Does this mean people now go to shoot their load on pornhub?
YouTube banned many gun vids, so some moved to smut site
YouTube has changed its Policies on content featuring firearms to prohibit videos that try to sell guns or offer “instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories”. The change was hardly shouted from the rooftops: the video vault …
COMMENTS
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 08:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
A lot of people...
Who are watching those gun video's seem to 'get off' watching other people shoot their guns anyway...
Though I do wonder how it wil affect channels like Cody's lab...
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 09:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
The InRange mud tests are pretty interesting and entertaining. Karl Kasarda however can be a bit too intense, a bit too 'muh 2nd amendments' and at any given time looks like he's a hairs breadth away from running off into the desert with an AK ranting about lizard people and the new world order.
Ian 'Gun Jesus' McCollum on the other hand seems super laid back and a gun nerd rather than a gun nut. His Forgotten Weapons channel is fascinating, educational, often hilarious and exactly the sort of thing Youtube should be for.
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 16:28 GMT Anonymous Coward
"[...] something that'll be tough to do over here."
The BBC did a series not long ago charting the change in weaponry over the centuries - with explanations and demonstrations of how they worked. Dr Sam Willis "Sword, Musket & Machine Gun: Britain's Armed History". Only a relatively long program synopsis is currently available on iPlayer.
-
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 18:09 GMT Fr. Ted Crilly
hey dont overlook C&Rsenal, Bloke On The Range, British muzzleloaders
C&R are heavy on the historical WW1 firearms and preceding development. they also have Anvil, is gunsmithing.
Bloke, well bloke is a British immigrant in Switzerland heavy on Enfields, Swiss service rifles K31 etc. bolt service rifles and target shooting....very British :-)
+++++++ Forgotten Weapons although Ian is branching into more modern 'forgotten guns'
+++++++ for InRange mud/sand tests
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 09:51 GMT thames
Karl Kasarda I think is some sort of computer security consultant in his day job and very big on the "digital rights" movement in general. Of the two he's the one who is always looking for alternative video distribution networks as he doesn't like the idea of Youtube being able to shut down anyone they take a dislike to. He is also a bit more social media savvy, and the Pornhub thing sounds like more of a publicity stunt that he dreamed up rather than a serious effort at diversification. Since it got his name into the news, it sounds like it has been a pretty successful publicity stunt which also happens to line up with his views on censorship in general.
McCollum is a lot more laid back and lets Kasarda take the lead on things like this. On the other hand, he has his own Forgotten Weapons web site (rare, historic, and antique firearms) which is his main effort. His site has been around for a long time, as its own forums, and he sources his own ads for that site, so he isn't completely dependent upon Youtube to sustain his "brand". He does use Youtube as a video host and they do bring a lot of new viewers to him, but he wouldn't have to start from scratch if Youtube kicked him off their platform.
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 12:41 GMT phuzz
I do wonder if Forgotten Weapons will be able to continue on Youtube, because one of their rules is that there can't be a link to buy weapons. However Ian does a lot of work at auction houses (I assume it's the best way to get access to some rare firearms), and unsurprisingly always mentions that it's possible to buy whatever interesting gun he's looking at this week from the auction house.
I hope he can continue the channel because he's very much about the history and mechanics of the weapons he looks at, rather than the legal/political side.
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 09:34 GMT thames
The big point which has so many Youtube content creators of all types up in arms is Youtube's opaqueness and seemingly random application of their "rules". Creators who want to invest time and money into a high quality production will find themselves "demonetised" for no apparent reason. They will complain to Youtube, who will then reverse the demonetisation, but by the time it goes through Youtube's bureaucracy most of the potential views will have gone by, turning the video into a loss maker for the producer. Nobody at Youtube can give them a reason why they were demonetised or point to a policy which they may have "violated", or even seem to care about any of it. And I'm talking about content creators who have hundreds of thousands of subscribers and received awards from Youtube, not some guy with a few dozen views.
The end result is that content creators have become risk averse in terms of how much they are willing to invest in production costs, and the market is tilted in favour of creators who put little effort into quality. People who simply babble into a microphone about video games have much less at risk than people who have to purchase material or pay for travel to do a historical documentary.
Almost all of the Youtube channels that I follow now depend upon Patreon to make ends meet, as Youtube ad revenues are simply too high risk. None of them make a living from Youtube, but all have to try to at least cover their expenses somehow as they aren't wealthy enough to fund their productions out of their own pockets.
With respect to the latest changes, the firearms related channels can't get any sort of answer out of what "manufacture" of ammunition means and whether there are any clear guidelines for reviewers. Does this cover normal reloading using commercial components, or are they talking about improvised ammunition?
Anyone doing serious target shooting will hand load their own ammunition, as the commercial grade stuff simply isn't good enough for competition use. Anyone firing antique or otherwise old or rare firearms will also usually have to reload their own ammunition, as obsolete calibres are simply not available or the stuff that is available may be unsafe to use in older firearms. So is what they are doing "manufacture" of ammunition according to Youtube? Nobody knows, and there is apparently no way to get any sort of answer out of Youtube.
The majority of the content creators on the channels that I watch regularly have all said that they are actively looking for alternatives to Youtube and only stay there because that is where they can get new viewers they can attract to things such as their Patreon channel. Content creators are looking to decamp en masse from Youtube as soon as a viable alternative arises. The market is ripe for a competitor; the main barrier to entry being the ability to line up advertisers.
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 16:06 GMT thames
@Dan 55 said: "So what's stopping them moving to Vimeo or Dailymotion?"
Several of the channels that I follow were in the process of moving copies of their content to Vidme, and then Vidme shut down. That was a short time ago, so I'm not sure if they are gearing up to look for another destination. Most of the people running the channels that I watch seem to know one another, and the move to Vidme was started by one individual with the others following.
I don't follow many shooting channels, as my own interests are more along the lines of history. People doing channels related to history and (non-pop) culture have been hit just as hard or harder by recent Youtube policies as people running shooting channels.
Some of the problem I suspect is that Youtube was trying to decide which videos to ban or demonetise by using AI. I've heard things from various podcasts interviewing people who have worked on AI systems for that purpose for Youtube. However, the AI doesn't seem to work in any sort of reasonable, logical, or consistent manner and its randomness is driving the content creators mad.
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 10:39 GMT Anonymous Coward
Is this good or bad for Patreon in general? Youtube?
"Almost all of the Youtube channels that I follow now depend upon Patreon to make ends meet"
I wonder how many people will be deterred from using Patreon now it has apparently associated itself with gunworship fundraising.
Shame, some of the music-related stuff on Patreon was starting to sound interesting.
On a vaguely related note: A security researcher I know occasionally visits the other site which the gun worshippers are reportedly now using for content distribution, looking for examples of this alleged malware, and hasn't seen any yet. Are there any documented examples?
On the other hand, El Reg's own adflingers have occasionally served malware, if I remember rightly.
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 18:07 GMT Mark 85
@thames --
Youtube's problem here is that they are reacting to public (ie: media) pressure. I'd be very surprised if they had someone on staff who has an understanding or an interest in this (weapons) context. I daresay I'll bet we start seeing videos of fighters and bombers being deleted because well... weapons.
-
Sunday 25th March 2018 15:47 GMT John Brown (no body)
seemingly random application of their "rules".
Considering the sheer amount of YouTube content and the massive flood of uploads on a daily basis, I would suggest it's poor algorithms rather than "seeming random". We see it all the time with automated systems from parking tickets issued 3 seconds after the ticket expires to weird site blocks and take downs.
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 09:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
Wahhhh Freedom of speech,, not letting us do what we want....
Guess what guys, it's their platform, funded by advertisers.
If the advertisers are saying sorry guys, but we are not going to give you any money if you show these videos, then it's up to Google if they no longer want to show them.
Google are not saying you can't make and show gun videos, they are saying we won't show them on OUR platform.
And yes it does make me feel dirty defending YouTube.
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 17:26 GMT Eddy Ito
Re: Wahhhh Freedom of speech,, not letting us do what we want....
Drama much? I haven't seen much if any 'Wahhhh Freedo... oh, they're not the government' going on and certainly not in this story. So they decided to add another host platform to their channel, how is that whinging about free speech?
Everyone who used to watch on YouTube will switch to Full30, PornHub, or somewhere else. It isn't that difficult to hit 'ctrl+d' as long as there is a pointer or a brief transition period and channels aren't simply shut down by Google, which I expect in a few months unless they start losing enough eyeballs to the other sites. At most Google will lose a few bucks and some data points but they're probably also serving the gun ads for some of the other sites anyway so it'll be a wash.
-
Monday 26th March 2018 09:26 GMT GruntyMcPugh
Re: Wahhhh Freedom of speech,, not letting us do what we want....
Or YT could restrict the advertising on videos about guns and related accessories to companies flogging such items. I'm no gun nut, and firmly believe in strict regulation, but YT are having a massive knee jerk here. It's not just gun videos they are demonetising, they are driving content creators from the platform in many areas.
-
-
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 10:32 GMT TRT
Re: Youtube's anti-freespeech stance is sad
Just the same as posting down votes rather than actually having to explain or confront exactly what the issue is or how to define limits on, in the case of social media, what IS acceptable censorship and what isn't. You see, on other news sources I'm reading this and seeing "Banning our gun videos is WRONG! We need this information to be able to arm ourselves against the terrorist threat! Those terrorists should be BANNED from YouTube... posting videos of how to make bombs from household chemicals is just inviting mass murder"
And the thing is, I just can't make head nor tail of this.
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 10:46 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Youtube's anti-freespeech stance is sad
Free speech is not the right to say what you want and to force people to give you a platform to say it on, (or to force people to listen). Free speech is the right to not have the government censor you for expressing unpopular opinions. YouTube is not the government, it can censor whatever it wants without falling foul of free speech legislation.
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 13:54 GMT DropBear
Re: Youtube's anti-freespeech stance is sad
"YouTube is not the government, it can censor whatever it wants without falling foul of free speech legislation."
Well yes and no. In a strict technical and legal sense you're of course absolutely right. Their site, their rules. The "no" part comes in once one realises that much like with ISPs and net neutrality, certain parts of the internet have become de facto "utilities", and as such they shouldn't be choosing what to publish and what to censor.
If, for instance, Facebook doesn't like you how exactly are you supposed to go to "some other Facebook"? It's basically one of a kind. Yes, you could argue there is no "right" of access to Facebook; on the other hand I could argue there bloody well should be - serve either anyone or no one. Nor is the Internet a "public good", there being no traditional, inherent "right" to access it - yet modern society all but accepted already that nobody should be denied the right to access it.
Yes, you could argue the right to not serve troublesome customers (eg. drunken ones) is not exactly a novel thing. Then again, I'd like to see how long would you manage to defend a decision to eg. only serve men but not women. And yes, YouTube is not _quite_ the only service of its kind, but we all know in practice it bloody well is, at least as long as you actually want anyone to see your videos at all.
So, TL:DR; YouTube censorship: Legally - entirely rightful; morally - absolutely indefensible.
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 17:56 GMT Jaybus
Re: Youtube's anti-freespeech stance is sad
"YouTube is not the government, it can censor whatever it wants without falling foul of free speech legislation."
Hang on! That is never the case. There are many anti-discrimination laws in the US that prevent a company from "doing whatever it wants". They all use more or less the same wording, banning discrimination "on the basis of race, religion, or national origin." Therefore, those who would like to see anything related to guns banned from social media, or any media, for that matter, should be careful of their claims that gun ownership is a religion. You see, if gun worship is a religious activity, then a YT policy banning gun videos is most definitely a discriminatory act.
-
-
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 10:28 GMT TRT
Re: Guns on PornHub
Mom comes into son's bedroom...
"I was cleaning in your room earlier, and I found this..."
"Mooooommm!"
"You know it's not good you having this kind of dirty magazine lying around. Well, I'm going to just have to teach you how it's done in the real world."
Produces bottle of oil...
and a gun rag.
-
Sunday 25th March 2018 14:49 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Guns on PornHub
Produces bottle of oil...
and a gun rag.
That is not only in America. Memories... Going back 40 years...
My granduncle and my dad drunk off their t*ts... sitting around the table and continuing on their way towards an "under the table" state. Grandaunt serving food, me and my uncle (who is actually younger then me by a year) and me running around the apartment with a real Makarov and real Ak72 and playing nazis vs Partisans. No ammo of course. Gramps (shitfaced as he was) checked it carefully 3 times.
Mom shows up and starts screaming and my granduncle. **** (name omitted to protect the guilty), you bloody idiot, how could you give 7 year olds real weapons to play!!! Answer: And whaaaaaaaats your proooooooblem - there is no ammo. My mom still screaming at him: BBBBut they will knock the sights out of alignment!!!
-
-
-
Friday 23rd March 2018 11:05 GMT mark l 2
Although there are alternative video hosting websites, they get only a fraction of the viewers compared to Youtube. I've uploaded the same video to both Youtube and Dailymotion and if a videos gets 1000s of views on YT might only get a few dozen on DM. There are several reasons why these other platforms don't get the traffic.
* Nearly every phone and tablet comes with a Youtube app pre-installed driving users towards the site.
* Google often promotes related Youtube videos as the first result to your internet searches.
* Mainstream media in general refers to video sharing sites as Youtube, meaning some people probably don't even consider that there are alternative platforms.
The problem was that Youtube up until fairly recently allowed almost any video to be monetised and earn revenue from ads, but then the advertisers started to complain about the content their ads were appearing against and so YT then needed to change the rules. If YT management had any forethought they would have had stricter rules from the beginning on what was allowed but it was all about making as much $$$ as possible by putting ads in front of as many videos as they could.