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.

Youtube policy update.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en

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).

Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above.

This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities.

Shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications.

Reddit policy update.

https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/863xcj/new_addition_to_sitewide_rules_regarding_the_use/

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:

  * 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

[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 A lot of historical content will be lost.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.

[prawn]

I live in a country where it is quite unusual for someone to own a gun, but I can appreciate that YouTube how-tos are a great educational tool in the situation you describe. From YouTube's message though, it seemed that they were only cracking down on how-tos pertaining to specific things like magazine size or automatic fire. Would that pertain to the 100+ year old rifle and general gun maintenance/malfunctions?

[pc86]

What's more, /r/gundeals was literally just a link aggregation sub. Nobody sold anything there, I don't even think many links were posted by folks with an affiliation to the linked site.

So a link aggregation site (Reddit) bans a link aggregation forum (/r/gundeals) because it doesn't like the content of the links being aggregated.

[MrMember]

I've deleted both my YouTube and reddit accounts. I've been trying to de-Google my life, this will probably accelerate that. Just need a proper mobile Linux device and I can finally dump Android.

[zitterbewegung]

Reddit and Youtube are becoming more and more draconian for one reason. They REALLY need people to stay on their advertisement platform. For instance Reddit has always had issues with its content clashing with advertisers. Youtube I think has gone into rougher times with its relation to advertisers (I remember proctor and gamble pulled their ads). When your advertisers complain about your platform having content they don't want they will remove it with extreme prejudice.

As an aside I am also dismayed in the fact that I find videos like these interesting but I will never own a gun but I like watching reviews and demos of them.

[DennisAleynikov]

This is indeed an alarming move of trying to censor gun information online is by far the most miguided approach to regulating guns I've seen thus far. There aren't inherent risks to knowing the mechanics of physical items much less channels that deal with proper handling of guns or gun communities online. You are literally moving their communities further into the deepweb and making gun ownership a nefarious thing! Optics based bans are extremely frustrating and dissapointing to memembers of both reddit and youtube.

[dragonwriter]

> This is very dismaying to see

This is the chilling effect from the attack on Section 230 safe harbor protection (an attack which was largely “justified” by conduct which was already found to be outside of the pre-existing safe harbor, and so which needed no modification to deal with.)

Companies that are being responsible to their shareholders are going to change behavior to minimize exposure to content which is likely to draw civil litigation when their protection from that risk is weakened.

[chillidoor]

>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)

Also, channels like Forgotten Weapons which are non-political and just provide really great information on old or obscure guns.

[KnightOfWords]

> 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.

Probably because they don't want to be the target of personal abuse.

[seany]

gundeals was the only sub that I had ever actually made a direct bookmark too. I've never seen another community quite like it.

[eksemplar]

As long as actual hosts allow you to put your stuff online I see no harm.

The internet worked perfectly fine before YouTube and Reddit, it’ll work perfectly fine after.

I mean, I understand the problems this poses for people, but I just don’t see how taking ownership of your own platform is a bad thing, even if it is forced.

Nobody is stopping gun fans from building their own social network for guns after all.

If people did that, quality would probably even increase. I mean, just look at HM. Even if HN is another centralized social network it still managed to become much better than anything tech related on Reddit or YouTube.

[PurpleBoxDragon]

>I can't imagine why reddit would ban strictly law-abiding communities while allowing illegal and toxic ones to flourish.

To be cynical, why offer a seller access to a market for free when you can charge for it?

[bols59]

gtlondon, it's BECAUSE of gun use that you and I may freely post on websites and not fear totalitarian hot breath down our backs.

[themaninthedark]

Also look at the timing of it: They did this when the people most likely to object are both preoccupied with Faceboook and Mark Zuckerburgs statement as well as the Count Dankula trial verdict.

Looks to me like they don't want scrutiny.

[yequalsx]

I'm not a gun owner. Indeed I'm very much opposed to people being able to own guns and hope that someday they will be banned in the U.S. I do understand your perspective and why this is upsetting to you.

For me I see it as a step toward people being more anti-gun ownership. Societies evolve and social views change. Our views on marijuana, smoking, etc. have changed over the decades. I hope I am now seeing the beginning of the end of acceptance of gun ownership.

While we are on opposite sides of this issue I encourage you to continue to stand up for your rights and fight for what you believe in. Let Reddit and Youtube know you are upset about this. Be active and vigilant. I will too.

[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.

[bnolsen]

Ripping dvds isn't affirmed by the constitution as an unaliable right either.

[intopieces]

I don’t see the connection between a company changing its platform to please its advertisers and being declared a common carrier. Has it happened before? Telephones are not common carriers because the phone company tells you what you can and cannot say.

[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...

"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."

[kerkeslager]

I don't buy this excuse. Backpage was always in a risky legal position without public support, but Alphabet (owner of YouTube) and Advance Publications (owner of Reddit) are well-positioned to fight for freedom of speech if they wanted to. These rules are being rolled out because they want to, not because they're forced to.

The Reddit bans in particular banned a wide swath of behaviors that are completely legal and not in any grey area, such as selling alcohol or trading alcohol. US Section 230 has nothing to do with this.

[djrogers]

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

[saas_co_de]

No. It isn't.

Backpage was openly engaged in helping sex traffickers sell children for sex on their site. They edited ads to remove references to the fact that the people being offered were under age and then ran the ads.

This has nothing to do with the Backpage scum and everything to do with people shooting up schools and other people engaging in mass campaigns to ban guns.

[Zak]

This seems likely to be the explanation, but I'm very surprised reddit didn't mention it in their announcement. "The government is bullying us into this" would tend to garner sympathy from users instead of the hostility they're getting.

[1337biz]

> better protect the public against sex trafficking and countries that try to hack our political system

Now that's an odd topic association. No idea what to think of this, but this sounds odd. Are they using the sex traffickng angle to push a second agenda?

[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

[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.

[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.

[themihai]

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

Yeah but guns are "cool" while ramming a car into a crowd it's not that cool.

I believe people should be allowed to bear arms but that doesn't mean the guns should be sold and advertised as lollipops.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[toomanybeersies]

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

A good example is Forgotten Weapons (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.

[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?

[collias]

This is the 21st century equivalent to burning books.

[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).

[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.

[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)