Youtube kicking off Gun Channels, oppurtunity for Floatplane?

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Learning from a video demonstration is far more than adequate.

So long as the video has sensible and good information in it and you can discern between good and bad information as a new user.

2 hours ago, knightslugger said:

i didn't say they couldn't do what they wanted... rather, if they really believed in the first amendment, they wouldn't be doing this.

Why? believing everyone has the right to say something and giving them your platform to say it are two different things. 

 

1 hour ago, VegetableStu said:

youtube please don't kill electroboom :c

I have to agree, I do enjoy his videos.

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

So long as the lessons carry valuable information and are correct,

And there in lies the problem, The argument was not to take down youtube gun videos because some people need them to learn about gun safety.  If you need youtube for that then you probably don't know shit about guns and have no way to discern between good and bad information.  This is why we have accredited instructors, so consumers know the information is good.

1 hour ago, beavo451 said:

Just because you go to a "school", pay for an "education", or have a "certification" doesn't mean that you have good information.

how does that even work as an argument? Are you saying if accredited instructors can get it wrong, then getting your information from anywhere is good enough? 

 

Quote

It is up to each person to determine the validity of the information that they receive and choose how to use it.

 

How can you determine if the information you are getting is valid if you know nothing about the topic?

 

 

 

[ravenshrike]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

bad information

Case in point, every training video where they have people downrange while firing live ammo.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Case in point, every training video where they have people downrange while firing live ammo.

 

I haven't seen a video like that yet,  but when I hear people argue that even experienced instructors get it wrong (and end up dead), I really don't understand how anyone could advocate for amateur videos to be available.     

 

 

[ravenshrike]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I haven't seen a video like that yet,  but when I hear people argue that even experienced instructors get it wrong (and end up dead), I really don't understand how anyone could advocate for amateur videos to be available.     

Yeah, those technically aren't amateurs. Most of those idiots are running "tactical" training or "extreme" self defense companies. More than a few of them have some military experience.

[knightslugger]

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

homemade suppressors.

home-made suppressors are legal to manufacture. you need to Form1 one BEFORE you make it.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, PocketNerd said:

*snip*

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

And there in lies the problem, The argument was not to take down youtube gun videos because some people need them to learn about gun safety.  If you need youtube for that then you probably don't know shit about guns and have no way to discern between good and bad information.  This is why we have accredited instructors, so consumers know the information is good.

Except there are multiple facets to gun safety.  Even as someone who's extremely comfortable around guns, I've still learned new things, even things about safety that I wasn't aware of.  For one example, I've always had a latent fear of my firearm discharging when I carry, because I always carry loaded and chambered (as it should be).  However, when I discovered some videos that revealed how modern firearms actually can't fire unless the trigger is pulled (due to a striker bar inside the firing mechanism), it actually served to allay my concerns.  That's not quite the same thing as what you're referring to, but still tangentially related.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Jito463
Clarification: should have read "loaded and chambered"

[knightslugger]

33 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Why? believing everyone has the right to say something and giving them your platform to say it are two different things. 

because that is the nature of their platform: to give the everyday user access to and the ability to share their message to the world through video. if that isn't an ultra 1A reasoning behind such a website to exist, i don't know what is. The fact is that by restricting what is said or show on your website while in the same breath stating you support the 1A, is disingenuous and a bold faced lie. you cannot have both and kept face.

[Donut417]

Its not for me to say if this is right or wrong. The fact is Youtube is Googles video service. They most likely are trying to keep some of the political drama off the platform. Id also say the advertisers are getting nervous with this type of content as well. Sorry to say its not a good year to be in the firearms business. Youtube essential is trying to keep their image clean, just like Twitch has done with their new standards. 

[knightslugger]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Its not for me to say if this is right or wrong. The fact is Youtube is Googles video service. They most likely are trying to keep some of the political drama off the platform. Id also say the advertisers are getting nervous with this type of content as well. Sorry to say its not a good year to be in the firearms business. Youtube essential is trying to keep their image clean, just like Twitch has done with their new standards. 

then why hasn't google/youtube found more appropriate advertisers for firearms related videos? I'll tell you why: They are biased.

[Jito463]

9 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

because that is the nature of their platform: to give the everyday user access to and the ability to share their message to the world through video. if that isn't an ultra 1A reasoning behind such a website to exist, i don't know what is. The fact is that by restricting what is said or show on your website while in the same breath stating you support the 1A, is disingenuous and a bold faced lie. you cannot have both and kept face.

If I may play a little devil's advocate.  There are many things we would likely agree on that should not be part of Youtube.  Of course, I could point the illegal stuff (child porn, etc), and we would both agree that those things have no place there.  But there are murkier things as well, like the whole "Elsa" channel garbage that was explicitly targeted towards children, but was in no way appropriate for them.  Do we believe that should be pulled?  I know I do, I suspect you would as well (not to put words in your mouth).

 

While we both disagree vehemently with Youtube's decision in this matter, it's ultimately not our platform.  We've simply been invited to use it, and now they're uninviting certain parties.  I would be completely in favor of starting an e-mail or writing campaign to get them to reverse the decision, but I would never go so far as to say they're violating 1st amendment rights by blocking those videos.

7 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Sorry to say its not a good year to be in the firearms business.

Are you kidding?  It's a great year.  All these unprovoked attacks on those who had nothing to do with the shooting, is only driving people to more and more purchases.

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, knightslugger said:

then why hasn't google/youtube found more appropriate advertisers for firearms related videos? I'll tell you why: They are biased.

Because I doubt they know what ads are going on what video's. Its going to be done at random. The fact is Google is a business and they have the right to be bias. Technically speaking only the Government can be held accountable for the 1st amendment. Businesses can do what they want to do for the most part. If you dont like that Google/Youtube is bias then I suggest you stop using their services. 

[Donut417]

Just now, Jito463 said:

Are you kidding?  It's a great year.  All these unprovoked attacks on those who had nothing to do with the shooting, is only driving people to more and more purchases.

Only a smart part of the population owns guns. While those people are buying, More and more people are getting fed up with what they are seeing on the 6PM News. That overall is hurting companies reputations. Which is why some places here in Michigan wont sell guns to anyone under 21 even though Michigan Law says they can. In the end it all comes down to public out cry over the issues. Currently there are a lot of people pissed that nothing is being done. 

[knightslugger]

Just now, Donut417 said:

Because I doubt they know what ads are going on what video's. Its going to be done at random. The fact is Google is a business and they have the right to be bias. Technically speaking only the Government can be held accountable for the 1st amendment. Businesses can do what they want to do for the most part. If you dont like that Google/Youtube is bias then I suggest you stop using their services. 

oh please. youtube doesn't know what ads to play on what kinds of videos? They have bots that have advanced algorithms that can detect, translate, and moderate videos and content. You cannot possibly sit there and tell me they don't have the ability to tailor the ad experience for the best results, OR THAT THEY DON'T ALREADY. They don't do it for firearms related videos because they have an anti-2A stance on guns, and will steamroll the 1A to do it, on a platform they built to be the most perfect expression of one of mankinds' most profound rights.

[knightslugger]

2 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Only a smart part of the population owns guns. While those people are buying, More and more people are getting fed up with what they are seeing on the 6PM News. That overall is hurting companies reputations. Which is why some places here in Michigan wont sell guns to anyone under 21 even though Michigan Law says they can. In the end it all comes down to public out cry over the issues. Currently there are a lot of people pissed that nothing is being done. 

and if you notice, a lot of those companies are getting sued due to breaching all kinds of anti-discrimination laws.

[beavo451]

54 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So long as the video has sensible and good information in it and you can discern between good and bad information as a new user.

Why? believing everyone has the right to say something and giving them your platform to say it are two different things. 

 

I have to agree, I do enjoy his videos.

And there in lies the problem, The argument was not to take down youtube gun videos because some people need them to learn about gun safety.  If you need youtube for that then you probably don't know shit about guns and have no way to discern between good and bad information.  This is why we have accredited instructors, so consumers know the information is good.

how does that even work as an argument? Are you saying if accredited instructors can get it wrong, then getting your information from anywhere is good enough? 

 

 

How can you determine if the information you are getting is valid if you know nothing about the topic?

 

 

 

You learn by multiple sources. If there are 200 videos that tell you X and 3 videos that tell you Y, then you are probably going to do X. 

 

Learning the the basics of something doesn’t require formal education or “accredited” instructors. 

 

Learning and the exchange of information doesn’t change just because of the medium. 

 

Think about out how much you learn about everything as you are growing up. You learn from unaccredited parents, friends, and strangers. 

[SansVarnic]

-= Thread Locked =-

 

Despite the thread cleansing and Posted warning, arguments continue. 

Apparently this is just to controversial of a topic to discuss civilly.

 

We understand that this topic is of necessary discussion but I believe at this time this topic needs some cool down time before re-engaging in the discussion.