfunctions, etc. Watching those videos has made me
a more knowledgeable, and hence more responsible gun owner. This is an
especially large blow for people who are part of niche communities, like
reloading ammo for 100+ year old rifles. A lot of historical content will be
lost.

The new youtube rules will also get rid of entertainment channels like
Hickock45 and Demolition Ranch (the proceeds of which help subsidize the
creator's other channel, Vet Ranch)

I'm also pretty disappointed in Reddit. They made a new admin account
yesterday to anonymously post the new rules. I believe this is the first time
that's been done for an announcement, usually they're posted by a CEO or a
specific individual. /r/gundeals was a fantastic community and I don't know if
anything comparable exists elsewhere online. There were lots of links posted
by regular users, but when dealers posted themselves they really made an
effort to engage with buyers. Crappy vendors/products were usually called out
in the comments. Other than optics, I can't imagine why reddit would ban
strictly law-abiding communities while allowing illegal and toxic ones to
flourish.

~~~
gtlondon
We seem to be moving from an era when internet censorship was considered bad,
to one where "It's OK, we're just censoring this".

I have no sympathy towards gun use - but the principle of large monopolies
applying their own morals to censor content seems wrong.

~~~
slivym
I disagree with this, I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their
own morals. The problem I have is that they're having their cake and eating
it.

To me there are two models:

\- You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to
law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site.

\- You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for
the content on your site.

Reddit & Youtube want a little from (A) a little from (B). They want the
revenue from being a neutral platform, and the control of being a media
company to moderate content for PR purposes.

The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are
endorsing everything they don't ban. So for example, at Reddit, Pizzagate is
now officially endorsed as a reasonable point of view that Reddit believes is
a valid opinion and is worthy of investigation. We know that reddit endorses
pizzagate, because reddit moderates their content and decided to allow
pizzagate conspiracies.

~~~
this_user
The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more
objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes
to attract them. Take 4chan as an example: For years they were struggling to
find anyone who would want to advertise there, and that is not entirely
surprising.

Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would
appear they are attempting to make the site more palatable for institutional
investors by cleaning up.

~~~
gnu8
I wonder how we can effectively punish Reddit for this. If we can cut into
their advertising revenue and derail their IPO, that might force them to
reverse their position.

~~~
pkaye
You can stop using Reddit. That will drive down their advertising revenue.

~~~
Scoundreller
If they can have the best of both worlds, then so can I.

I’ve enabled my ad blocker on Reddit.

Maybe I’ll suggest having it added to our corporate web filters.

------
prepend
The more social media applies arbitrary rules to speech, the more likely they
are to be regulated as common carriers. This puts a lot of restrictions and
“the Internet” was against it.

But these items are not illegal speech (although sometimes).

These are private orgs and can legally ban whatever they want. However, phone
companies are private too, but they have regulation controlling what is and is
not allowed.

The issue is that banning legal speech is a slippery slope. I imagine how I
would respond if YouTube banned howtos on ripping DVDs. They can legally do
that and it’s based on an illegal activity.

This also opens the door for countries with restrictive laws to forbid speech
about what is illegal in China, etc.

~~~
dangoor
It seems to me that social media aren't the same as common carriers in that
people can very easily switch from one to another.

I saw a headline saying that one gun video channel on YouTube was moving its
videos to another site. They will no longer have access to YouTube's audience,
but they are still free to post their videos in a publicly-accessible fashion.

~~~
exabrial
Just curious, what site is that?

Cody's Lab and AVE, two of the most informative educational channels, already
have a crap ton of problems with YouTube (granted AVE pokes the bear with a
stick). With the #DeleteFacebook movement in full swing, I'd love to see a
#LoseTheTube and go to a platform that promotes free expression but can
actually classify stuff correctly (giving the user the power to filter what
they don't want to see).

~~~
dangoor
I had to go back to find the article, because it was just a headline that
appeared in the sidebar of an article I was reading this morning.

This wouldn't appear to be a general solution, they're moving to Pornhub:

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/leticiamiranda/a-gun-demo-
youtube-c...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/leticiamiranda/a-gun-demo-youtube-
channel-with-24-million-subscribers-is)

(The slug in that URL is wrong. They changed the headline to be "24 million
views".)

------
toomuchtodo
This is due to US Section 230 legislation changing this week, spurred by the
actions and legal battles of backpage.com

[https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/59...](https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2018/03/21/591622450/section-230-a-key-
legal-shield-for-facebook-google-is-about-to-change)

"The Backpage saga has galvanized lawmakers to act on bills amending Section
230 with the goal of stemming online sex trafficking. The legislation allows
more state and civil lawsuits against websites related to online sex
trafficking, for "knowingly assisting, supporting or facilitating" crimes.

The Senate passed the bill Wednesday, sending it to President Trump for his
signature. The White House has supported the legislation."

And the most important quote:

"If the technology companies do not wake up to their responsibilities — and
use the power 230 gives them — to better protect the public against sex
trafficking and countries that try to hack our political system, you bet that
companies can expect (this legislation) will not be the last challenge for
them."

~~~
djrogers
How does Section 230 relate to banning videos about completely legal firearms
accessories?

~~~
dragonwriter
Section 230 protects against all kinds of collateral and contributory
liability that a publisher of information might have, not just direct
liability for publishing content that is illegal without regard to context.

Weakening 230 means that online services are closer to needing to treat
everything that crosses the platform as the kind of legal risk it would be if
it were produced and published directly by the company, considering, including
in the worst case of conduct that people might allege it contributed to, with
the consideration of how attractive the firm is as a deep pockets piñata for
lawsuits where the other side has little to lose and much (even if it is
unlikely) to gain.

Which is the whole problem 230 was adopted to solve, but conduct by publishers
_who were found liable even with 230 in place, proving it doesn 't need to be
weakened to address the conduct_ has, nevertheless, provided a pretext for an
attack on it.

------
IronWolve
I read the craft beer forums got hit hard, since they cant sell alcohol. Also
cigars trading and buy clubs are now banned.

The finally got all the dark net, and idtheft, shoplifting subs.

Sexsells is still up, but thats a political discussion sub, not for
advertising.

I know my local WA_Gun sub is purging all its trade/sell posts, since they
allowed it, since all transactions are done at a dealer under law here. Gun
forums are in massive purge if they allowed any swaps or sales. (More work!)

For youtube, no idea the scope of the channels banned, but looks like all
legal accessories that are "Fun" are banned from youtube.

30 rounds max? Really, its still legal in many states.

BTW, Pot still seems to be legal everywhere on Youtube and Reddit, even
r/WeedDeals is still up, so thats interesting rule breaker they allow.

AND now Weeddeals is banned.

The ban process is rolling on still.

Also, appears the banned subs are moving over to voat.

[http://www.voat.co/v/gundeals](http://www.voat.co/v/gundeals)

~~~
soneil
Not just selling alcohol, "transactions". Which means no more swaps. Trading
local brews or homebrews are fun communities, and they just got wiped out with
zero warning.

~~~
JorgeGT
Plenty of alcohol is gifted in Reddit's own gift exchange:
[https://www.redditgifts.com/gallery/simple-pleasures-
exchang...](https://www.redditgifts.com/gallery/simple-pleasures-
exchange/gift/whiskey-12/), I wonder if they will ban their own sponsored
exchange.

------
SCHiM
There they go again, the big nanny corporations. They are part of the social
fabric of our society. The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there.

Saying that they have a right to censor their platform is OK, if this was the
case from the outset. As it is, once these platforms were free and
unrestricted. It's only after they grew big, are became protected by network
effects that allows them to do stuff like this.

This is censorship plain and simple, it's disgusting, risk-averse behavior
that displays a debasing obedience to safe money and corporate interests.

I don't know exactly why this angers me so much, party because it is a bait &
switch like I said above. Party because it futile, users will simply go
somewhere else. Partly because much of the content that I like to watch and
learn about these days is probably on some goody two-shoe's shit list. I
despise that they get to decide these things on platforms that have profited
to much from an unrestricted and free Internet and online culture. They are
hating the players, not the game.

~~~
aninhumer
>The same rules of freedom of speech should apply there.

If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you
would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with, which
is itself a violation of freedom of speech.

And this is the problem with a simplistic idea like "Freedom of Speech". It is
not possible for everyone to hear everyone else's point of view, so some
speech will always be restricted. Therefore, our society inevitably makes
decisions about which speech to amplify and which to silence, and just because
that decision is not being made directly by government, does not mean it is
not being made.

In practice when people complain about censorship, what they mean is that
these implicit decisions are not being made in a way that they like. And in
saying this, I'm not trying to imply that their criticisms are wrong, or that
they're being disingenuous or malicious in trying to change those decisions.
I'm saying this to reframe the debate, because framing it as if access to
speech can only be controlled by intentional malicious restriction prevents us
from questioning the ways in which society _already_ controls access to
speech.

The most common way speech is restricted is economic. The rich can afford to
amplify their speech, and the poor cannot. We have historically accepted this
without question as an economic reality, but then the rise of social media
gave us a glimpse of a world where economic restrictions are not as big a
factor, and so when these restrictions start to re-assert themselves we
question them.

People call it "censorship" and demand "free speech", because this is the most
pervasive set of ideas we have to understand this dissonance, but the reality
is we are always censored, and speech is never truly free, and unless we
accept that, we will not be able to ask real questions about what kind of
societal discourse we truly value.

~~~
humanrebar
> If you want freedom of speech to apply in privately controlled media, you
> would have to compel them to distribute content they do not agree with,
> which is itself a violation of freedom of speech.

People can advocate for social norms and different ethical frameworks without
advocating for legal or regulatory changes.

> ...speech is never truly free, and unless we accept that, we will not be
> able to ask real questions about what kind of societal discourse we truly
> value.

They are called ideals because we cannot perfect reality, not because they are
unimportant. There's nothing wrong with forming consensus about how things
_should_ work and then only doing what is reasonable to force that vision on
each other. I don't see what part of that gets in the way of asking "real
questions".

~~~
aninhumer
>People can advocate for social norms and different ethical frameworks without
advocating for legal or regulatory changes.

Yes, but unless you're considering _some_ means of achieving those social
norms, even if that's just social pressure, it's unlikely to change anything.
And when people do actually advocate means of changing the norms of discourse,
people who don't like the proposed changes will call it censorship.

>They are called ideals because we cannot perfect reality, not because they
are unimportant. There's nothing wrong with forming consensus about how things
should work

I agree. The point I'm trying to make is that in practice "Freedom of Speech"
is not actually a very coherent ideal.

If we just mean the government should not directly intervene to prevent
speech, that's a reasonable ideal, and relatively few people actually disagree
with that. But when people try to consider other ways in which speech is
controlled, they still call it "Freedom of Speech", even when arguing for
contradictory things.

And I'm arguing that the reason for these contradictions is that the debate
tends to be framed in terms identifying speech restrictions and acting to
remove them, rather than asking broader questions about the _inevitable_ ways
in which speech is amplified or silenced, and how we should structure
discourse within those limitations.

~~~
humanrebar
> "Freedom of Speech" is not actually a very coherent ideal.

Sure it is. The ideal is that better ideas, not power, are the best response
to ideas someone doesn't like. But there are certainly exceptions where power
_is_ needed to counter acutely harmful speech like "don't yell fire in a
crowded theater" and "don't post stolen passwords".

Governments and corporations just have different interests and different
amounts and kinds of power. So we have different norms and rules for what
governments and corporations ought to do. But the general principle is the
same.

~~~
aninhumer
> The ideal is that better ideas, not power, are the best response to ideas
> someone doesn't like.

But what does that _actually_ mean in terms of how we structure discourse?
"Better ideas" will do nothing if people are never exposed to them, so
presumably we would like to structure things so they are.

Obviously we can't just identify the "better" ideas and amplify them, because
the point is that people should identify them themselves. But if we don't
amplify anything, it's likely people will not be exposed to them at all.

So perhaps we want to amplify things such that people are exposed to lots of
different ideas? But everyone's ideas are slightly different, and we can't
amplify all of them equally. Should we choose a selection of ideas, and
amplify the best examples of them? How do we decide which ideas, and which are
the best examples?

Or perhaps you have some other idea? I'm not trying to dismiss all the
possibilities here, I'm just pointing out that statements like "better ideas,
not power" get treated as simple and obviously correct, but are actually
extremely complex when you get into details. And we quickly find that people
understand these supposedly guiding principles in very different ways.

~~~
chillwaves
It makes sense when you use the term censorship to apply to something like the
government, which has a monopoly on violence and can literally jail or kill
the people being censored and can apply that standard universally.

It does not make sense to apply it to someone's private property, especially
when people are free to continue their speech somewhere else.

Summed up elsewhere, they are not being denied the right to say a certain
thing, just the right to say it in a specific place (Reddit or Youtube).

What these people call 'censorship' is more accurately described as 'house
rules'.

~~~
sheepmullet
> Summed up elsewhere, they are not being denied the right to say a certain
> thing, just the right to say it in a specific place (Reddit or Youtube).

YouTube has been running at a loss for over a decade. This has allowed it to
become a monopoly and have undue influence on policing speech.

Censorship like this is an abuse of their monopoly privilege. The most
appropriate free market solution is for the government to forcibly split
YouTube off into a seperate company and let it compete in the marketplace.

In addition we can remove safe harbor provisions and start holding them
responsible for the shady other content they don't remove.

~~~
chillwaves
The most compelling argument is that Reddit and Youtube cannot pretend to be
content agnostic hosts if they are actively censoring. Either they take
responsibility for their content or not.

------
lettergram
There are _so_ many ways to make a leathel weapon I can't begin...

If I take my car (a Jeep Grand Cherokee) and ram it into a crowd - I'm
confident that can take out more people than I can with a gun, knife, probably
even bomb.

Point being, I understand not facilitating trade, but for the love of god,
videos? You really want to push the right over the edge?

We need guns. Legally, in the U.S. it's our right - one of the first and most
protected rights. The ability to defend yourself and country in the face of
tyrany. Look at what happened in Ukraine, Syria, etc. A government doesn't
fuck with a populace that has guns, so it increases stability. When you don't
have the ability to defend your rights, you don't have rights anymore.

Further, violence isn't associated with guns - it's associated with people
being suppressed or by mental issues. The weather is more associated with
murder than guns...

I even understand trying to reduce ways to kill massive amounts of people
easily. But again, I have a car, I know how to make chlorine gas, so on and so
forth.

Address the actual problem and stop making this political. We know you're
afraid of guns - that's fine. I'm affraid of dogs, but I'm not going to
support banning them (look at them, they are built to kill things human size).

Stop talking about mass murders and start talking about tragedies, do a black
out on mass murders names. That'd probably fix the issue in time. Then teach
everyone about gun safety, how to use them, the dangers, etc. I'm telling you
right now, by removing these videos you're arming people, and exhasborating
the problem.

In fact, they just pushed me to buy a weapon.

\flip table and walk out

~~~
birksherty
General population don't practice ramming car into crowd. Those are not
hobbies. So, when mentally ill people want to cause harm they don't use those
methods. It does not normally comes to mind.

But, shooting is common. It's a hobby. A killing machine is normalized and it
becomes a culture. So, those mentally ill men feels completely normal to shoot
people when they go crazy.

Consider this: ramming car into objects becomes a hobby and people starts to
do that and take pride in it. They practice it every week. Then, those
mentally ills will start using those methods. And then government will ban
riding a car. But, this is not happening, just a hypothesis. You can replace
car with other objects you can think of here.

That's why countries where gun are banned for general population, does not
have mass murder by "common people" like USA. There are mentally ill people
everywhere, not just in USA. This is the point gun lovers don't understand.

~~~
saas_co_de
> That's why countries where gun are banned for general population, does not
> have mass murder by "common people" like USA

Sorry, but this is completely false.

I am not going to link to it for reasons of taste, but you can google
"encyclopedia dramatica high score" for a very thorough run down on mass
shootings. They occur globally and are by no means a phenomenon isolated to
the US.

~~~
enraged_camel
They occur, but far less frequently.

~~~
saas_co_de
That is correct but the parent claimed they did not occur at all, which is
false.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>the parent claimed they did not occur at all

I read the parent comment again and I don't see the phrase "at all" in there,
so the clear implication (at least to me) is that they meant mass murders by
gun happen far less often.

------
zombieprocesses
Are the big social media companies working together to ban content? What are
the odds that reddit and youtube ban similar content on the same day?

What a sad day. Reddit used to be something so special.

If only tech giants stood together and fought the corporate interests and NGOs
pushing censorship on them.

I've pretty much stopped using reddit because it's full of political nonsense
now anyways. If they are going to be banning subs every 6 months, what's the
point of reddit anymore?

~~~
Miner49er
This is probably all about advertising. Advertisers likely told these
platforms to get rid of this stuff or they'll stop using their sites to
advertise. It's possibly the same advertiser(s) on both sites asking for it.
That could explain why it's happening on the same day.

~~~
Zak
reddit already had a policy to show ads only on whitelisted subreddits, so it
would have taken something stronger than just "I don't want my ad shown next
to X".

~~~
themacguffinman
The reputation of reddit as a whole still matters to advertisers. An
advertiser might not want to advertise on The Daily Stormer, for example, even
if its ads are only shown on boards focused on cute animal photos.

------
Waterluvian
This continues to distract from the problem: systemic issues in American
culture and society that perpetually re-primes a powder keg of fear and
divisiveness.

That sounds wordy but I just don't have the skill to articulate my feelings.
There's just... something fundamentally wrong with how everything can feel so
zero-sum.

~~~
humanrebar
People don't value tolerance anymore. You only need tolerance for things you
don't like or understand.

Honestly, these sorts of things would work better if people acted locally
more. It's human to be upset about the Parkland incident. It's not appropriate
for a resident of Spokane to have strong feelings about Florida gun laws, let
alone actually lobby for them. _Discussing_ current events can be healthy, but
only to the extent that it helps us develop our thoughts about how our local
communities should work.

~~~
kerbalspacepro
You're confusing valuing tolerance for tolerating the intolerable.

~~~
humanrebar
It should be tolerable for someone to do something stupid "over there" to sell
their hipster beer if you're not involved. There are few issues where we have
to actually force a nation-wide conflict to decide on a particular outcome.

Whoever is doing it, convincing YouTube and Reddit to force internet-wide
struggles over these issues isn't choosing the right battles.

------
matt_s
This is a site about startups and tech and hacking.

Doesn't this sound like a golden opportunity for someone to stand up a video
service dedicated to this niche? Basically Google and Reddit are stating that
they don't want to lose ad revenue from other channels which they deem as more
important. Sure they are wrapping it up as being socially conscious or
something but it comes down to money. They are ad companies. Large ad firms
for large brands might pull their stuff if they keep firearm channels around.

A service for this niche would probably get all of the firearm ad revenue that
is leaving those platforms.

~~~
nickysielicki
Already exists and is popular: [http://www.full30.com](http://www.full30.com)

This is where most channels are intending to move.

------
toomanybeersies
I am concerned about how this will affect some educational channels.

A good example is Forgotten Weapons
([https://www.youtube.com/user/ForgottenWeapons](https://www.youtube.com/user/ForgottenWeapons)).
It's a vlog about interesting old firearms. These are often supplied for the
videos by an auction house that is selling them, so the guns are literally for
sale. But these are massively expensive, antique weapons, many of which
require a Federal Firearms Licence to own.

The same goes for manufacturing ammunition. Handloading is very common in the
precision shooting and hunting community. I don't see how it would facilitate
gun violence. I would suspect that less than 1% of firearms related murders
use hand loaded ammunition.

~~~
dageshi
I would suspect Forgottenweapons is screwed on youtube, he gets access to many
of the most interesting old guns at auction houses in return for publicising
the auctions. I'd be surprised if he can continue to do that under these
rules.

------
CydeWeys
Great, so /r/gundeals, which was nothing more than a sales aggregator for law-
abiding online retailers, is gone, but /r/the_donald, a vile, rampantly
bigoted, conspiracy-theory-peddling shithole, is allowed to stay?

~~~
SpikeDad
You added "law-abiding". How do you know this?

~~~
Rebelgecko
I checked /r/gundeals on nearly a daily basis and never saw anything
illegal[0]. I can't find the full rules to the sub anymore [1], but I believed
they banned posting gun sales that weren't through an FFL (which is actually
stricter than the law).

[0] there were products that aren't legal in certain states or cities, but
nothing that is illegal at the fed level.

~~~
MrMember
Yeah, gundeals was strictly dealers only. There were other subs (probably
banned now too) for legal person to person sales.

------
collias
This is the 21st century equivalent to burning books.

~~~
guelo
No, it's more like a bookstore not selling books they don't like.

~~~
dilap
Well, the subs themselves contained lots of content that was wiped without
warning, so in that sense it is like book burning.

Anyway, hopefully this'll all help stimulate the creation of actually-
censorship-resistant platforms.

------
EasyTiger_
It's absolutely stunning what's happened to Reddit. Between the speech
clampdowns like this and the soul-crushing amount of political astroturfing
going on it's clearly time for a new challenger (not Voat).

~~~
wan23
What's wrong with voat besides that it's a cesspool? It seems like it has all
the technical features that make Reddit work, and the lack of moderation that
makes it so disgusting is the result of not having speech clampdowns.

~~~
zbentley
> What's wrong with voat besides that it's a cesspool?

That. Past a certain point, the (not really/apocryphal) Voltaire "I may
disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"
argument results in really, really nasty communities for out-group people to
inhabit.

------
finnthehuman
Yet another step narrowing the internet towards the same bland and pre-
mediated window of thought seen as TV.

It's too bad.

------
TravelTechGuy
The second line in the Reddit list has been cut short. The full item says:

* Drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or any controlled substances (except advertisements placed in accordance with our advertising policy);

Meaning they are not against drugs and alcohol, if they can make a buck out of
it.

------
Pinckney
Amusingly, InRangeTV and C&RArsenal have both responded by using pornhub as an
alternate distribution platform.

~~~
MrMember
Pornhub has an opportunity here to branch out if they wanted to. They have the
infrastructure, they could open a more general use, non-pornographic video
hosting service.

~~~
Pinckney
From user Katie_Pornhub on reddit:

> We've joked about doing something like this in the past but now it's
> becoming more and more realistic and not so crazy. We'll see!

...

> It would be very difficult to be profitable, one of the main hesitations.

[https://www.reddit.com/user/Katie_Pornhub/overview](https://www.reddit.com/user/Katie_Pornhub/overview)

------
hartator
I suppose net neutrality doesn't have a wide definition. /s

------
el_cid
I'll stop using both reddit. HN is much better anyway. I'll be waiting for the
new wave of migration, as it was the case from digg to reddit initially.

------
emanreus
Such a shame. I don't own a gun, and I don't intend to. But I really
appreciate some channels and communities, especially those about historical
weapons that will be severely damaged by this.

------
leojg
The issue here is that the internet consist basically in monopolies. Its even
more alarming when you consider that many of those monopolies are in the hands
of just one company. (Google)

------
myt6fore
Forcing a community out carries a host of side-effects, example: a group moves
underground... Though knowing that, both reddit and youtube modelled their
business around reinforcement and segregation of biased groups (echo-
chambers), all the while promoting themselves as _the_ platforms of the free
(speech) internet. Turns out ousting such groups is okay- just like axing a
product, no?

------
jayess
So no links to licensed gun dealers either, then?

~~~
Rebelgecko
Nope, otherwise /r/gundeals wouldn't have been banned

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
So when they say “we want common sense things like background checks” then ban
avenues that require background checks - you can get an idea of what they
really want.

The truest words I’ve ever heard on the gun debate is that “they don’t hate
guns, they love guns, they surround themselves guns, it’s you they hate”.

------
vit05
It makes me unhappy to know that Reddit is choosing to make written rules
rather than choosing changes and improvements in its code. Having
opportunities to market and discuss products could be a great source of income
if well done. real opinion, honest and who is not a paid advertising on a
product and humanize the business relationship are very difficult questions to
find on the internet.Especially about artisans products and local productions.
__Craft beers __is a market that depends on suggestions and evaluations of
people. Facebook has been trying to provide a marketplace opportunity that
makes it easier for local and more human businesses. But is horrible. Reddit
could offer something in this vacuum. But they preferred to walk away.

------
jacksmith21006
Have zero problem with Reddit and Google doing this.

But Google footing the bill for Alex Jones on YouTube is wrong. No advertisers
then remove the content. Otherwise Google is spending money to support the alt
right and I have a problem with that.

Come on Google do not be a wimp and remove.

~~~
rphlx
A day may come when your politics differs from theirs, and then you will
discover the problem with aggressive political censorship.

In any case, I disagree with the premise that "no ads means no value" for YT.
Instead of ads they are just being compensated in other less direct ways.
Every video that you watch improves their profile of you, which can and will
be used for better ad targeting on other YT videos and other GOOG sites.

Furthermore, some people may come to YT for Alex Jones and then stay to watch
other monetized vids. Banning him would reduce that indirect ad rev.

~~~
jacksmith21006
My politics already are not consistent with Google paying the bills for the
Alex Jones content.

I wish no advertisers then Google boot it. You are a private organization so
you have zero reason you need to follow freedom of speech.

Google has the most valuable data there is with search data so there is no
value in profiles. Google is doing it as they think it is the right thing to
do but that is flawed, IMO. Just get rid of it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS2der4Ag_s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS2der4Ag_s)

------
SideburnsOfDoom
> As of today, users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any
> transaction or gift involving certain goods and services, including ...
> alcohol

So you can't offer someone a beer on reddit? Speaking as someone resident in
London, UK, that seems extreme.

What are the consequences for e.g.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Untappd/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Untappd/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Homebrewing/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonSocialClub/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LondonSocialClub/)

~~~
TheAdamist
/r/beertrade got banned. several beer groups that used to feature beer trades
have stopped allowing it, trying to avoid being banned.

------
jayess
Who wants to open a free-speech based forum site?

~~~
platinumrad
Voat already exists and already has a reputation for being both terrible and a
ghost town.

~~~
benmmurphy
The problem with voat is it basically the dregs of reddit so no-one
respectable wants to be associated with it. But if reddit bans enough stuff
that is semi-respectable and those people are able to hold their nose to
migrate to voat they might end up making voat respectable enough to overcome
their current poor reputation.

~~~
superkuh
It has reached that point. I'm moving to voat.

~~~
kadenshep
Let us know what kind of riveting discussions you have with racists, sexists,
and conspiracy theorists.

~~~
superkuh
You have to be the change you want to see. I have no problem with other people
holding views which I think are disgusting. The only thing I have a problem
with is censorship.

H. L. Mencken quote is applicable here, "The trouble with fighting for human
freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is
against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must
be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

 _edit_ , The one thing I'm finding I really don't like about Voat is that it
requires whitelisting Javascript from google domains in order to be able to
post.

~~~
kadenshep
I think we need more censorship quite frankly.

~~~
dingo_bat
I can think of no reasonable justification for that comment.

~~~
kadenshep
It's a satirical comment pointing out how ridiculous OP's platitude filled
comment is.

------
stesch
Fun fact: Had to read about the Reddit announcement in another sub because it
got downvoted.

An important announcement and most people don't see it unless they read a
subreddit that cares about it.

------
z0r
Just a coincidence, or any relationship to this story?
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-
censored-...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-
internet)

(discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641900](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16641900))

------
nailer
I wonder if they'll enforce this:

> * Paid services involving physical sexual contact;

Not 'sexual content' \- actual prostitution on Reddit is rare (though does
happen in terms of submission of film/video content by sex workers in places
where prostition is legal, eg in Australia).

But a large part of the sex subreddits are 'donate to my patreon and I'll give
you access to my private Snapchat' which is clearly:

a) 'paid services'

b) sex work.

------
jacksmith21006
After Google sees the record numbers of people protesting tomorrow against
guns they will see them and Reddit made the right decision.

I have 8 kids and me and wife and every one of my kids and many of their
friends will be out tomorrow. I have a blow horn ready.

Now why on Earth is Google paying the bills for Alex Jones and other alt right
figures as no advertisers? Google should just boot them when no revenues.

------
madengr
Is Youtube going to ban the many 80% lower videos? Will they ban my reloading
video? I'm a Youtube Red subscriber (I hate commercials). I think it's about
time I canceled my subscription.

Hell, at least they think a high capacity magazine is > 30 rounds. That won't
last long. Soon it will be anything > 5 rounds.

------
pbhjpbhj
Per the Reddit regulations, item 6:

Do they mean counterfeit currency ("Falsified official currency") or was there
supposed to be a comma, meaning all currency? That would rule out any sales
transaction as they "involve" currency.

Wasn't sale of counterfeit already ruled out?

------
logfromblammo
If YouTube could go ahead and also ban all those videos that take 30+ minutes
to convey the same information that I could have read from a text document
with static images in 2 minutes, that would be great.

------
Endy
So YouTube and Reddit are again saying that they're not okay with potentially
illegal conduct on their platform. The only difference is that this time
they're being much more direct and specific.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
The documents from the Snowden leaks were illegally obtained/distributed. How
long before that type of stuff is censored?

~~~
Endy
I'm not disagreeing with you, but at the same time, I don't think that likely
the first place to release a major government leak is on YouTube or Reddit.
There will always be some platform that's "freer" than some others, and there
will always be some that are more moderated.

This may smack of censorship in some ways, and if it was a government agency,
it certainly would be. Unfortunately, the core of the problem that a lot of
people are dancing around is that we've come to expect private businesses on
the Internet to care about anything other than their profits - but that's
asking them to violate their corporate morality of "profit at all costs".
They're not going to do that; we are either the customer or the product. This
is those private companies forcing their moderation policies, so as to
continue increasing their userbase and advertising income. Reddit and
YouTube/Google are essentially moderated private platforms and if they decided
that tomorrow all that could be posted on their sites are cat pictures, they
would be well within their rights to do that.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
>This may smack of censorship in some ways, and if it was a government agency,
it certainly would be

This is a common misconception. Nowhere is it defined that only a government
can conduct censorship.

------
zaarn
I wonder if Reddit will then ban subreddits relating to Cody's Lab. Maybe
youtube will finally ban Cody forever for showing us how to do explosives or
make mercury based ammunition in guns! hurray!

~~~
zrobotics
What I don't understand is how on earth king of random hasn't had the same
kinds of problems as cody's lab. I mean, the guy was arrested on explosives
charges, and his channel is very clearly aimed at a young audience, while
cody's channel doesn't seem particularly aimed at kids. And king of random has
to be one of the worst offenders i've seen for showing something dangerous w/o
explaining the hazards, such as exposed/poorly insulated mains connections or
frankly dangerous tool usage.

------
exabrial
The youtube ones "no demo of high capacity magazines" leaves me scratching my
head, what exactly is that accomplishing?

~~~
zrobotics
I wonder if that could be applied to film/tv. Is Rambo bannable? Can gaming
channels be banned?

------
thrownaway954
it was eventual. once you get big, you have to follow these guidelines or run
the risk of ad revenue disappearing or getting sued by the government. with
success comes the spotlight.

it will be sad the day when they ban r/pomeranians and other animal channels
cause it will be consider animal cruelty to put eyebrows on your pom or a
pickle behind your cat.

------
cjslep
How long until every site is like Oratyria, where users can freely censor each
other for everyone else?

------
Moodles
I understand the concern here on HN. However, what do we propose to do? At the
end of the day, these are private companies and they can enforce whatever
arbitrary guidelines they want within the laws of the countries they operate
in. E.g. if you were president Trump, would you do anything about it?
Genuinely curious.

~~~
kerkeslager
> However, what do we propose to do?

1\. Ideally, we don't allow corporations to control so much of our
communications.

2\. Barring 1, we should set the expectation that communication platforms
should protect their users' freedom of speech, with laws to enforce this.

> At the end of the day, these are private companies and they can enforce
> whatever arbitrary guidelines they want within the laws of the countries
> they operate in.

This is descriptive of reality but not prescriptive of how reality should be.
As far as I am concerned, corporations don't have rights, people do, and when
corporations start infringing on the rights of people (such as the right to
free speech) that's a problem.

~~~
Moodles
> Ideally, we don't allow corporations to control so much of our
> communications.

What laws would you propose to actually implement this?

I like free speech a lot as well, but it seems that boundaries get a bit fuzzy
here. E.g. if you were to run your own forum like HN, don't you think you
should be allowed to ban material from, say, KKK supporters?

~~~
kerkeslager
>> Ideally, we don't allow corporations to control so much of our
communications.

> What laws would you propose to actually implement this?

I didn't. Note that I didn't bring up laws until #2 in my previous post.

Programs which educated people on the dangers of social media the same way we
educate people around the dangers of drugs and alcohol might go toward
changing the way we treat these things in our culture, but on the other hand,
there's enough problems with i.e. DARE that they might be counterproductive.

> I like free speech a lot as well, but it seems that boundaries get a bit
> fuzzy here. E.g. if you were to run your own forum like HN, don't you think
> you should be allowed to ban material from, say, KKK supporters?

I think if you combine topic-based moderation with a vote system, you don't
need to ban KKK supporters. On a system like HN where all posts are in the
same data stream, racist posts are going to be downvoted fairly quickly. And
if someone posts racist comments on a post that isn't about race, it's off-
topic, so topic-based moderation says it's okay to delete it. It's not a
restriction on free speech--it's keeping topics organized to maintain the
functioning of the forum.

The key exception here is that when the topic _is_ race, then you don't delete
racist comments. This is uncomfortable, but racism doesn't simply go away
because you censor it--if anything, censoring a racist makes them feel they
are a martyr, and strengthens their beliefs. Instead, if you leave the posts
up, users will respond to them with the truth. Countering lies with truth is
more powerful than countering lies with censorship.

There's a tendency, I think, to see bigotry as a monolithic problem in a
person, without any reasoning behind it. But if you actually listen to bigots,
you'll often discover that behind the bigotry they have legitimate fears and
problems, and they think bigotry is the solution to those problems. Part of
the problem we have in the US that those who value equality and acceptance too
often see bigots as just bigots, and forget that they are people. If we see
them as just bigots, then they can't change, or aren't worth changing, and we
can discard them. But that hasn't worked--that's why we have the
administration we have now.

Instead, I think we need to see bigots as people, and try to address their
fears and problems with facts and truth. (Most) bigots don't benefit from
their bigotry--bigotry doesn't solve their problems, and prevents them from
seeing the real solutions. So if we can show them the real solutions to their
problems, they might see they don't need bigotry any more.

Civil rights leaders of the past understood that a conversation about race had
to be an actual conversation, not just shouting your ideals and silencing your
opponents. If you refuse to listen to bigots they will refuse to listen to
you. It's not us versus them, it's us _and_ them versus ignorance.

~~~
Moodles
Thanks for answering. I think we're going a bit off-topic here though. The
crux of what I'm getting at is, do you think that you should have the right to
moderate the content on your own platform that you built? Or should the
government decide what is and isn't allowed? E.g. maybe instead of you running
HN, maybe you run a content distribution network. As its own your network,
don't you think you should be allowed to decide which websites you host? Just
think of something that disgusts you: extreme right wing, left wing, religious
views, whatever. They're allowed in the US and they're using your platform.
You hate them. Should you be forced to offer your services to them?

Note Cloudflare had this exact issue: [https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-
terminated-daily-stormer/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-
daily-stormer/)

These aren't rhetorical questions by the way. I'm genuinely wondering what HN
thinks about this.

~~~
kerkeslager
> The crux of what I'm getting at is, do you think that you should have the
> right to moderate the content on your own platform that you built?

As I've said elsewhere on this thread, corporations don't have rights, people
do. A more clear way to say this might be: corporations only have rights
inasmuch as the people who make up the corporation have rights.

Even though you're not asking this rhetorically, the way you're asking this
question is an appeal to me as a person, and obviously I don't want to be
forced to host the content of people I disagree with.

But giant corporations are different from individuals. Either we should
prevent corporations from being too big to fail, or we should ensure that
their failures don't damage society. If a corporation owns a communication
platform the size of YouTube, they lose the right to choose what content they
host, because doing so infringes their users' rights to free speech, and their
users can't just go elsewhere because there are no other equivalent platforms.

Just because a corporation doesn't have a right to an ideology doesn't mean we
should not let any corporations have ideologies: we can let corporations have
ideologies as long as we make sure it isn't harmful to the rights of
individuals. The purpose of laws, as I see it, is to protect the weak from the
powerful. If I started Dave's Liberal Hosting Service with just a server and a
dream, and only hosted Democratic websites, that's fine, because such a
service doesn't become the platform of the internet that everyone is forced to
use--it's likely a conservative equivalent would arise even before I built a
significant business. Part of the problem is that services like Reddit and
YouTube have performed a bait-and-switch--they built themselves into major
platforms on a free-speech ideology, and then when they were too big to fail,
they turned into ideological platforms. Similarly in the realm of CDNs, groups
like Amazon, CloudFlare, Akamai, or Google absolutely don't get to have
ideologies. Anyone who wants to work on the internet has to work with these
CDNs, so if they don't allow free speech, there isn't free speech on the
internet.

> Note Cloudflare had this exact issue: [https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-
> terminated-daily-stormer/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-
> daily-stormer/)

Likewise, I'm also not saying free speech is the only right that needs
protection. With the CloudFlare case, the "Freedom of Speech < Due Process" is
a rational argument, at least. I don't have enough context to 100% decide for
myself if I agree with their decision, but I do tend to think that _if_ the
Daily Stormer was inciting violence, that's a higher priority than free
speech. But note how this _isn 't_ about CloudFlare's rights at all--it's
about protecting the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of
the people the Daily Stormer was attacking.

Random aside: I do wish that they hadn't been so nationalistic about it
though. (He said: "I, personally, believe in strong Freedom of Speech
protections, but I also acknowledge that it is a very American idea that is
not shared globally").

~~~
Moodles
> As I've said elsewhere on this thread, corporations don't have rights,
> people do. A more clear way to say this might be: corporations only have
> rights inasmuch as the people who make up the corporation have rights.

> But giant corporations are different from individuals.

You can see how this gets fuzzy then, right? At what point is a corporation
"giant"? How to measure and who decides that? Why is it okay for your Dave's
Liberal Hosting Service to arbitrarily moderate material but not YouTube?
YouTube isn't even a monopoly on video hosting services. Both YouTube and
Dave's Liberal Hosting Service are still made up of individuals, and you think
that individuals should be treated the same. So why aren't they?

~~~
kerkeslager
> You can see how this gets fuzzy then, right? At what point is a corporation
> "giant"?

Maybe the exact point where a corporation becomes integral enough to society
that it needs to be regulated to protect people's rights is ambiguous, but
it's not really ambiguous that YouTube is far past that point.

And I'm not being ambiguous at all about corporations not having rights.
Limited liability has to be balanced by restrictions on what an LLC can do, or
there's no incentive for people to act sociopathically (which they do). This
is true at any size, and corporations violating the rights of individuals
aren't limited by size. However, issues with small corporations are both less
concerning and more likely to be handled by market forces.

> How to measure and who decides that?

Traditionally it has been regulatory bodies such as the FTC or the FCC.
Congress typically hasn't made laws that target specific corporations or small
groups of corporations, instead leaving that sort of micromanagement to the
regulatory bodies. There are pros and cons to regulatory bodies versus
congress handling these things. Ideally I'd want it to be elected officials so
that citizens get more direct control.

"Measurement" isn't really applicable: you're looking for a size that can be
quantified, but I'm talking about human rights violations.

> Why is it okay for your Dave's Liberal Hosting Service to arbitrarily
> moderate material but not YouTube?

I already covered this:

"If I started Dave's Liberal Hosting Service with just a server and a dream,
and only hosted Democratic websites, that's fine, because such a service
doesn't become the platform of the internet that everyone is forced to use--
it's likely a conservative equivalent would arise even before I built a
significant business. Part of the problem is that services like Reddit and
YouTube have performed a bait-and-switch--they built themselves into major
platforms on a free-speech ideology, and then when they were too big to fail,
they turned into ideological platforms."

> Both YouTube and Dave's Liberal Hosting Service are still made up of
> individuals, and you think that individuals should be treated the same. So
> why aren't they?

Neither corporation has any rights: there's just not much reason to drop the
hammer on Dave's Liberal Hosting Service if it's small enough that competitors
could arise easily to meet need, and they've not banned any existing users.
All the users who Dave's Liberal Hosting Service would "discriminate" against
are already using Bob's Conservative Hosting Service, so free speech is
available to society.

There are really only two household names in the video hosting space in the
US, YouTube and Vimeo, and both of them ostensibly support all content, but
don't actually live up to that promise. Not only is free speech not available
in that space, but it used to be (at least, moreso), so previous users have
had their channels taken away from them; their best options at that point are
basically starting over if you've built a channel. If YouTube had started with
the promise of censored content, they would have grown in tandem with
competitors with more permissive content policies, and this wouldn't be the
problem that it is today.

Both corporations are made up of individuals, but when they're acting behind
the veil of a corporation and in fact decisions are being made by only a few
of those individuals, while they trample the rights of the rest of the
individuals that make up the corporation. If you're going to appeal to the
idea that people shouldn't be forced to host content they don't agree with on
a platform they built, you should realize that it's very unlikely that the
engineers who built YouTube are the same people as the executives and board
members making the decision to censor their content. The larger the
corporation, the more disconnect there is between the individuals that make up
the corporation and the actions of the corporation. With corporations of
YouTube's size, claiming that individual rights confer rights on the company
just doesn't hold water: you're only conferring rights on the decision makers
of the company, at the expense of the rights of workers who devoted their work
to older policies and may not agree with the new policies.

------
chubasco
Do you want to get regulated? Because that's how you get regulated.

------
fastball
So Reddit is banning "paid services including physical sexual contact".

Does that mean people will no longer be able to sell their used panties on
Reddit? It would be a tragic loss to the internet if this was the case. /s

------
kirykl
Another lesson in the dangers of digital share cropping

------
userbinator
This reminds me of this quote:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson

I wonder if he would be considered a terrorist today...

~~~
IAmEveryone
If you want to die for your country, please do it alone.

------
driverdan
Mods: Why is this being deranked? This is a legitimate discussion.

~~~
dang
It set off the software's flamewar detector a.k.a. overheated discussion
detector. I've turned the penalty off and rolled back the clock on the story
to compensate.

Posts without URLs (Ask HN, Tell HN, etc.) also start off with a penalty, and
I've turned that off too.

~~~
driverdan
Thank you.

------
AmIFirstToThink
YouTube and Reddit should be like paper and pencil.

If I used paper and pencil to break the law, then it's between law enforcement
and me, I would be super annoyed if the pencil refused to write what I want to
write because the pencil manufacturer thought it might be illegal or just
simply undesired.

What the Content Providers are doing is anti-thesis of neutrality towards
ideas and the supporting arguments. If someone breaks the law using their
platform then let the someone file a complaint and let law enforcement handle
it.

Should the burrito truck ban you from utilizing the calories from the
breakfast burrito if you intend to do some insider trading that morning? If
the burrito place can't block you from eating, then why should YouTube and
Reddit be able to block you from saying what you have to say?

Can't believe that the hacker news crowd was jumping up and down for months at
a time for neutrality of packets as if ISP is going to stop you from saying
what you want to say, but all the while Facebook/Google/Twitter/Reddit can
stop you from saying what you say anytime they feel like it, and those
advocating "Neutrality of service providers" are perfectly fine with it.

Can folks be little more realistic about what the real danger is?

Out packets are not threatened, our thoughts are.

------
jacksmith21006
But Google still has the NRA channel. The list of companies that have cut ties
with the NRA are very long but do not include Google.

"One By One, Companies Cut Ties With The NRA"

[https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2018/02/23/588233273...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
way/2018/02/23/588233273/one-by-one-companies-cut-ties-with-nra)

------
thinkingemote
"Reddit and Youtube are shooting themselves in the foot!" some would say. "I'm
moving to this other site!" those directly affected say. And the rest of the
users and the sites say "bye! Good riddance!", thinking that they have just
surgically removed a small portion of the site. But they are wrong, the effect
will be huge and far reaching and here's why:

What Reddit and those cheering the migration of gun and sex enthusiasts is
that those people are also frequent contributors to the funny, light
subreddits. If they go, not only do other, straight, subreddits lose out, but
the alternatives they go to start to get straighter too.

People will indeed move to something better. And they will move quickly. We
have seen it with myspace to facebook and digg to reddit. So far, the
alternatives, to me, seem not that attractive, but I imagine it would only
take a few people to move to make it so.

It only takes a few sane early adopters.

~~~
typon
?? Are you somehow suggesting that people involved in gun sales or drug sales
on reddit are somehow meme generators keeping the culture alive?? People made
the same arguments when /r/fatpeoplehate was banned and /r/niggers was banned,
and before that when /r/jailbait was banned.

Nothing changed except the site got a bit better because a bunch of the
assholes migrated to voat or remade those subreddits under different names.

~~~
thinkingemote
Yes, I am saying that gun enthusiasts, the millions of normal Americans and
people around the world who like guns, or even craft beer, or historical re-
enactment, also like to tell jokes. They do not go to reddit to only talk
about guns, but to other subreddits. It's quite easy to understand.

I am not saying they are the only people keeping the site alive, that would be
silly. I'm saying that people that like to tell jokes will make the
alternatives they go to better and more attractive, and make Reddit a bit less
attractive.

Your examples of previous banning was about toxic subreddits where the main
focus was on toxic "jokes". I'd agree with you, toxic joke tellers are
probably going to always joke toxicly. But a gun enthusiast, a craft beer
lover, a historical re-enactment, an adult porn star, they are not primarily
makers of toxic jokes. I hope you can see the difference here.

~~~
typon
Let me clear: im completely against these bannings specifically. It looks like
a very political move and it came out of nowhere without any warning to the
subreddit mods, volunteers who make reddit what it is.

Having said that, I still don't buy the argument that this will have some sort
of larger negative impact on the reddit community. Reddit is way too large for
some niche subreddits to actually matter in the big picture.

~~~
thinkingemote
What happened with digg and MySpace? They were too big to fail too but what
happened was that more attractive places occurred and people went to them.

I'm proposing that an exodus of non toxic people from place A to place B makes
place B less toxic. Now I don't think we will see the alternatives improve
overnight but if things carry on along this road then we will see it.

