I have used Youtube in the past for seeing how to install gun accessories, put guns together, how to fix malfunctions, etc. Watching those videos has made me a more knowledgeable, and hence more responsible gun owner. This is an especially large blow for people who are part of niche communities, like reloading ammo for 100+ year old rifles. A lot of historical content will be lost.

The new youtube rules will also get rid of entertainment channels like Hickock45 and Demolition Ranch (the proceeds of which help subsidize the creator's other channel, Vet Ranch)

I'm also pretty disappointed in Reddit. They made a new admin account yesterday to anonymously post the new rules. I believe this is the first time that's been done for an announcement, usually they're posted by a CEO or a specific individual. /r/gundeals was a fantastic community and I don't know if anything comparable exists elsewhere online. There were lots of links posted by regular users, but when dealers posted themselves they really made an effort to engage with buyers. Crappy vendors/products were usually called out in the comments. Other than optics, I can't imagine why reddit would ban strictly law-abiding communities while allowing illegal and toxic ones to flourish.

I have no sympathy towards gun use - but the principle of large monopolies applying their own morals to censor content seems wrong.

To me there are two models:

- You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site.

- You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for the content on your site.

Reddit & Youtube want a little from (A) a little from (B). They want the revenue from being a neutral platform, and the control of being a media company to moderate content for PR purposes.

The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban. So for example, at Reddit, Pizzagate is now officially endorsed as a reasonable point of view that Reddit believes is a valid opinion and is worthy of investigation. We know that reddit endorses pizzagate, because reddit moderates their content and decided to allow pizzagate conspiracies.

This could end up being a maximizing rule for revenue. So a pseudo morality may be as simple as “legal, pr coverage, max revenue).

That was the definition in the 18th century but modern liberalism (neoliberalism, corporate neoliberalism, or whatever you want to call it) - as personified by Blair and Clinton in the mid-90s and then continued more or less in-tact ever since - has diverged very, very far from that philosophy. That's neither an endorsement nor a complaint, but a simple historical fact.

Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would appear they are attempting to make the site more palatable for institutional investors by cleaning up.

On guns tons and tons and tons of companies have cut ties with the NRA. Yet Google still has the NRA channel.

Data does not support your post.

Personal!y I wish Google would remove content with no advertisers and we can get rid of the alt right crap.

Another cheaper rate for those that don’t care.

I’ve enabled my ad blocker on Reddit.

Maybe I’ll suggest having it added to our corporate web filters.

The UK court will consider that under it's jurisdiction because the publication was available in the UK. The UK libel law essentially puts the burden of proof on the defendant.

So now an American citizen can force an American company to prove that the claims of an anonymous user were true, or pay damages.

You can't IPO if everything on your platform is a potentially bankrupting libel lawsuit waiting to happen.

This is rather like saying you think it's fine for libraries to only carry books in line with their morals. Or perhaps that your phone only works for approved topics.

At a certain size these sites become primary platforms for communication. I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech applied to historical means of communication. Or made into one.

That's then infringing on their freedom of speech (or lack of). It's an interesting opinion but as it's so far away from any other I've read can you explain it more?

Speech was worthy of protection under the universal declaration of human rights, and these platforms are becoming so fundamental to communication that they should be given the same consideration.

These platforms have become so centralized, powerful, and ubiquitous that censorship on a platform has a greater impact than preventing a person from speaking. That kind of power should never be wielded unchecked by a private entity.

This doesn't follow. Not at all. This new rule is pretty clear that users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services. Pizzagate has nothing to do with soliciting or facilitating transactions or gifts.

Even if I take your reading of this at face value, it doesn't follow. Having rules against one thing doesn't prove Reddit endorses everything else. That's quite a leap to make, and doesn't follow any sort of logic or precedent.

It's a new world. It's no longer the internet of the 90s and early 2000s.

1 provider falls and 5 more grow from the ashes, less vulnerable than their predecessor.

It plays out the same way every time.

As a collection of standards, yes. However, trying to find a host for the content that is perceived to be wrong or questionable by the mainstream is now much more difficult. The submission is a case in point. youtube bans gun-related videos not because it is directly bad for their business (on the contrary -- it seems to have an active following), but because lawmakers and media are putting pressure on it to do so. This, in my book, is wrong.

Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them.

Agreed, but "I won't provide a platform for this speech" is not "suppressing". If I put up a bulletin board in my front yard and encourage my neighbors to post things there, in general it's eminently reasonable for me to decide that certain things can't be posted - even if my bulletin board becomes the most popular one in town.

(But if it's made "the official town news source" and local government makes certain posting certain things illegal, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.)

Tangentially, there's a 4th option you don't mention for messages one disagrees with - censuring them. (As in "actively and visibly disapproving" - not "censoring"!) For some types of message, the most appropriate response is a firm, unmistakable "That isn't welcome here" / "That's a terrible thing to say" followed by no discussion whatsoever. (Eg: when arguing lends a platform / legitimacy, but ignoring implies acquiescence.)

No. Free speech refers to protection from the government censoring or jailing for speech they don't want said. If you're relying on a private company, especially one who retains the rights to take down your video at any time for any reason, to disseminate your speech and you're worried about them doing something with that speech, you're speaking wrong.

I know you mention lawmakers are "pressuring" them to make this change, and if that's true, then yes, this would encroach on our freedom of speech. However, I'm having a hard time finding anything that backs up that claim, and "pressuring" is still very different from a government outright telling YT what may or may not be on the platform.

They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1]

> A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....

This simply doesn't apply to YouTube.

YouTube isn't even an area, much less a common area. (Not to mention that the “common area” thing is not a federal Constitutional requirement but a judicial application of the positive rights in the California Constitution; it is not a First Amendment right.)

It's a publication in which user submissions that Google accepts will be published, possibly accompanied by ads from which revenue is shared with the submitter.

Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement:

> Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world.

> We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities.

> We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular.

[1] First Amendment Architecture, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2012, No. 1, 2012, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791125

Users of telephone systems have free speech protections against the operator of those systems not because of the first amendment (and especially not because of applications of that to physical common areas against private property owners, which applications don't actually exist—the First Amendment has specifically and repeatedly been held not to apply even in that case against the property owner), but because of common carrier regulations.

> Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement:

YouTube's PR has very little impact on how constitutional law applies to it.

Since the citation upthread notes that even physical privately-owned common spaces are not protected by the first amendment against regulation by the owner of the space [0], though the first amendment rights of the owner also do not prevent state constitutions (California's in particular) from creating free speech obligations which do bind certain private owners of an extremely narrow class of public spaces, I think it is impossible to argue that virtual spaces are somehow protected under the first amendment by analogy to private common spaces, since the latter aren't actually protected.

[0] there is, IIRC, a different line of cases applying narrowly to government's or individual government official's use of privately owned physical spaces as a quasi-official two-way channel which does create some first amendment protection in that narrow context, and these principles have been extended to online fora, but that's not germane here.

No, they've ruled the opposite, as your own source explicitly states. Pruneyard permitted California to impose free speech obligations on property owners via the State Constitution that the Supreme Court had previously found were not required under the First Amendment. (In effect, it found that the federal First Amendment rights of the property owner did not extend to blocking the state action.)

Free speech is not simply a law. It's a concept society must both value and uphold, or it is a right only the popular and powerful have. If I can't even speak up outside work about my unpopular political beliefs without the economic death penalty - do we really have free speech? I'd argue not really. I don't care too much that the government can't jail me for it - that's a pretty low bar.

While I do agree Youtube has the right to ban whatever they like on their platform, I don't have to think it's a good thing for society - and I will absolutely continue to call these things an erosion of my free speech in society.

Without citizens that vehemently uphold free speech policies, the entire concept folds as soon as we start carving out ever-longer lists of exceptions of those who do not have it.

You can believe that a private company has the right to do something but also be opposed to them exercising that right.

There's a difference between free speech as a legal principle and free speech as a moral principle. I personally support both, so while I acknowledge that YouTube has a legal right to restrict speech, I still disagree with their use of that right in this case.

I'd go so far as to say the early communities of the internet were, as a rule, more moderated (either explicitly or implicitly) that even these new rules.

Whoever hosts the service (and as a corollary those that pay them) determines the moderation. The thing about "free speech" (taken to mean unmoderated speech) is that's not something you can build a healthy community on top of. No one got "torn down" by nebulous "mainstream" forces; it's just bad business. All hail the invisible hand of capitalism.

What kind of standard are you actually advocating for?

Where did I argue that?

Kara Swisher has the same right to her opinion as everyone else. I do stand by my statement that she's part of a new wave of tech 'elites' who are brown-beating tech companies into accepting certain kinds of ideologically-based standards of conduct. Nowhere did I even imply she doesn't have a right to do that, but I can certainly criticize her for it. Doubly-so because she's a public opinionator with a significant public platform.

If you don't want large monopolies to act as censors then don't put them in the position to do so. You're uploading your videos for free on their platforms, sometimes even expecting them to pay you for it. I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore. Find an other platform or make your own, that's how the internet is supposed to work.

On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship.

> I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore.

I don't find this line of thinking convincing. It's certainly appropriate to criticize moderation policies of platforms. If YouTube decided to censor videos on how to use condoms, #BlackLivesMatters, "conspiracies" about governments reading everyones' emails, or opinions on the Damore firing, criticism would be entirely warranted.

This in itself is okay. I certainly can find places on the web that would censor / moderate videos on how to use condoms, pro-#BlackLivesMatters posts, etc. Not my cup of tea, but they have a right to moderate how they want. We all can chose the social webs we want with the amount and style of moderation we look for. (Seeing the places on the web that are "moderation free", I don't think that is a great option unless you really enjoy a lot of spam and nastiness.)

The real problem is really that, for the average person, the social web has become monopolized into a few uber-dominant platforms, most of which (due to their size) are going to pursue a middle-of-the-road-American moderation policy that (due to their size) is muddy, opaque, and arbitrary. If one sticks to a social vision of just the monopoly platforms, there is "no choice".

Personally, I don't use the big social networks much. The more specialized, de-centralized social web of 10 years ago (eg: forums) is still around, and they are less subject to big-corporate moderation messes. A quick Google shows that, for instance on firearms trading, several firearms BST forums still are around and active. In forum world, if a lot of people didn't like the moderation of one place, they simply went to another forum. That's something that's not always possible even with the closest big-social equivalent, subreddits. The web in general originally was a lot more decentralized than today. The centralization of social in today's web feels like quite the mistake.

(do note that I'm not a lawyer, so this might not be 100% accurate)

I suppose you can say that but I don't think it's a useful definition. Censorship is a strong word, if we overuse it it's going to lose its meaning. Censorship generally has the intent of removing something from society at large because the elites deem it dangerous. Youtube isn't calling for the removal of gun content from the internet, they're just policing their platform. I mean, if what they're doing is censorship then what isn't? HN will ban/flag/delete many off-topic/controversial posts on sight, is that censorship? If your Dungeon and Dragon forum bans you because you posted porn, are they censoring you?

I'm not saying that Youtube couldn't or shouldn't be criticized for their move, I was specifically replying to the parent's claim that there was a change of mentality on the internet at large. Moderation or "censorship" as you like to call it has always existed everywhere, online and off. The real problem here is that Youtube wields a disproportionate amount of power by virtue of being quasi-monopolistic.

If you expect advertising-powered private platforms that host your content pro-bono to suddenly start fighting for your ideals against what they feel is their own economic interest I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Especially if said platform has no serious competitors and knows a huge amount of its users is effectively "captive" audience.

I expect that, as always in these situations, a minority of users will migrate to alternative websites (voat, alternative video streaming websites etc...) many of them will end up coming back to Youtube/Reddit because that's where all the content is and the network effect is strong. Repeat in one year when Reddit decides to issue a new wave of subreddit bans. I genuinely don't know how we can get out of this situation.

Or where exactly is the line?

This is not censorship.

It's changing because they're trying to follow 'public sentiment' and keep up the sign-ups, views and clicks to get advertisers their money.

If we want them to not be able to censor/moderate/control their platform their own way, they need to be regulated/classed as a carrier/media org.

It's only been 'open' till now because that's the most profitable model...

People need to realise these companies are not public services compelled to free speech, it's just an expectation the users expect to be met.

Sure. They can also choose to lie, say sexist things, and promote irresponsible drinking. And I'll criticize them if they do that, too.

I said:

1. It is by definition censorship.

2. People should strongly criticize things that are both legal and wrong.

I do think content hosts need some legal status if we want an open internet (and digital free speech) to survive. But because I'm for healthy conversation, I'm pushing back on replying to valid point with arguments for ending the conversation.

This isn’t censorship, it’s commercial positioning. You don’t have to like it, and indeed you can pressure the firm to take a different line but centralisation is the real enemy here.

But Other Websites Are Available.

The only thing you'd lose is the unified user profile but we have the tools to have distributed identities (oauth and friends). Before the era of social networks having mililon of forums for niche topics was common. Now you just create a subreddit instead.

Want to talk about knitting? Search for "knitting discussion online". Here are a few results: https://www.houzz.com/discussions/knitting-and-crocheting https://crochettalk.com/ http://www.knittingparadise.com/active-topic-list

Each site does not contain "everything I want" but each fills a particular niche. The fact that you actually have to search for them to find them can actually be seen as a bonus, you don't have the sort of "cross-contamination" you can observe on reddit when a community is suddenly popular enough to propelled into the frontpage and you have an influx of people who overrun your community and destroy its "culture".

Should reddit disappear tomorrow I'm sure we'll do just fine. Youtube is more complex because video hosting is much more demanding in terms of resources.

YouTube is doing its best to demonetize content that doesn’t result in subscribing to an uploader. Ie: people posting numerous videos that are unrelated because they are so specific.

Note that the definition for censorship you quote doesn't necessarily apply here, youtube is not prohibiting "any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security", they're prohibiting it on their platform. That's a huge difference. It's "you can't say that here" versus "you can't say that period". If I invite you to my home and you start spewing nazi propaganda I'm going to kindly ask you to leave, is that censorship?

You can't force Youtube to host your content if they don't want to and they can't prevent you from posting your content on other websites if you want to. There's no censorship or free speech issue here, only the problem of a monopolistic centralized platform without serious competition. That's why net neutrality is important and that's why Making the Internet Decentralized Again is critical if you value freedom of speech and opinion.

It's the suppression or prohibition. Nowhere is the definition constrained by location. There has never been a case of censorship that was enforced on every corner of the globe -- only where one's scope of influence has the power to do so.

Do you have a source for this? The latin word censere does not seem to be defined only as government officials silencing opinions they don't like:

>Definitions:assess, count/reckon, decree, vote, determine, recommend think/suppose,judge

http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/8896/censeo-censere-c...

>Maybe you think the word has a different meaning

It was simias who thinks the word has a different meaning, which is why I cited the dictionary. Do you think the dictionary is wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor

The name of the Roman office was based on "censere" but had a more specific meaning, and it's that which evolved into the English word "censor", due to the "supervising public morality" part of the censors' job. But the meaning shifted in the process. The Roman censors didn't "censor" anything in the modern sense; rather, they judged people for violations of public morality.

Makes one wonder where this new definition is coming from?

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised to see the euphemization of technology in a forum full of and run by technologists.

But you see you should because if the government in conjunction with private industry can ban the thing you don't like today, it can also ban the things you do like tomorrow.

You'll probably finally understand when the books start burning because that's right around the corner now.

Right now, manufacturers often put videos up on YouTube of how to install parts they sell. Like with Ikea furniture, I find these way more helpful than a paper manual. Same for videos about how to disassemble, clean, and reassemble guns (which often link to whatever cleaning products are used) [edit: BTW assembling something that already is a gun still falls under the ATF's definition of manufacturing a gun, so if Youtube uses the same definition these videos are banned even if they don't refer to specific products]

As for the 100 year gun-- let's take the M1 Garand (in WW2 movies, it's the one you hear go "ping". It's only ~85 years old, but bear with me). Over the last decade, the US government has sold off several hundred thousand of these rifles. As far as older guns go, they're fairly common. They shoot .30-06 ammunition, which can be found in most gun stores. However, 85 years ago metal was lower quality. If you use modern commercially available ammo in a Garand it will break [1]. There's a few options though. You can buy surplus ammo and hope that it was stored properly and that 40 years ago the quality control guy at the factory was having a good day[2]. Many people opt to recycle an initial batch of brass and manufacture their ammo. If done correctly this is safe, but there's a bit of a learning curve. Unfortunately the new policy bans videos that detail how to safely manufacture ammo.

[0] channels like ForgottenWeapons often describe how antique firearms work, which might run afoul of the new rules

[1] you can mitigate this with an accessory that reduces the pressure from the gasses. There's some good videos about it on youtube

[2] for more obscure weapons, I don't think this is an option

However, this is presuming that the laws regarding that are reasonable and not too lax, which as I understand they aren't (yet).

In the same vein, I think YouTube should take down a lot of life-threatening "life-hack" videos. Wilfully misguiding the public into soldering wires together unsafely, and in all likelihood get yourself killed or start a fire when one plugs in the resulting mess should be illegal IMO, akin to some kind of manslaughter.

I grew up in Port Lincoln, then moved to Adelaide, and now Launceston. Also, I have family in Queensland.

In my experience it isn’t unusual at all for someone to own a gun, or guns, in Australia.

My father had guns, my sisters family have multiple guns for pig hunting. Half the guys I work with have a veritable smorgasbord of firearms, I’m talking 10+ firearms, for hunting and just general enthusiasm. People I’ve worked with in IT in Adelaide own handguns for target shooting.

I guess it depends who you hang out with. Even some of the “hippies” I’ve known along the way own guns for pest control and dealing with injured livestock.

I guess the average city dweller in Australia probably doesn’t own firearms, but if you spend enough time in the towns and smaller cities... plenty of guns.

We do seem to mange not to shoot each other up very often. Im more worries about being punched in the back of the head.

According to https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-hou... , 42% of households have guns, so while it’s close, the median household does not have a gun. And, again, firearms are far more common in rural areas than in urban areas, so I believe the statement is true.

+ Those background checks are used for lots of things other than firearm purchases

+ Firearms can be transferred legally in some cases without background checks

+ Plenty of firearms existed before the background check system and are still owned and functioning

+ Many firearms are purchased, left to rust or otherwise break, and never repaired.

+ Firearms are occasionally turned in to the police or surrendered (usually when a family member passes and their relatives don't know what to do with the firearms).

The other source of information is directly asking people, but that runs into a bunch of problems too, mostly that people will lie.

I also don't think there's any kind of remotely common pattern that lets us correct this bad data from self reporting. Liberal gun owners are likely to lie about owning a firearm since they don't want their family to know, and conservative firearm owners are less likely to trust the person they're reporting to. Many firearm owners are taught to never ever talk about being a firearm owner to avoid being a target for burglary.

My point is, we simply don't know at all. Any gross figure is extremely suspect.

Still, bad numbers are all we’ve got. I’m sure most Americans have seen guns, or know gun owners, but I’m also sure most Americans — especially most urban Americans — don’t actually own guns themselves. If they did, people wouldn’t routinely confuse “semiautomatic” and “machine gun” or “submachine gun.”

My father owned a rifle for a time when I was young, but sold it probably 30 years ago. One member of my wife's family has what would be considered a hobby farm and recently bought a rifle for shooting pests. Outside of that, I'm not aware of another gun owner amongst friends and acquaintances.

It can be as little as just taking away a important part and store it in a good locker somewhere else in your house or even just hide it or you can do like me and get a weapons safe approved by the insurance industry and bolt it to the floor. (I got mine for somewhere around USD300 and it is big enough to also contain hard drives, medications, important papers etc.)

By being careful with storage and also introducing others to safe gun culture we might make a difference by preventing accidents, preventing more stolen guns on the black market etc.

Edit: It seems I'm annoying some people. Anybody see what I did wrong? Honestly more interested in the explanation than in the stupid votes:-/

Edit2: Tried to make my post less annoying. Thanks 1337biz

Sorry for that. Will take steps to fix.

> His gun might not be working,

Based on the description it seems to be very much in working order.

> he might even have no bullets at all.

Still makes it a valuable target for criminals as ammunition might be even easier to get hold of.

> Just don't make so many assumptions about other people.

Thanks again. I'll try to fix now.

I also saw someone downvoted you and will do my part to fix that.

At least how I read the announcement this kind of linking will be forbidden which means that the companies making the products have no feedback mechanism on how successful the advertising is, which in turn can kill channels

> Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above.

That's going to impact a lot of channels that focus on firearms/military history as well as general how-to sorts of channels. YouTube has been a great resource in the past if you're wondering "how do I properly install these trigger pins in my rifle?" or "how do I safely load this muzzle-loader in a deer stand?"

Here's a video that will definitely fall under new regulations: you be the judge.

So a link aggregation site (Reddit) bans a link aggregation forum (/r/gundeals) because it doesn't like the content of the links being aggregated.

If you still need something from the playstore there is the "yalp-store" app, which grabs apk with a fake account from google.

Apples ecosystem is a gilded ghetto

Remembering that macOS bug with empty password root access, I'd say that Apple security QC had degraded a lot.

1. This incredibly obscure bug (in the sense that I'm surprised someone was able to find this) was found relatively quickly

2. After it was found a fix was developed and tested quickly

3. Once that fix passed QA my devices received a software update over the air and the problem was solved. One of the big problem with other mobile OSs is that the OS updates are often going through the carrier or device manufacturer and it takes time or you don't get it at all.

I don't expect a device that's perfectly secure. I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of undiscovered vulnerabilities on the device I'm using to type this to you right now. But that's not the whole picture on security.

Genuine question.

Of course you should never use firmware from Chinese company, but it's true for 98% of other Android devices too and LineageOS + microG work great on these phones.

Like, e.g., last year my SO was changing phones, and we didn't have much budget left, so we went with then-recommended Huawei P8 Lite. Almost good enough, except it seems to have its Bluetooth stack broken in a very specific way that renders her Pebble almost useless. Oh, and every other day, it randomly drains battery very fast. It's those kinds of things you generally don't have to deal with when you go with higher-end devices.

Also when it's $160 device I don't need to worry about randomly died battery because I can always get new phone.

It seems quite clear to me. No-one cares about users, they care about customers. Apple care about their customers. Google care about their customers. Facebook care about their customers.

I am an Apple customer. I am a Google user. I am a Facebook user. See the difference? So do they.

I just don't like that they try to give the feeling of being "pro-privacy", when their actions speak otherwise. I find it very deceptive.

From what I can tell, they’re the best tech giant for user privacy. They’ve fought the FBI in court to not put in a government backdoor to unlocking user’s devices. Lawyers ain’t cheap.

I'm not accusing them of misusing our data, but I do know that they have, in the past, chosen to do something that looks like they are disregarding their user's privacy in order to make a buck (https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-moving-icloud-encryption-key...).

And they can set up their systems in a way that ensures they aren't violating our privacy or trust, but they choose not to do that. That to me, is very suspicious.

I do agree that they seem like the best tech giant for user privacy, but that is a super low bar. Just because they are "the best", doesn't mean they are good at it.

Are you asking rhetorically? For someone who repeatedly, adamantly, and assuredly posts about Apple and security, I'd be surprised if you don't already know the answer to your question.

And I don't know the answer to that, because I haven't used an Apple product since the original iPhone. If I'm misunderstanding how they work, then, please, inform me as to what I'm missing. I'm very willing to admit I was mistaken if they don't work the way I think they do.

I try to keep up with the basics of how they work, I have my friends show me things, etc. But I in no way want to paint myself as an Apple expert.

Mail is a mail client: if you use an Apple domain, you’ll use their servers. If not, then not. And you don’t need to use the built-in mail client. If you use Apple Maps, yeah, you’re using their service. You can use Google Maps or Waze or other alternatives if you choose. GPS is a radio: it doesn’t involve any service provider other than the satellites it receives information from, same as any other GPS radio.

I don't have to be a mechanic to know when a car is broken, just like I don't have to know how all of Apple's software works to know that they don't actually value privacy. Please, prove me wrong. I'd love it if Apple actually put their money where their mouth is. Until then, I know enough about their stack to know that they don't build it in a way that ensures privacy.

> You’ve seen enough responses from people to anticipate objections.

And? I can anticipate objections as to any argument. That doesn't change the validity of either side. I don't think I get what you mean by this.

> It’s tedious and boring to see the same arguments again and again.

Once those arguments become invalid, I'll stop. If I'm saying something that isn't true, please point it out. Until then, I'll will proudly correct the lie that "Apple cares about privacy". I'm sorry that the truth is tedious to you, but there's not much that I can do about that.

> Mail is a mail client: if you use an Apple domain, you’ll use their servers. If not, then not. And you don’t need to use the built-in mail client. If you use Apple Maps, yeah, you’re using their service. You can use Google Maps or Waze or other alternatives if you choose. GPS is a radio: it doesn’t involve any service provider other than the satellites it receives information from, same as any other GPS radio.

But they could build their systems so that I don't have to go through Apple to use their app, just in the same way that email works. They choose not to. My point is that, until they design their systems so that I can use all of the standard functionality without going through their servers, they aren't taking privacy seriously.

From that, you make an absolute claim that "Apple cares about privacy" is a lie. I think a more accurate description is "Apple doesn't care about privacy as much as I want them to." The latter is a perfectly valid, understandable opinion. The former is not. Apple has sunk substantial resources into privacy; you may feel that the Secure Enclave isn't really, because it's not open, but it's wrong to deny that they've put money into developing it. That's an example of putting their money where their mouth is. Likewise refusing to assist the FBI in unlocking their phones. That cost them money (if only in legal fees), and raised the ire of some in law enforcement and the government.

You can point to decisions Apple has made to operate in China, and reasonable people can disagree about their decision there. It's fair to also hold other companies to the same criteria when doing so. It'd also be helpful to point to examples of what you think are good examples of privacy.

You also mention "I do agree that they seem like the best tech giant for user privacy, but that is a super low bar. Just because they are "the best", doesn't mean they are good at it." Can things be better? Sure. If you care about privacy and "agree they seem like the best tech giant for user privacy", do you use Apple devices? Not since the first iPhone, you say. Then, why not? Are you working to improve security on other platforms? It's understandable if you're not: security is tough, and I don't necessarily expect everyone to contribute to open source. Are you evangelizing for those platforms? That sounds like something you could be doing, along with making reasonable arguments about issues you see with Apple.

Similarly "they could build their systems so that I don't have to go through Apple to use their app". Are you referring to the App Store? Getting software updates through Apple? As for other software, as far as I know, there are alternatives you can use. If you've got specific examples, please do provide them. Again, people can reasonably disagree about these. For a counterpoint, by controlling the marketplace, Apple has more control over quality and security, as well as the responsibility when something goes wrong. One can reasonably argue that they prefer this over letting anyone provide apps because they're concerned about malware being loaded, that other providers won't be paying as close attention. You may reasonably disagree that that's the best way to handle it.

On the other side, Apple doesn't have an business model where they make money from user data: they make money through hardware. The way they've had a hard time providing a good ad platform is an example of this: if they were really interested in selling Apple customers to advertisers, they would have figured this out. A customer benefit of this is that Apple can take privacy seriously: they don't have a motivation to make user data accessible. The other big player here, Google, is in the business of advertising. That's very much not to my liking, but I don't go around commenting only "Google doesn't care about privacy": I know the discussion is more nuanced that that, and to do otherwise is just encouraging flamewar.

All of this comes down to "Apple doesn't care about privacy as much as I want them to". Perfectly reasonable. The absolute "Apple doesn't care about privacy", not so much.

I don't view "Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line" to be trolling, though I do admit I could phrase it better. Possibly "We don't know how much Apple cares about privacy, but they have taken a lot of actions that suspiciously point to them not caring about it more than they care about their bottom line. They also refuse to take actions that would prove to us that they do take privacy seriously.".

In trying to be succinct, it seems that I lost a lot of the important nuance, which I agree is important.

I would like to point to tech-giants that are pushing good security/privacy, but unfortunately, I don't know of any. I think the best I can point to might be Librem, but they don't have a functioning phone AFAIK.

> For a counterpoint, by controlling the marketplace, Apple has more control over quality and security, as well as the responsibility when something goes wrong. One can reasonably argue that they prefer this over letting anyone provide apps because they're concerned about malware being loaded, that other providers won't be paying as close attention.

I get this concern, but until they let go of that control, they are not enforcing reasonable privacy. It's a trade-off, and it's totally Apple's decision to make, but that means that they aren't doing "privacy right" if they choose the option that disregards privacy. Maybe that's better for their users, maybe not, but they have chosen the side that disregards privacy either way.

> On the other side, Apple doesn't have an business model where they make money from user data

That you know of. Unless you know something that I don't, you don't have access to see where all of their money is coming from. I agree it provides them a better incentive, but incentives don't mean anything.

I don't like comparing Apple to Google, because I find it irrelevant what Apple does. Google is an entirely different business. I dislike Google, and I believe that in many ways they are worse than Apple, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.

"Apple doesn't care about privacy as much as I want them to" doesn't accurately represent what my issue is. My issue is that the statement "At least Apple seems to care about privacy" is true, but the statement "Apple cares about privacy" is not true based on the decisions they make. They may care about it but their actions speak otherwise, and it doesn't matter what groups say, it matters what they do. Just because they "seem" to care about privacy doesn't mean that they do, and I don't want unaware users to support a company that, based on their actions, is likely lying to them.

- Open source the enclave?

- Open source the OS (be it macOS, iOS)?

- Allow you to install your own OS and software?

- Refuse to do business in China?

- Open all of their books so you can view the revenue stream?

If this is wrong or incomplete or to expansive, please do clarify, but also please be specific. I want to understand in detail what your reservations are.

Open source pretty much anything that they can, allowing me to compile and install my own os and software. And this would have to be without having to contact apple's servers in any way.

There might be more that I can't remember ATM, but I think that's the main gist of it.

By not allowing me to see how the code works, I can't know what they are doing with my data. And by designing a system where I could set up as much of the stack as possible without having to contact any central source, would ensure that everyone could use it without fear of that data being mis-handled.

My current phone is somewhat open-source (cyanogenmod), though I think Google's version of "open-source, but you totally need to rely on our stuff to get basic functionality" is fairly bullshit.

I can compile my own OS and additional software

I can put tools on my phone that severely limit it's contact with Google's servers, although I suspect that there is an underlying system that ignores those tools.

As for my computers, I use Linux. I typically run them on Thinkpads, but I've tried a few other systems as well. My next computer will be a Purism or System76 laptop.

All in all, I'm not happy with any phone that I've seen. I can't think of any that I believe has taken legitimate action to show that they care about my privacy.

As far as computer OS's, I think Linux has strongly taken action to ensure my privacy.

If you're jailbroken, there's always Cydia, which is a Linux-like package manager.

If you want to minimize connections to Apple, don't use Apple apps or services. Wire replaces iMessage. 2doapp replaces Notes.

As an example: Dovecot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovecot_(software)) doesn't require me to connect to their servers for anything. They have no idea what I'm doing with my data, and they've designed their software so that they can't violate my privacy.

https://www.pfsense.org/

I also don't see why it matters whether or not nobody else sells a smartphone like that. Just because everyone else is doing shady shit with their products doesn't mean Apple gets a free pass.

Clearly, there are some features that rely on iCloud, but you can choose not to use those features and still have a functioning device.

I don't care why Apple's interests are aligned with mine, as long as they are. When it comes to corporations, dealing with one whose bottom line is aligned with my interest is exactly what I want.

Also, Apple is not 'pretending' to care about privacy. While they have had some embarrassing bugs, they do put privacy as a high priority. Many speculate that Apple is behind in the assistant category because of privacy concerns.

I do, and it is. I don't think I get what you mean. Just because a lot of groups choose to lie about their intentions means that it's OK that Apple does the same?

If their goals shift, forced by their intent, you drop them. I can't see any other way to pragmatically get along or make progress in life.

Fact: We don't know what they do with our data

Fact: They refuse to show us what they do with our data, even though they could

Fact: They have taken actions that, while I obviously don't have direct evidence of this, looks extremely like they are handing over control of other people's data to someone else, who is known to be abusive with it

Fact: They can design their system in a way that avoids all of this, yet they continually choose not to

All of this points in one direction, and there's very little evidence pointing in the other direction. It seems pretty obvious to me that their pro-privacy standpoint is all just smoke and mirrors. I'm sure they care to some extent, but they clearly value money over their user's privacy.

If I say that I care about my health, but I eat terrible quality foods, don't exercise, and ignore people who try to encourage me to be healthier, then it it obvious that I don't care about my health, despite what I say.

As an aside I am also dismayed in the fact that I find videos like these interesting but I will never own a gun but I like watching reviews and demos of them.

Don't like guns or beer? Tell Youtube not to displays the add on guns/beer related videos. Problem solved. Same goes for Reddit. Would advertisers care that there is gun related subreddit their ad never appear on?

I feel the decision is ideological and will hopefully hurt them in the long term.

Also I beleve that advertisers had that power but it wasn’t enough for them.

But I have a tradition with my son of sending each other links of people in other countries shooting things up with their 50 cal machine guns and the like.

I can't imagine why anyone would think that watching such things constitutes any kind of risk to anyone.

My favorite for-example: one of those old great libertarian thinkers applied libertarian principles to the parent-child relationship and decided that a law that compels a parent to feed a child is an immoral law; parents should be free to let their children starve to death.

A triumph of logic over emotion? I guess, if you're okay with a society that permits parents to let their children starve to death without consequence.

It is not logical to allow a child to starve to death. Using an argument that a law is immoral is more about emotion than logic.

For some, this is the intended outcome.

This is the chilling effect from the attack on Section 230 safe harbor protection (an attack which was largely “justified” by conduct which was already found to be outside of the pre-existing safe harbor, and so which needed no modification to deal with.)

Companies that are being responsible to their shareholders are going to change behavior to minimize exposure to content which is likely to draw civil litigation when their protection from that risk is weakened.

That's speaking as someone who would like to see clearer legal protections for content-neutral hosting platforms.

Thats a slightly different, but related [0] effect. The NRAs own PR approach has made special deals with the NRA a PR liability for many businesses. Public relations aren't something companies burn money on for entertainment value, they do it because corporate image impacts the bottom line, because it has a direct effect on things like consumer choices and ability to attract and retain talent.

[0] related in that lawsuits are also used to address political issues (and targeting tangentially-involved businesses formgun violence is a well-known example of that), so that the public mood on gun policy that shapes the reaction to NRA PR efforts also is a factor in the legal risk that firms face with Section 230 being weakened.

Also, channels like Forgotten Weapons which are non-political and just provide really great information on old or obscure guns.

Probably because they don't want to be the target of personal abuse.

The internet worked perfectly fine before YouTube and Reddit, it’ll work perfectly fine after.

I mean, I understand the problems this poses for people, but I just don’t see how taking ownership of your own platform is a bad thing, even if it is forced.

Nobody is stopping gun fans from building their own social network for guns after all.

If people did that, quality would probably even increase. I mean, just look at HM. Even if HN is another centralized social network it still managed to become much better than anything tech related on Reddit or YouTube.

To be cynical, why offer a seller access to a market for free when you can charge for it?

Looks to me like they don't want scrutiny.

Whenever something happens, people can point to whatever was on the headlines during the last week and say "see, they're trying to sneak in while everyone's preoccupied with this!"

Unless we're talking, like, 9/11-level media preoccupation, I don't put much stock in claims like this.

For me I see it as a step toward people being more anti-gun ownership. Societies evolve and social views change. Our views on marijuana, smoking, etc. have changed over the decades. I hope I am now seeing the beginning of the end of acceptance of gun ownership.

While we are on opposite sides of this issue I encourage you to continue to stand up for your rights and fight for what you believe in. Let Reddit and Youtube know you are upset about this. Be active and vigilant. I will too.

That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change.

I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment.

The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is really concerning. And it's self-defeating. It'll only make americans more wary of losing our 2nd amendment rights and increase gun sales.

Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, like gun rights, leads to the opposite: at times it feels like we are heading towards outright civil war.

In the face of an obvious societal problem like gun violence, real conservatism would say sure, lets make some small changes to gun regulation, see how that goes for a few years or decades, then re-evaluate our position to see if society is better or worse off. Instead, seemingly obvious minor tweaks to gun regulation get cast as the first giant step towards impending repeal of the 2nd amendment. Maybe we are past the point of no return, I don't know.

Features of the current US pro-gun-control movement include the notion that it's somehow absurd handguns, which are used in the vast majority of US gun homicides, are more tightly restricted than rifles. The idea that the gun used in your deadliest school shooting, the VA Tech massacre, is basically useless and ineffective. The belief that the AR-15 is some kind of super-powerful danger rifle too powerful for anything but murder (it's actually a tad underpowered as hunting rifles go). Also unyielding, full-throated defence of the elected official in charge of the police department which ignored all the warning signs about the Parkland shooter. Pretty much only pro-gun folks seem to be questioning any of this.

To give some idea about the quality of this debate, the founder of gun control group Moms Demand Action literally pointed her followers at a photo of a scary-looking black gun, trying to make it look like some incredibly dangerous killing machine, and demanded they pressure the retailer into not selling it to under-21s https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/969572513154936833 It was actually a .22 LR bolt-action rifle, probably the least effective long rifle in widespread use it you want to kill anyone or anything, that was optimised entirely for competitive target shooting. I can't think of any other country off-hand that considers 18 year olds incapable of buying and owning those. Her follow-up was to accuse the NRA of misogyny for pointing out how stupid and clueless this was, with the help of Media Matters for America.

The campaigns for "sensible gun control" basically just use the term as a talking point that avoids having to actually explain and justify what they're calling for; after all who could be against sensible, common-sense restrictions other than some gun nut whackjob?

Obviously, with drunk driving, no one tends to blame the tool, either, as gun control movements often are doing. It is worth pointing out that automobiles are fairly regulated, though. There is a "street legal" definition for a car, you have to have an operator's license, and there are things you cannot do in a car -- elsewise, your license gets taken away. For better or for worse, America's one of the few places out there with a relatively high minimum age to purchase alcohol -- 21 -- and drunk driving was one of the reasons it ended up this way (https://www.boston.com/culture/health/2014/07/17/why-21-a-lo...).

I personally think it's fine to counter over-emotional focus on the tool (after all, 99% of AR-15 owners are just normal, average folks who don't commit mass shootings or indeed violence of any kind). Ultimately, though, "what they're calling for" is a reduction of gun violence. If "they" don't get a reasonable counter-answer to their concerns (and in my opinion, the NRA is doing a poor job here, themselves often being overly-emotional in response), it's entirely possible the regulations "they" want will result in the end.

What if gun owners who didn't keep their guns locked in gun safes had their bullets replaced with rubber ones, or had mandatory trigger locks installed on their guns?

I dunno, I'm just spitballing here, but cars are heavily regulated, licensed, the whole nine yards, and if we had a tenth of that applied to guns, we could probably do a lot to reduce gun deaths and gun violence across the country.

From my perspective, I welcome ideas like these. Limited access control ideas along the line of this framework is where I think the focus needs to be.

Some discussion also could be reserved for equipment like "bump stocks", that at first glance seems to solely be designed to circumvent existing law (it is highly illegal to modify a semi-automatic into a fully-automatic gun). Again, treating these type of equipment like the extremely highly regulated machine gun class is something even the National Review agrees with. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/bump-stocks-machine-g...)

The same shape (Spitzer-tip boat tail) is used for virtually all modern target and hunting rounds. 5.56 (and .223) is basically a glorified varmint round. Certain 5.56 rounds, however, are designed to be frangible, which causes the bullet to break up on impact and causes more wound channels. Hunting ammo in 5.56/.223 does not do this, as it is designed to stay in one piece.

And saying someone is stupid isn’t mocking. (Although it can be)

It’s like old men legislating abortion laws who know nothing about female specific health topics.

I see a lot of dismissal of gun control advocates in threads like these, but arguments regarding gun control from those who claim authority on the matter tend to devolve towards strident defiance - "if you try to take my gun I will shoot you with it." That doesn't make for constructive discussion.

People who sell guns want a way to perform background checks on the people they sell to, but there's no way to do it because only licensed dealers can access NICS. As long as the private background check system has the same privacy invariants as the existing paper system for dealers (primarily that it is not possible to look up which guns someone owns, only to take a serial number and see who owns it) there won't be significant opposition.

What the NRA is doing is a disservice to gun owners. They are making a gun ban more likely by not offering any reasonable alternatives.

My opinion is we need state run (but federally funded) gun licensing to ensure safe owners and gun registry to ensure the guns stay with those owners.

Other countries do it. It works just fine. We are not having that conversation in America today in part because of the extremist views of the NRA.