
Restricted by YouTube, Gun Enthusiasts Are Taking Their Videos to Pornhub - MrMember
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/22/596161899/restricted-by-youtube-gun-enthusiasts-are-taking-their-videos-to-pornhub
======
pavlov
It's about time people realize that platforms like YouTube are private
publishers. They have full discretion to remove or editorialize content, and
there's no expectation of free speech.

Expecting YouTube to keep hosting something because of First Amendment rights
is as absurd as expecting a printing press to print your pamphlets for free.

~~~
cm2187
Don't think it's a first amendment issue, but the printing press in question
is offering to print everyone else's pamphlets for free, but turns down
pamphlets that are not compliant with its liberal agenda. I think it is
certainly entitled to do so, but I have seen many, even on HN, denying that
the Silicon Valley is progressively becoming hostile to non liberal opinions.
This seems to be a good illustration.

And this liberal agenda is not a monopoly of the Silicon Valley either. Citi
recently did something similar, announcing that it will cease to make loans or
provide payment services to businesses who do not comply with its views on gun
control. Which I find more problematic than youtube given the regulatory
monopoly and lack of competition in the banking industry.

~~~
cptskippy
It has absolutely nothing to do with a "liberal agenda", this is capitalism
plain and simple. There is nothing more to it and anyone who says it's a
conspiracy by <insert group/> is off their rocker.

YouTube exists to make money. It makes money through advertisers. If
advertisers don't want to use YouTube then YouTube loses money.

~~~
kodablah
So they would turn down no advertiser and will capitulate to any advertiser's
wishes if it made them more money? Of course not, so it's not capitalism plain
and simple. To say it is ignores that humans can make decisions and changes
the discussion point. It might be that the advertisers are the ones pushing a
certain agenda. It might not. But don't kill the discussion about how things
slant by saying it's only about money.

~~~
Spivak
Just because a company would turn down a short-term gain doesn't mean they
aren't profit focused. Any popular site that runs ads is overflowing with
offers to run sketchy ads for big money but actually running them would only
hurt their brand in the long run. This doesn't necessarily mean that site is
editorializing.

~~~
kodablah
Sure. And I'm saying that just because they are profit focused doesn't mean
it's only about profits and there aren't human decisions involved which is
what I took GP's comment as saying.

------
ironjunkie
I think the news from the last couple days, make it clear that the next step
is to MOVE OUT of all those platforms.

History is repeating. As soon as they got enough power, they use it to
exercise their own view of the world, deleting data//videos they don't like or
reselling it to 3rd parties.

We need to come up with a better solution for non-technical users to post
content outside those platforms.

~~~
prepend
Fortuneately we have a distributed network of computers all over the world.

With the rise of home fiber and raspberry pi type cheap boxes we can do it
with data local and software free.

I’m not sure what the business model is. I’m looking to porn and privacy for
early examples. This worked for the Internet. AOL chat/porn was a huge use
case for early chat/messaging. Music piracy and video piracy before
Netflix/Apple Music. Etc etc.

~~~
ryanmarsh
It’s funny that you say that. 20 years ago nobody had a problem running their
personal website or FTP server on an ISDN line into their garage.

Today I have 100Mb fiber to my house. I’m pretty sure that’s enough to handle
a personal video website for somebody with a modest following. Yet we live on
these massive centralized platforms.

~~~
enzanki_ars
We need to solve a couple of problems first. Right now, standing up a web host
correctly is difficult. Getting the settings right is troublesome, buying a
domain can be expensive and hard to set up, and directing the DNS of that
domain to your home's internet (where most homes, at least in the US, are
dynamic addresses) is very difficult. Video hosting is a tricky experience.
Delivering quickly at multiple bitrates in an easy to use interface is hard.
There is a reason why YouTube, Netflix, and more spend a lot of time working
on improving video quality while reducing data usage. Finally, if everyone
hosts their one videos, how will discovery work?

~~~
ironjunkie
Good point. And all of this is exactly what needs to be resolved.

How? I would love to see some initiatives in that area (beside IPFS)

~~~
bluGill
There are two hard parts: security and discoverability. As a programmer I know
95% of what is needed already exists, what is left is security and some ease
of use.

plex ([https://www.plex.tv/](https://www.plex.tv/)) already has most of what
you need. However if I put a video of my kid's first words on plex how does
grandma find it?

------
cezar2
It's really chilling to see these platforms, within a matter of months, go
from shouting from the rooftops to promote net neutrality, to censoring and
editorializing legal content.

~~~
tzs
How so? Net neutrality concerns ISPs not interfering with legal content. It
has nothing whatsoever to say about or do with what content sites that host or
provide content chose to host or provide.

Transportation provides a good analogy. Net neutrality is about the roads, not
about what goods and services the places you drive to on those roads do and do
not offer.

~~~
hungerstrike
These services own their platform. So, they are justified in doing what they
want right?

Likewise, the ISPs own the infrastructure and they can do what they wish as
well. The Internet is not made up of public roadways.

So what's the difference? I think it's just that you want the ISPs to not own
the roads. If you separate what you personally want ISPs to be from the rest
of your argument, I think you can see that the ISPs and these tech platforms
are pretty much the same - they both own their product and should be able to
do what they want to.

~~~
tzs
There are several differences between ISPs and websites.

1\. ISPs generally require licenses or leases from the government in order to
build and maintain their infrastructure. Wireless ISPs, for example, need to
license RF spectrum. Wired ISPs generally need to run their wires on public
land. You can't just start a new ISP, like you can a new website.

2\. Broadband ISPs are generally monopolies or near monopolies in a given
area, especially wired ISPs. This is related to #1.

3\. Telecommunications services fall under the Telecommunications Acts of 1934
and 1996. Websites do not.

------
ropeadopepope
Not really. There is now an independent streaming service dedicated to
shooting sports: [https://www.full30.com/](https://www.full30.com/). A lot of
the youtube channels are moving there, including InRange (mentioned in the
article):
[https://www.full30.com/channels/inrange](https://www.full30.com/channels/inrange)

~~~
mason55
The problem with fragmentation is discoverability. If all the videos are on
one site you might serendipitously discover that you love shooting videos when
you didn’t even know they existed. If cat videos and shooting videos are on
totally separate sites then that’s much less likely to happen.

~~~
tropo
If cat videos and shooting videos are on totally separate sites, where do we
put the videos that are both?

a. The cat has a gun.

b. The cat is shot at.

c. The cat is fired out of a cannon, as a circus performer.

d. It's a hunting cat. It fetches things that have been shot.

e. Cats like sitting on warm things. Guns get warm.

f. Cat fur gets into everything. Picture a cleaning video with a gun jammed up
by fur.

~~~
ropeadopepope
4chan. Obviously.

------
hugh4life
I'm not saying this is one of those stories, but Pornhub does a lot of PR
stunts that exist just to get their name in the news. And since we live in the
clickbait economy, outlets will gladly go along with it.

~~~
DennisAleynikov
this seems like the most logical solution since pornhub is a poor place to
host not porn. weapons had a home on youtubes educational channels and as
uninterested as I am in guns I'm sad to see them go. I upload educational
videos on youtube and don't look forward to the day I'm banned for teaching
the wrong thing.

~~~
rwoodley
oh please. stop the hand wringing. What are you teaching, bomb-making? Simple
educational videos will never be banned. Guns are a special category
obviously.

~~~
csours
See also Cody's Lab

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj0aP-
ricRU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj0aP-ricRU)

------
jacknews
Although I'm a firm believer that guns should be illegal to possess outside of
licensed shooting ranges, hunting parks, etc, I think enthusiast videos about
guns are completely acceptable.

This does smack of Orwell, and it's not only gun culture that appears to be
being targeted recently.

I'm also not a conspiratorialist, but it does seem to me there's a concerted
effort behind the scenes to "crack down" on free expression generally - not
just youtube acting alone, but many entities acting similarly, and obviously
completely un-democratically or accountably.

~~~
madengr
Hunting parks? Isn’t that like a canned trophy shoot?

I’ll be satisfied when I can buy a full auto, short barrel, suppressed, 51
caliber, via anonymous mail order, and paid with crypto currency.

~~~
scrub_tier
"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."

Respectfully, how does your desire to bear private arms contribute to your
militia or the freedom of your state and country? I'm taking a chance here on
hacker news with what might have been a troll comment, but please accept my
sincere honest intent to understand your point of view.

How does a suppressed destructive device on an unregulated currency exchange
make our society better?

How does your right contribute to the security of the state?

How did you come to believe you needed this capability?

At the risk of appealing to authority, we have established case law in all of
our rights which to a reasonable extent remove the protection of our rights
for the benefit of the community. We aren't allowed to have indentured
servitude, but we legally have the draft in times of crisis. We have the
freedom to speak and share our world views, but I cannot yell "fire" in the
movie theater lest I risk my own imprisonment for endangering the lives of
others.

Why should the second amendment be treated with any less discretion?

~~~
CWuestefeld
_How does a suppressed destructive device..._

A suppressor, aka "silencer", is a SAFETY device. If you believe otherwise,
you've been watching too much TV. They don't render the weapon silent or even
quiet, they bring the explosive sound down to a range that doesn't pose risk
of hearing loss. I've seen the sound of a gun with a _good_ silencer likened
to slamming an unabridged dictionary onto a solid table as hard as you can. So
the assassin in the next room, or even the guy out in the back yard, is still
going to wake up somebody in the bedroom.

So the use of a silencer is to protect the hearing of everyone around you. As
such, it's certainly a net-positive for society.

~~~
scrub_tier
Undoubtedly supressors do decrease gas discharge from the muzzle and increase
the safety of the system to the user. However, I feel you've chosen a best
case scenario and haven't addressed my other points.

Subsonic ammunition is easy to press and real suppressors use closed rubber
wipes which are only good for a couple shots. I hadn't intended to make that
point a technical critique of suppressive technology so much as an indication
of the perceived need over other options. When would I need a suppressor? If
I'm not shooting on a range where everyone SHOULD have headgear, then I'm
hunting far away from hopefully all society and being safe about it?

Regardless, I appreciate your candor.

~~~
sigstoat
> Subsonic ammunition is easy to press and real suppressors use closed rubber
> wipes which are only good for a couple shots.

"real"? i don't think any of those are even available for purchase. take a
look at thunderbeast arms or silencerco for what "real" suppressors look like.

they're astonishingly effective, and last for forever. (which is important
when it takes 12 months to get one.)

> When would I need a suppressor? If I'm not shooting on a range where
> everyone SHOULD have headgear

ugh, have you ever even stood next to someone setting off a hunting rifle?

suppressors are additive with ear protection (super useful for anyone with
hearing damage), and also eliminate the whole-body experience of the blast.

------
giancarlostoro
So will PornHub rebrand as "FreedomHub" or something or launch a similar site
for those running away from YouTube for censorship issues? Now's the shot for
someone to really compete with YouTube in an area where they seem to be
failing.

~~~
pizza234
I'm not sure that it's an area where YT is failing, as this subject has no
winning scenario.

If they put restrictions on a sensitive subject, a part of the population is
going to complain; if they don't, the other part will.

If they wouldn't put those restrictions, in the light of the current gun-
related events, they'll just expose themselves to a string of lawsuits.

I think this is implicit in content providers with extremely large audiences,
and it's quite difficult (and interesting) to assess what is failure and what
success, from a business perspective.

~~~
clarkmoody
The thing about the gun-related stuff is that it's 99% perfectly legal (yes,
there are videos about illegal mods, but those were not specifically
targeted).

I don't think they're worried about lawsuits. This is all about political
optics.

~~~
weego
I think it's also about those channels not being suitable to advertise on /
having a bad demographic to advertise to and them being funded by patreons or
private shop backers advertising in-video. YT gets very little revenue from
that even though they are high-volume channels so it's just a pure cost
cutting exercise.

~~~
deelowe
I don't buy it. Cabellas and Bass Pro make a killing. There are plenty of
companies out there willing to cater to this market. This is nothing more than
a Silicon Valley political thing.

------
zaarn
PornHub: The last bastion of a free and good internet. There is also some
porn.

I think 10 years ago people would have laughed at the idea that a federal law
pushed gun enthusiasts into pornographic websites.

~~~
ForHackernews
What federal law? YouTube is a private company and they decided they didn't
want this content on their platform.

~~~
zaarn
SESTA/FOSTA and (probably) CLOUD act.

I severely doubt this is because of politics on guns, I'm not a pro-gun
enthusiast but I do enjoy videos showing safe gun care or historic guns (or
just the slingshot channel).

Reddit and Youtube have both removed the same kind of content from their
platform, this is not limited to gun enthusiasts but also includes various
other content.

People like Cody, who runs Cody's Lab, have made videos on how to make a
bullet out of mercury. It's entirely impractical for any real world usage but
it's nonetheless informative and educational, especially since he explains the
safety precautions taken.

~~~
cabalamat
> I do enjoy videos showing safe gun care or historic guns

I like Forgotten Weapons. It has serious historical information, and I will be
pissed off if Google deletes it.

It seems to be that the principle behind net neutrality -- that of a common
carrier -- shouldn't just apply to the ip layer, but should also sometimes
apply to higher levels of the technology stack, especially when a provider has
a large market share.

~~~
Navarr
Did anyone read the article to see what types of videos Google is taking
action against?

> YouTube will ban videos that offer instructions on how to make firearms and
> accessories such as silencers and bump stocks. It will prohibit content in
> which firearms and accessories are sold, both directly and through other
> websites. Videos on how to install firearms modifications will also be
> barred.

> While we've long prohibited the sale of firearms, we recently notified
> creators of updates we will be making around content promoting the sale or
> manufacture of firearms and their accessories, specifically, items like
> ammunition, gatling triggers, and drop-in auto sears.

~~~
en4bz
The channel mentioned "Forgotten Weapons" is mostly filmed at auction houses
since it's the best place to find a lot of old guns in the same place at one
time. As part of his arrangement with the auction centers the creator plugs
the upcoming auction for the guns he is reviewing and links it in the
description. This would probably be against the rules.

~~~
mrguyorama
YouTube routinely skirts its own rules for popular channels

------
josteink
I know "tits and guns" is an established expression when talking about
somewhat simplistic movies...

But this is taking it a bit too literal :)

------
ufmace
Well say goodbye to any goodwill from me regarding Youtube. I will now feel no
qualms about using any means at my disposal to block their ads while watching
their video and not paying for it.

They may not be legally required to allow free speech, but I believe that free
speech is a cultural norm that we need to work to preserve. Excusing rampant
violations of free speech because it isn't technically illegal or
unconstitutional right now is paving the road towards actual government
tyranny. And when it comes, nobody will be able to hear you complain about it,
because every platform will shut you down while technically not violating the
law.

------
cm2187
In the same spirit, Hollywood should be prevented from making any favorable
reference to gun violence. Like cigarettes, guns should be digitally edited
out of existing motion pictures, and replaced with bananas or sausages. We
will achieve a very ethical cinema, compliant with the most rigorous liberal
canons, although perhaps slightly boring (and Quentin Tarantino may need go
back to VHS rentals to survive).

------
dkns
Why pornhub and not vimeo or dailymotion?

~~~
1337biz
Because you expect porn hosters to have a higher tolerance against those who
want to pressure companies into their ideological paradigms.

In the end porn hosts might be the savest haven for controversial content as
they have become used to creating revenue models independent from image
conscious clients.

------
rambossa
What's going on with YouTube? FPSRussia is still going...
[https://www.youtube.com/user/FPSRussia](https://www.youtube.com/user/FPSRussia)

~~~
mastax
The policy doesn't become active for a few weeks.

------
CompanyLaser
Did anyone read YouTube's actual policy? They're restricting direct firearm
sales and DIY manufacturing instructions. Seems reasonable for any controlled
device.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
They are book burning. If you don’t see that, I don’t know what to tell you.

Almost everything they have removed was 100% legal content _that they didn’t
like_.

IDK about you, but I’ll chose to use sites that want to do their job of
hosting, and not my job of choosing what I see/learn.

------
HarrietJones
I can't see PornHub continuing to allow these videos. It's not really in
keeping with the core product, and previous stunts give the impression that
they tend towards the left wing. I give it a week for them to start removing
gun videos.

~~~
dreta
I'd say PornHub, and porn in general, is more liberal than left-wing, so i
doubt they'll have anything against guns. Still, they could deem the content
inapropriate for the site. Though, given the kind of seemingly random videos
people upload there, and get aroused by, it's not at all definite.

~~~
Shish2k
> they could deem the content inapropriate for the site

In before the gun channels continue exactly as they were, except for the one
change that their hosts are now nude

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Having some 4'11 woman as a regular guest on C&R Arsenal or Forgotton Weapons
would be useful for discussing ergonomics and arguable less controversial than
some 14yo.

------
giardini
I heard they were moving to voat.co, a reddit-like site.

------
optimuspaul
guns == porn, makes sense to me.

------
HEREHESH
Hallo, [https://d.tube](https://d.tube)

