Youtube bans gun videos

[Orlow]

Just got a notice banning certain gun videos on YouTube.
We're a lot of gunsmith share secrets on how they fix guns and problems for the shooting communit.

[350 mag]

Social Re-Engineering.....

Give up your guns.


Governments will look after your safety.

Much akin to Hitler& Stalin's schtick.

Although now the Wolves hide in Sheep's clothing under the guise of public safety and Liberalism.

Make no mistake....their are hard times ahead....and the Elite do NOT want armed Serfs.

Look what happened during the French Revolution....

They realize that Civilized Societies will break down the minute the Music stops.

Humans beings, at their core, are capable of horrible atrocities. Rather than fix the problems of the world their solution is status quo and disarm people so they cannot defend their universal human rights( Safety and Freedom)

[10aciousB]

This is purely a business decision. YouTube is a private entity that makes decisions on how to increase revenues, minimize losses, and protect the brand no different than any other. All of the tired old free-speech, left, right talking points are irrelevant. Sure, it sucks, but any one of us are free to start our own online video sharing platform if we so choose.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by 10aciousB

This is purely a business decision. YouTube is a private entity that makes decisions on how to increase revenues, minimize losses, and protect the brand no different than any other. All of the tired old free-speech, left, right talking points are irrelevant. Sure, it sucks, but any one of us are free to start our own online video sharing platform if we so choose.

You are foolish to see this as a business decision.

[10aciousB]

Originally Posted by Newview01

You are foolish to see this as a business decision.

OK

[MyAlberta]

Originally Posted by 10aciousB

OK

And I find it interesting how these companies are handling these issues. Rapidly changing environment where your business could prosper or be sunk by a tweet. Tariffs that will reshuffle the deck. Social issues that are redefining business environments.

I agree, purely business responding to a changing climate. My only concern is abuse flourishing within deregulation, and of course, inflation.

[happy honker]

Originally Posted by Newview01

You are foolish to see this as a business decision.

care to elaborate and enlighten us?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Orlow

Just got a notice banning certain gun videos on YouTube.
We're a lot of gunsmith share secrets on how they fix guns and problems for the shooting communit.

Can you post the wording direct from the notice?

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Can you post the wording direct from the notice?

for those who don't have or don't know how to use google...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...pting-backlash

YouTube, a popular media site for firearms enthusiasts, this week quietly introduced tighter restrictions on videos involving weapons, becoming the latest battleground in the U.S. gun-control debate.

YouTube will ban videos that promote or link to websites selling firearms and accessories, including bump stocks, which allow a semi-automatic rifle to fire faster. Additionally, YouTube said it will prohibit videos with instructions on how to assemble firearms. The video site, owned by Alphabet Inc.’s Google, has faced intense criticism for hosting videos about guns, bombs and other deadly weapons.

For many gun-rights supporters, YouTube has been a haven. A current search on the site for “how to build a gun” yields 25 million results, though that includes items such as toys. At least one producer of gun videos saw its page suspended on Tuesday. Another channel opted to move its videos to an adult-content site, saying that will offer more freedom than YouTube.

Read more: Reddit Wades Into the Gun Control Debate

“We routinely make updates and adjustments to our enforcement guidelines across all of our policies,” a YouTube spokeswoman said in a statement. “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.”

YouTube has placed greater restrictions on content several times in the past year, responding to a series of issues with inappropriate and offensive videos. Most of those changes involved pulling ads from categories of videos. Google is more reluctant to remove entire videos from YouTube, but has been willing to do so with terrorism-related content.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry lobbying group, called YouTube’s new policy “worrisome.”

“We suspect it will be interpreted to block much more content than the stated goal of firearms and certain accessory sales,” the foundation said in a statement. “We see the real potential for the blocking of educational content that serves instructional, skill-building and even safety purposes. Much like Facebook, YouTube now acts as a virtual public square. The exercise of what amounts to censorship, then, can legitimately be viewed as the stifling of commercial free speech.”

The firearms decision comes days before Saturday’s March For Our Lives, a rally organized by survivors of the Feb. 14 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 dead.

See also: QuickTake on the gun-control debate

The new YouTube policies will be enforced starting in April, but at least two video bloggers have already been affected. Spike’s Tactical, a firearms company, said in a post on Facebook that it was suspended from YouTube due to “repeated or severe violations” of the video platform’s guidelines.

“Well, since we’ve melted some snowflakes on YouTube and got banned, might as well set IG and FB on fire!,” Spike’s wrote on Facebook, where it has over 111,000 followers, referring to the social network and its Instagram app. A YouTube spokeswoman said the channel has been reinstated after it was mistakenly removed.

InRange TV, another channel devoted to firearms, wrote on its Facebook page that it would begin uploading videos to PornHub, an adult content website.

Read more: Citigroup Restricts Some Gun Sales by Its Business Customers


“YouTube’s newly released released vague and one-sided firearms policy makes it abundantly clear that YouTube cannot be counted upon to be a safe harbor for a wide variety of views and subject matter,” InRange TV wrote. “PornHub has a history of being a proactive voice in the online community, as well as operating a resilient and robust video streaming platform.” PornHub didn’t immediately return a request for comment on the matter.

Last month, gun control activists escalated the pressure on tech giants for giving a platform to the National Rifle Association. A flurry of businesses cut ties with the pro-gun group after the deadly Parkland school shooting. Companies with streaming services, such as Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc. and YouTube, declined to remove the NRA channel.

— With assistance by Dashiell Bennett

[Dave P]

I heard PornHub was inviting all "Gun Video" guys to host there videos on there site.

What a time to be alive!!!! hahah

[Orlow]

SAN BRUNO, Calif. — YouTube has tightened its restrictions on firearms videos.

The video-serving network owned by Google is banning videos that provide instructions on how to make a firearm, ammunition, high-capacity magazines, and accessories such as bump stocks and silencers.

The ban includes showing viewers how to install the accessories or modifications. YouTube also prohibits content about the sale of guns or firearm accessories.

The policy comes weeks after a mass shooting at a Florida high school left 17 people dead.

The National Sports Shooting Foundation says such restrictions “impinge on the Second Amendment.” The group worries about the potential for blocking “educational content” that instructs and improves skills

No more reloading videos or trouble shooting problems.
Gone the way of the dodo bird

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by MyAlberta

And I find it interesting how these companies are handling these issues. Rapidly changing environment where your business could prosper or be sunk by a tweet. Tariffs that will reshuffle the deck. Social issues that are redefining business environments.

I agree, purely business responding to a changing climate. My only concern is abuse flourishing within deregulation, and of course, inflation.

Originally Posted by 10aciousB

OK

Originally Posted by happy honker

care to elaborate and enlighten us?

See the notice posted above.

Firearms channels and related videos get a lot of views. Which is potential advertising revenue.

This was not a business decision.

[10aciousB]

Originally Posted by Newview01

See the notice posted above.

Firearms channels and related videos get a lot of views. Which is potential advertising revenue.

This was not a business decision.

I also mentioned protecting the brand. YouTube is probably scared to death of the authorities finding "how to" videos in the browser histories of future mass shooters, and face potential massive payouts from litigation.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by 10aciousB

I also mentioned protecting the brand. YouTube is probably scared to death of the authorities finding "how to" videos in the browser histories of future mass shooters, and face potential massive payouts from litigation.

No, that is simply false.

The legal language is already written into the YouTube agreement that distances itself from such responsibilities.

Besides, there are plenty of other dangerous things to look up on YouTube. To focus on firearms is simply a political move.

Edit - I also might add, YouTube is a subsidiary of Google. I don't think they fear anything from the "authorities" .

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by Newview01

No, that is simply false.

The legal language is already written into the YouTube agreement that distances itself from such responsibilities.

Besides, there are plenty of other dangerous things to look up on YouTube. To focus on firearms is simply a political move.

There’s a pretty big gulf between liability and wanting to avoid your brand being associated with a mass shooting or something like the recent events in Austin. Some of those channels do make what seems like a lot of revenue for the site but it’s a drop in the bucket realative to the reputational damage being associated with an event like that.

Snapchat took a 1.5 billion dollar hit to their valuation over the add with Rihanna in it last week. Facebook’s market cap loss over the Cambridge Analytica scandal is already over 50 Billion in just a few days. When Alphabet and Reddit are looking at those kinds of losses the $.003 they make showing me an add in the middle of a 1911 trigger tune up is not terribly significant.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

There’s a pretty big gulf between liability and wanting to avoid your brand being associated with a mass shooting or something like the recent events in Austin. Some of those channels do make a lot of revenue for the site but it’s a drop in the bucket realative to the reputational damage being associated with an event like that.

Snapchat took a 1.5 billion dollar hit to their valuation over the add with Rihanna in it last week. Facebook’s market cap loss over the Cambridge Analytica scandal is already over 50 Billionin just a few days. When Alphabet and Reddit are looking at those kinds of losses the $.003 they make showing me an add in the middle of a 1911 trigger tune up is not terribly significant.

Except you are making incorrect comparisons.

Snapchat - this was an advertisement promoted by Snapchat
Facebook - this was an unethical breach of user data

Keep in mind that YouTube is a platform for these videos, and in no way promotes them.

If YouTube wanted to get serious about public safety and liability - what about the extremely violent video game screenshots, actual violence, street fights, you name it. The violence is ubiquitous.

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Except you are making incorrect comparisons.

Becjase the general YouTube watching public always makes rational, measured decisions?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

Becjase the general YouTube watching public always makes rational, measured decisions?

Of course I can’t comment on that. Trust me, I understand how it is perceived to be a business decision, but given the realities of this policy change I simply will not concede that the decision was made as the result of a potential lawsuit. The evidence I am using is the fact that for years already YouTube has been arbitrarily removing / restricting these types of videos.

[TargetRick]

Originally Posted by 10aciousB

This is purely a business decision. YouTube is a private entity that makes decisions on how to increase revenues, minimize losses, and protect the brand no different than any other. All of the tired old free-speech, left, right talking points are irrelevant. Sure, it sucks, but any one of us are free to start our own online video sharing platform if we so choose.

I completely agree with the above decision

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Newview01

See the notice posted above.

Firearms channels and related videos get a lot of views. Which is potential advertising revenue.

This was not a business decision.

I think it is a pure business decision based on the idea that to oppose a certain position would make them more popular with the opposition and in the long run make them more money.

[Sundancefisher]

seems silly of Youtube