YouTube Bans Firearms Demo Videos, Entering the Gun Control Debate (bloomberg.com)

YouTube has 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," reports Bloomberg. "Additionally, YouTube said it will prohibit videos with instructions on how to assemble firearms." From the report: "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." 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 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.

Comments

Re:Fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Youtube are a private company.

They no more practice censorship than Fox News does.

Except Fox News generally isn't in the business of trying to get other people to create content for their site.

They can allow whatever they like on their own platform.

For the moment. Given the market-share YouTube has on video content sharing and it being in many respects a public square, you will see increased pushes to require them to take a more even handed approach with regards to what kind of content they block.

This is not a new concept, ex: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/1985/66-n-y-2d-496-0.html

Gab tv just went online

[Okian Warrior]

And just today, Gab TV went online.

Seriously - why do these companies think they need to direct our thoughts and actions into "acceptable" channels?

There's an interesting set of "public forum" lawsuits that discuss this. Especially this one from CA.

Basically, if a system becomes the equivalent of the town bulletin board, then freedom of speech must be enforced.

(I recall a man suing a mall for taking down his (otherwise legal) posts on *their* builletin board. They claimed that their board was private property, and could decide what was allowed. He claimed that the mall replaced the supermarket which used to be there, and the mall bulletin-board now became the public forum that used to be the supermarket bulletin-board.)

I think the dividing line would have to be public access. If you *pay* someone to write (for example) articles for your paper, then you can control what they write and choose to publish or not. If you *let anyone* post commentary or opinions, then first amendment must be enforced.

(Oh and if you disagree, can you please show why companies don't need to enforce freedom of speech, while bakeries must make custom gay wedding cakes when they don't want to? They're both 1st amendment issues.)

Re:Gab tv just went online

[Jodka]

And just today, Gab TV went online.

My experience with gab was first that I was like "Yay! No censorship of political opinions! I am there."

Turns out that, while it is not that uncensored speech is inherently bad speech, when only a few forums permit that then they become magnets for those prohibited elsewhere. I am not one of those people who is afraid of exposure to opinions which I oppose, but let me put it this way: There was a limit to how many times I could see some variation or another on "Jews suck!" before I was like, well, I don't really want to waste my time looking at this crap.

   

Re:Fine

[Mark of the North]

Sure. Cut off your nose to spite your face.

I'm honestly on the fence about the ban. I'm lukewarm on it ending promotions that benefit firearms manufacturers, because it will take with it some really good educational content and reviews. But the ban completely misses the really wacky NRATV-like content that is made by true-believers. I'd really like to stop running into that that tripe. It is really unnerving stuff.

This is said by someone who really enjoys shooting, whether hunting, long-range target, or defending our garden against Richardson ground squirrels. But self-defence never entered into my head when I bought either of my rifles, mostly because I live in a country with supportive social systems that drastically reduce violent crime and the same country often punishes those who uses disproportionate violence in defence of person or property. If I were to shoot an unarmed robber in my home, I'd likely end up in jail.

Might not be his fault

[Okian Warrior]

I can forgive that you don't understand this given the 2008 Heller decision is what clearly established the individual right to bear arms. But do please try to keep up, it's been 9 years now.

It might not be his fault.

Note that some school textbooks show the amendment rewritten to promote that view.

I have to wonder, with this and all the one-sided bans and anti-right policies, if we really are at the start of a civil war.

Re:Might not be his fault

[bobbied]

I have to wonder, with this and all the one-sided bans and anti-right policies, if we really are at the start of a civil war.

I hope not.. The last Civil War was a disaster for the USA. But I do see where one side of this whole debate is ready to rip up the constitution and the legal basis of this country by hook or crook. So, maybe it is, but what a mess that would be.

Re:CatTube

[lgw]

On the positive side, with Google turning YouTube into a children's only web site, it's the perfect opportunity for someone else to end Google's monopoly on user driven video sites.

Nothing would make me happier. YouTube is my final obstacle to living a Google-free life. Even with ad block, I feel guilty about giving YouTube my traffic, but there's just no credible alternative yet.

Re:CatTube

[Karmashock]

The problem with youtube, google, facebook, twitter, reddit... we took this open platform of the internet where anyone could do anything and we gave control over our behavior to a few big players because their products were slick and had a lot of cash invested in them. We centralized... and in centralizing we gave control over this free wheeling space of the internet to a handful of companies.

And now we're seeing the problem with that. The same problem we had before with the handful of media companies that provided our TV, Newspapers, Radio, etc...The freedom is gone if you centralize.

We have to decentralize. Put the power in so many hands that no one would even dream they could stop anything.