Youtube to ban certain videos on firearms

Sparks

As might have been noticed by a few of you, Youtube is changing its policies on videos containing firearms content:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/21/17147660/youtube-video-restrictions-firearms-policy

Here's the actual update:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en

Policies on content featuring firearms
YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don’t allow content that:

• 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.

The intent might not be bad, but a fair few people are worried about the wording being loose enough to cover way too much content. Forgotten Weapons, for example, a channel that mainly looks at historical firearms (both military and civilian) and their inner workings and development, might well get caught up in the ban:

Forgotten Weapons wrote:

If you have not seen it, YouTube recently released a new policy of firearms content (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en). It will not be actually enforced for another 28 days, and as of now we don't know what impact it will actually have. The wording is vague, and it was clearly written by people with a fundamental lack of understanding of firearms. What is most concerning about this change is that it is not about monetization, but rather whether content is allowed to be posted at all. The new rules will be retroactively enforced, so old videos violating them would have to be deleted entirely.

Worst case, it would prohibit any video showing feeding devices which hold more than 30 rounds (mags, drums, belts, etc), any fully automatic firearm, and perhaps anything showing how to load a firearm or showing how firearms work. Best case, it would prohibit showing how to manufacture guns or use bump stocks. So clearly, a wide range of potential outcomes. We will probably not know the actual enforcement standards until the rules take effect next month. This will almost certainly mean that I have to remove at least some content from the back catalog; perhaps a lot of it.

It's unclear if anything can actually be done about this, but at least for now:

If you go to the policy link at the very top of this post, there is a question at the bottom asking if it was helpful. Click "no", and it will allow you to explain why you disagree with the new policy. Please be respectful and polite, but tell YouTube that this action is unacceptable to you.

Reddit is doing something similar.
Not fantastic

Sparks

Sent in to youtube by that link above:

This policy seems vague at best. How does it cover, for example, content on historical firearms like that at the Forgotten Weapons channel, where firearms from the last few hundred years - including everything from muskets to machine guns - are examined and their inner workings shown?

What is the appeals process if a video is flagged and the poster believes it was flagged in error?

What are the "certain firearms accessories" which are *not* listed above? How can these be determined if they are not listed anywhere?

Are high capacity magazines included in the term "accessories" in the first paragraph or are they considered seperate from that term for the purposes of the third paragraph? If they are considered included, does this mean any video content showing a high capacity magazine or belt being loaded into a firearm is in violation of this policy?

How is "simulate automatic fire" defined? Is it defined by the number of shots per trigger pull or by the appearance of the rate of fire to an observer? If the former, how will the shots per trigger pull be counted; if the latter, how will - for example - Olympic Rapid Fire Pistol or other rapid-firing events using semi-automatic firearms be distinguished from "simulated automatic fire"?

This policy may appear to be simple; but that doesn't mean it's fit for purpose, even without any consideration of the merits of that purpose.

Cass

Googletubebook is basically one big anti shooting, anti second amendment, anti hunting machine.

Facebook seems to be diving head first off the sane train and are attacking anyone remotely against the party line. This only shows how far they'll go. Not doing a tin foil hat, soap box rant here (we have Grizz for that ) but even the most innocent even educational video that opposes or tries to counter a held belief is being censored and muted.

Without going off on too much of a tangent, but what other country can convince its youngsters to march on a topic they cannot vote on, and for that march to be about taking away one of their rights (talking about the second amendment thing in the states at the moment). Wonder will they be as quick to march to remove the 1st, 5th, etc.

It seems all someone has to do is say they're offended and its removed. Offense does not mean correct.

Grizzly 45

And on that topic...Feel free to circulate to other boards you all might be on.

https://www.gunsweek.com/en/culture/news/youtube-banning-gun-videos-our-sports-our-interests

My take on it, they are slow learners, all of these corporate lot. Like Ebay was with it's banning selling gun parts and knives a few years ago. After a while they quietly retracted this and allow firearm bits to be sold on ebay.com
It is all about the money, nothing else.When Youtube starts seeing revenue drying up from advertising, they have made billions off youtube gun channels,and the shareholders start whining,they will quietly retract this idiocy as well.

1349

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It is all about the money, nothing else.When Youtube starts seeing revenue drying up from advertising, they have made billions off youtube gun channels,and the shareholders start whining,they will quietly retract this idiocy as well.

I don't know about that, Grizzly. I think you underestimate the extent to which the people in charge of these organisations are possessed by the ideology of regressive neo-Marxism. Obviously hiring or promoting employees on the basis of their genitals or melanin levels is bad for business, but we know from leaked internal e-mails that google have done that anyway. I think that they are more than willing to loose billions if it means they get to de-platform any person who holds any traditional values, or any one to the right of Mao.

Cass

BTW Reddit have also piled on. Removing content, limiting new content, etc.

1349

Cass wrote: »

BTW Reddit have also piled on. Removing content, limiting new content, etc.

They banned the subreddits for selling AIRSOFT!

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/8649ne/reddit_bans_using_reddit_as_a_marketplace_or_to/?st=jf3doe5u&sh=2623d13e

/r/airsoftmarket "This subreddit was banned due to a violation of Reddit’s policy against transactions involving prohibited goods or services."

LOL, even here in Korea kids run around with airsoft guns.

Grizzly 45

1349 wrote: »

I don't know about that, Grizzly. I think you underestimate the extent to which the people in charge of these organisations are possessed by the ideology of regressive neo-Marxism. Obviously hiring or promoting employees on the basis of their genitals or melanin levels is bad for business, but we know from leaked internal e-mails that google have done that anyway. I think that they are more than willing to loose billions if it means they get to de-platform any person who holds any traditional values, or any one to the right of Mao.

That's why Neo Marxist business are so successful and always in the Fortune 100.:) Let them at it.When they discover that their millennial entitlement ideals are not making money and employing people because of their correct gender, but are wholly incompetent is causing their shares to plummet.They will discover how the markets really work.Places like DICKS sporting goods are already feeling it, their profit chart dropped down a chasm last month. Having principles in business can be a rather costly mistake.

Sparks

1349 wrote: »

I think you underestimate the extent to which the people in charge of these organisations are possessed by the ideology of regressive neo-Marxism.

Having worked for some of these organisations for the last 20 years, I think you've misspelled "would sell their mother for more cash" there. (Seriously, if you think Facebook or Google are in this for an ideology that isn't spelled with dollar symbols, you're way off target).

riffmongous

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And on that topic...Feel free to circulate to other boards you all might be on.

https://www.gunsweek.com/en/culture/news/youtube-banning-gun-videos-our-sports-our-interests

My take on it, they are slow learners, all of these corporate lot. Like Ebay was with it's banning selling gun parts and knives a few years ago. After a while they quietly retracted this and allow firearm bits to be sold on ebay.com
It is all about the money, nothing else.When Youtube starts seeing revenue drying up from advertising, they have made billions off youtube gun channels,and the shareholders start whining,they will quietly retract this idiocy as well.

Isn't that article calling for the government to intervene in the workings of a private business? As in actual Marxism, rather than any pseudo neo cultural marxism or whatever

Grizzly 45

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43500714?SThisFB

Genuine "Gun Porn"...:P How bad???

the_syco

So, it seems that porn sites are now where the gun people will be posting their blogs.

Sparks

Well. I can't see that blowing up in anyone's face at all.

Grizzly 45

Just noticed the date Youtube is bringing in that ban.April 20th..Adolf Hitlers birthday. How ironic...

evolving_doors

I'm not a firearms enthusiast but if youtube did that I would have never seen this cool stuff!

The actual demo starts at 1:47

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI2Wxlp99uY

Apologies if this isn't new to anyone here.

meathstevie

1349 wrote: »

I don't know about that, Grizzly. I think you underestimate the extent to which the people in charge of these organisations are possessed by the ideology of regressive neo-Marxism. Obviously hiring or promoting employees on the basis of their genitals or melanin levels is bad for business, but we know from leaked internal e-mails that google have done that anyway. I think that they are more than willing to loose billions if it means they get to de-platform any person who holds any traditional values, or any one to the right of Mao.

Neo-Marxism my arse. Deeming themselves above the law and passing of all responsibility for anything as long as the share value stays up more like. "Third party consent" and assorted legalese sounding nonsense ring any bells ?

1349

Sparks wrote: »

Having worked for some of these organisations for the last 20 years, I think you've misspelled "would sell their mother for more cash" there. (Seriously, if you think Facebook or Google are in this for an ideology that isn't spelled with dollar symbols, you're way off target).

Then why do they constantly ban or demonetize conservative content creators? They leave that money on the table for ideological reasons. You are responding in a thread which was started by you about an example of youtube choosing virtue over advertising revenue.

Sparks

No, I was posting a thread about a specific decision they've made. If you think they haven't made others, or that they are motivated by anything but the bottom line, you're just plain wrong.

Sparks

Example: https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/978068811604574208

Sparks

And another... https://twitter.com/Pinboard/status/978089855983874048