Is Bloomberg Coming After Youtube Gun Channels Next?

Status
Not open for further replies.

D.B. Cooper

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2016
Messages
4,380
Guns & Gadgets posted this earlier today. Not sure what to think of it, but, given the other discussion of favorite gun channels on youtube, I thought it might resonate for some. If nothing else, the list of the top gun channels by views is interesting.

 
Here's the study referenced in the video.

https://www.jmir.org/2020/3/e15736/

This study aimed to characterize the contemporary use of social media for the purposes of gun advertising by gun companies and YouTube influencers. We quantified the frequency of common themes found in gun advertisements, as first designated by research pertaining to print advertisements [10]. This study builds on past research of print advertisements by conducting a systematic search of Twitter and YouTube use by major US gun manufacturers, identifying links to internet gun sales made in Twitter and YouTube posts, and conducting a systematic search of gun promotion found in YouTube influencer posts.
 
It’s not like they’re pushing drugs or alcohol. Guns aren’t inherently bad for you, and they’re not inherently good for you. I don’t see the issue. It comes down to the end user. Just like driving a car responsibly or irresponsibly.

The battle on YouTube has been going on for years however.
 
Our opponents (those who philosophically oppose the right to keep and bear arms) are fighting their war in modest increments. The gun law battles, on the state and national level, are only distractions. We're already seeing large cities (Seattle, Tacoma) throwing down draconian taxes on ammunition -- per individual round -- so the playbook of the antis is expanding exponentially and the glove are off.

The first shots at pro-gun parts of social media were fired long ago. PayPal went down for us a while back. Facebook is onboard their program.

Google and Amazon are next. You'd better believe YouTube is squarely in the cross-hairs -- frankly, I'm surprised we can still access firearms-related discussion forums on the major web- browsers now.

Already, Apple took the Gunbroker app down.

If Chrome, Explorer, Edge and Firefox will still let us access THR in two years … well, we'll just see.
 
YouTube has been anti gun for awhile and it would not take much incentive for them to get rid of the topic entirely on their new "family friendly" algorithm. I can see Bloomburg offering a Klondike bar in a new commercial...
 
There will always be other mediums when the primary ones are made to be too restrictive.

A new platform could arise for firearms enthusiasts and if it gained traction then the survivalist channels would follow along with the preppers, the woodworkers, homesteaders, DIYers in general. Heck then NASCAR would be along and every other interest of the more rural folk.

Even crafts like leather working, sewing, and knitting seem to have conservative leanings. Anything related to self reliance and sufficiency.
 
Well, there is a significant problem with the supposition.
Both of them.
1. Bloomie's that "big gun" spends any sort of money hawking its wares on YT, and such advertising could be tracked with twitter. If there was a market for Remington or the like to exploit using ads or infomercials, nraTv would not be dead right now. So, the eggheads have created a "thing" that does not exist. They will expend a great deal of energy (and cash) trying to prove the Moon is made of Brie.
2. That Alphabet actually bothers to have humans interfere with the operations of YT. Just last month, one of the bots "decided" that any mention of a current pandemic virus was "fake" news, and shut down any vid, and several channels, for daring speak the name (any of the names) in a way recognizable by the bots. This censor notoriously shut down the CDC's own YT page. There was a manual adjustment to unblock channels. But, they are still demonetized instantly.
Humans are not in charge of YT. It's nannybots interlinked like 30# of noodles. No one thread or bot actually is "in charge." Not anymore. "We" notice most when "our" channels are affected.

Sadly, for our arguments, pro/con/ left/right, for/against on any given topic are getting shut down, or getting strikes, or any of the various ills. Even channels that ought to be "unweighted" as to any hot-button issue--car mechanic and flower arranggement--are being clobbered.
And, due to the WFH, there's no more Appeal to a Human for redress. Which just exposes the ugly truth that Alphabet, and thus YT, relies on over-worked, under-paid, wage-slave code monkeys to key in the diktats of the Bosses.
 
Yes, and that's the problem, because the average gun-owner (most of whom don't spend time on internet gun forums, aren't active in the RKBA movement, or watch or read current news) finally hears about some bit of gun-related legislation (i.e., UBCs), many probably think "That doesn't sound so bad" or "That doesn't affect me" or "That makes sense, crazy people have no business buying guns" but never, ever bother to look at the unintended consequences or these new law, executive orders or public policy decisions, not to mention, consider the gradual erosion of our natural and civil rights.

And it's not just the 2nd Amendment; we've already given up all of our 4th Amendment rights pretty much. There's no expectation of privacy left anyway.

1st Amendment? Only seems to apply to the liberal mainstream media. Espouse an opinion that is at all conservative in nature, doesn't bow to the altar or political correctness or "diversity," you'll be shouted down immediately and vilified.

One only has to look at the diminishing number of retailers for handguns, AR-15s, ammunition and even firearms-related magazines (periodicals).

Right now, all the big money seems to be on the anti-RKBA side. What Facebook did is just the tip of the iceberg; I hate to believe it, but I think we can expect anything firearms-related to be banned from all forms of social media before too long.
 
I think we can expect anything firearms-related to be banned from all forms of social media before too long.

I came to that conclusion a while ago.

The narrator of the video I linked to (Jared at Guns n Gear) has made a suggestion that the government will try, in some way, to regulate firearm related social media content, possibly as some sort of "public health" issue.

If you think about it, there is already some sort of legal precedent for this. Think back to the late 1980s/early 90s; there was a big push against "big tobacco," several lawsuits, and anti-tobacco legislation passed, one of which made it illegal for tobacco companies to advertise in sports, tv, etc. (I think magazines/print ads is about all they have left.)

I don't think it's too far of a stretch to envision a law limiting firearms advertisement in certain media formats. One could make an argument that this is a limitation/regulation of an interstate commercial activity, which is well within the purview of Congress in the Interstate Commerce Clause. Youtube is definitely an interstate operation and it is definitely a for profit operation for all involved.

Further, one could argue that such a law is not a violation of the 1st Amendment if does not limit 2nd Amendment (i.e. political) advocacy and speech.

But I also see it as the application of negative peer pressure. I recall a conversation with a very liberal friend of a friend who ranting against full size trucks/SUVs and their horrible impact on the environment, and she said "We will have to shame them out of their trucks, just like we did the smokers." So...all of this has been at least somewhat successful in the past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top