Instructables.com pretty much confirmed their anti-gun stance. We're too controversial.

[MillennialGunslinger]

Hey guys! Sorry for the long length though, but I thought it appropriate to post context.

I'm sure plenty of you guys are also avid DIYers, who have invariably ended up on Youtube or some forum posts looking for a how-to, or writing a how-to yourself. Repairing, modding and upgrading firearms is probably what we spend most of our time doing with firearms, sometimes as much as we shoot them. And of course, it doesn't end there. I bet we're a very DIYing demographic in general (it comes with the self-reliance trait). On the internet, the number one place to get DIYs these days is Youtube, but I'd venture to say that the second place for random people to post high quality DIYs (improvised forum threads aside) is Instructables.com. For anything other than firearms, I'll admit it's a great place to both post quality DIYs as well as see what others have posted. Anyone can post a DIY there easily and for free, so it's a no brainer for anyone wanting to share their project without having to make a video on it. I'm sure many of you guys have probably stumbled upon it in the past without even knowing it. It has millions of visitors and is owned by AutoDesk (the AutoCad design software), so it isn't a tiny, obscure company. Instructables gets about 16 million unique visitors every single month, which is astronomic. If we get mad about local brick&Mortar's being anti-gun, you can imagine why this would really bother me.

The Issue:
The motive of this post is about something I wrote a few months ago. After wanting to have a short handbook to teach friends to shoot, and not finding one I liked online, I ended up writing my own. Since I already had it written, I thought I might as well post it there for anyone to take advantage of. I posted it here: How to teach a friend to shoot. I never expected it to get Featured since I already knew gun related content just about never was, but I was still surprised about how little views it had (around 80, most probably me while editing the post or downloading the file), as well as how hard it was to find.

I decided to inspect the page and confirmed my suspicions. I found the HTML code marked noindex, nofollow, which is basically a webpage's way of telling the internet to hide that page to the world unless manually typed in. Arguably, a page marked by that could be considered the "Dark web" since it won't appear in search results (when they say that most of the web is the dark web, that's what they mean). After checking some other posts, I pretty much confirmed my suspicions. Instructables was hiding gun related content. And they later confirmed it via post (in an answer included below).

How Instructables penalizes firearm-related content:

• Firearm-related Posts do not get Featured: Featured posts get shown as the new submissions of the day. Just about any post with half decent images and half decent grammar gets featured. Getting featured doesn't mean you did a good job, it means you didn't do a bad job. If a post doesn't get featured, it effectively goes straight to the archive and gets no initial visibility. Since it never got any initial traction, it's unlikely to ever get traction and effectively was wasted time unless being actively searched for. The fact that firearm-related posts seem to not get featured as a rule, makes pretty clear that there is active discrimination and prejudice against that type of content.
  
• Firearm-related posts will be proactively hidden from search results and from Google: This is probably the most egregious part. After being curious about how unnaturally low views firearm-related submissions were receiving (not only mine, those of other users too). I decided to look at the HTML code of the page (just right click and select "Inspect" on Chrome). And I don't know if I was surprised or unsurprised by what I found. The HTML code included code specifically instructing search engines (aka Google) to not list it in search results or pay any attention to any links listed on the page. This isn't something that happens by mistake, it's the company making the active decision of hiding the page from the internet. Basically, that page is only reachable if you are handed the link directly. And that is unlikely to happen because, together with the previous point, it would have never been seen in the first place to do so.
  
• Firearm-related posts will frequently be hidden in the internal search as well: In other words, there is no way to find many/most recent gun-related posts for someone who has never seen it before. For all intents and purposes, it's shadow-banned content to visitors.

Keep in mind that none of this is pointed out to the user. It's hidden behind the curtain. The user will simply think his submission wasn't high quality enough or that no one is interested in the content. They will never know it is being proactively hidden and penalized. Obviously, some posts seem to be more affected than others, and some would seemingly be unaffected.

Some other high quality Instructables that I'm aware of also being set to be completely hidden are these:

• 4 Rules of Safety
• How to choose a gun holster

I'm sure they are more...but for obvious reasons they are hard to find. My anecdotal and limited experience would lead me to speculate it was somewhere around 2014-2015 when they really shunned away gun-related content. Content prior to that doesn't seem as affected.

What did Instructables say?
I posted a topic on their internal forum calling out the issue...and unsurprisingly it was shadow-banned. Meaning that that topic wasn't visible to anyone but moderators. What a surprise. It is obvious that Instructables would like to simply keep the topic quiet to avoid any controversy. Despite hiding the topic, a representative responded. Their answer was as follows:

Why is Instructables so Anti-Gun? My Instructable's actively set to be hidden on search engines.

Hi there,

There's no official response, other than what is already spelled out in the Terms of Service, namely section 4: https://www.autodesk.com/company/legal-notices-tra...

But sure, gun-related content, as well as anything "adult", things related to drugs, high explosives, and things that are illegal or simply especially dangerous are all subjects that are all generally troublesome.

The site is focused on education and general appeal, and is heavily used in schools by a younger, school-age audience . . so good or bad, optics matter and the site certainly makes an effort to avoid promoting or highlighting anything that could even remotely be deemed controversial.

I suspect the Terms of Service was written to be rather fluid, with the phrase "otherwise objectionable" able to be applied as needed over time and to cover all circumstances, and generally keep the site out of any controversy.

In other words, gun safety is considered controversial these days. When I say that being a gun-hobbyist makes me feel like a second-class citizen, this is exactly what I mean. Considering that one of their most popular DIYs ever is "How to Make Moonshine", I call bullsh*t on it being about illegal, dangerous or drug related topics. Give me a break.

Why does this matter?
My point isn't to totally rant on their site. In general, it's a great idea to be able to share user-generated content. I'm sure most people here won't care at all, but like local anti-gun business, if no one complains and no one shines the public spotlight, there isn't any incentive to change. Like YouTube, I'd like content to be judged on individual merits and not simply on subject matter (of which firearms topics are generally considered too controversial to give an equal opportunity).

What should we do?
Well, there isn't much to do. And I doubt this post will get much traction or anyone will care, but I did want to document it so that anyone else wondering about this topic could have their suspicions confirmed if they did a Google Search. Instructables.com seems to be proactively anti-gun regarding content posted on their website. If you are a viewer on their site, I'd recommend always viewing it with an adblocker. I'd say it would be pointless to not use their site since their users are awesome and have nothing to do with this. If you can take advantage of their content, do so. Just don't let them benefit from this until this issue is fixed.

If you have non gun-related content to post...well honestly I don't know of any comparable sites that get as much traffic(I'd love to hear about them though), so that's your call. If you have anything even remotely gun-related, don't post it. It's not worth your time and having something online like that to only get less than a hundred views is more insulting than beneficial, however you look at it. I'd certainly recommend taking down any gun-related content (I will be doing so).

What would I have considered to be a reasonable compromise?
Look, I get that gun related content is a sensitive and controversial subject. I may or may not agree, but in practice it is. What I think would be the most reasonable outcome would simply having an opt-in "Adult Filter" for controversial topics. I don't want to see anything sexual, illegal or immoral on that site. I agree with it being a Family-friendly. But a filter like that for anything alcohol (How to make moonshine), tobacco (How to Light a Pipe with a Hammer) or firearm related topic would be a perfectly reasonable outcome for everyone involved, and would protect kids more than even the current system does. Being welcoming of gun related content would bring plenty of the type of traffic advertisers love, and we'd love being able to post and view quality content. But then again, since our tastes are "controversial", I don't see this as happening any time soon.

Of course, if I am wrong about anything here, or Instructables would like to correct me, I'd be more than happy to listen and correct myself if wrong. It's just that the evidence seems overwhelming and explicit at this point.

Anyway, I just needed to vent. If any other Instructables user is on here (either as a poster or just an occasional reader), I'd love some opinions.

 

[Robert]

Their website, like THR, is most likely private property. They can limit the scope, or items posted, as much as they want. We can choose to to visit them. But I'd never heard of them before your post. I spend most of my time working on my vehicles.

 

[ColtPythonElite]

Never heard of it

 

[Hasaf]

I browse the site a lot for Arduino and cycling content. I built a solar powered trike and rode it from Kansas to Utah last summer. While I didn't follow any of their plans, I did get some ideas there.

I think I got some "spud-gun" ideas from them; but quickly gravitated to some more specialized sites when I was building those.

As was pointed out, it is their site. I would love to see a "gun projects" site.

 

[m0par]

Couldn't pick a worse time to challenge something like this, methinks.

You'll just annoy them and force their hand to outright ban any firearm related content (which is well within their rights), possibly in as public of a fashion as they can muster.

 

[George P]

Never heard of them either; if I'm searching for gun-related DIY stuff, I hit the various gun forums

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

Their website, like THR, is most likely private property. They can limit the scope, or items posted, as much as they want.

I never implied they didn't have to right to do so. They certainly do. Same way brick and mortars can ban conceal carry. But that doesn't mean that every time gun owners are declared persona non grata we should just say "Oh well" and not even show our discontent.

I know it's easy to dismiss this as meaningless, but ask yourself if you really would be surprised if YouTube decided to hide any video with a firearm in it from the search results. They too would be in their right to do so, and we'd be in our right to be outraged (just an example). I don't know about you, but if it did happen tomorrow, plenty of us would say that the writing already was on the wall. Once the content is demonetized, there isn't any incentive to have it on their servers anyway. It's just a semi-fruitless cost. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the only thing keeping them from doing that is public opinion (thankfully).

As was pointed out, it is their site. I would love to see a "gun projects" site.

Honestly, I wouldn't. Or at least not as the sole option. I would like gun projects to be considered just another project, with nothing special about it as long as it's legal. In a situation like this that would simply mean that a "How to clean X gun" tutorial is so controversial it needs to be segregated content. We should have "gun projects" sites, but we shouldn't be limited to them.

Couldn't pick a worse time to challenge something like this, methinks.

I know, but honestly I didn't. The page that made me notice was posted in December, but I had first noticed there was something fishy going on around July last year. It just so happens that I finally noticed it now because I checked the HTML code because I was learning SEO for a completely unrelated topic. In any case, I'm not challenging, I'm just bringing awareness. Regardless their response shows that their intention is to eventually block the content anyway. The current atmosphere is irrelevant in this case, sadly.

Never heard of them either; if I'm searching for gun-related DIY stuff, I hit the various gun forums

How I first found them years ago was simply trying to find inspiration for an electronics project. Their pages kept popping up. Normally, if you search for X how-to topic, you might find their page first in Google's results. Given that they've been downgrading gun-related content in one way or another since around 2015, it's normal that no one looks for gun stuff there. Though prior to that they did have interesting gun stuff. A quick example I could find is this: Paint your AR-15 MultiCam. With 150k views it certainly was useful to someone. I'd wager that same thing posted today wouldn't get more than 100.

 

[AlexanderA]

I wasn't aware of Instructables.com until this very moment.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

I wasn't aware of Instructables.com until this very moment.

If you're a DIYer, I bet you've stumbled upon their page in the last decade at least once but never really noticed. Normally I'll read a post on a website but not pay much attention to the name if I'm just browsing search results. I only started participating on the site less than a year ago. In any case, to put it into context, the website is something like the 653rd most popular website in the USA (not as trivial a feat as it sounds), and gets about 16 million unique visitors a month. In comparison, TheHighRoad wouldn't even get enough traffic to rank on most web-analytic sites. That isn't an insult, this is a niche site. I'm just pointing out that it seems to be the most prominent site where users can post DIYs. If anyone knows of any other site, please tell.

I'm not saying this is a pressing issue. I'm just saying that this should be discussed at least somewhere on the internet so that anyone who searches for the topic online can find their suspicions confirmed. I've spent about a year suspecting without knowing for sure, and I've wasted time posting there for nothing not knowing it would be hidden anyway.

 

[BigBore44]

I’ve never heard of their site either. But I’m interested now. And I agree with your sentiments. Well thought out with reasonable expectations. Since it appears that site is like this one, they control the content. So.....If you have DIY stuff (other than what you listed so far) post them here. Just be sure you include lots of pictures.

 

[splattergun]

I found Instructables to be basically useless in regards to learning to do anything of real value. Mostly what I have found there are vague, or even misleading, instructions to accomplish pointless, inane tasks. Has anyone else noticed just how much more time it takes to build a "life hack" than it would to just get the job done the right way?

It is not only the last place I would look to find instructions, it is also the last place I would post any instructions.

Sorry their stance bothers you, OP. I suggest you Relax, Don't worry, and have a home brew. Oh, and don't try to learn learn your homebrewing from that site. They just don't know how!

 

[FROGO207]

Thanks for taking the time to tell us what is going on. No I do not use any of those DIY sites anyway as even youtube has plenty of suspect content. One site that I will not go out of my way to use. I routinely use an add blocker and popup blocker along with privacy guard.

 

[entropy]

It's their site. You can let them know how you feel about it, but don't expect that to change anything. Getting all angry about it and ranting about it here makes you sound like ohiohunter2014.

 

[Kaybee]

Never heard of them, and don't care either. I don't think someone should be forced to show gun content on their site as I also wouldn't let someone to force me to show anti stuff on my site (if I had one).

That being said, it is a warning sign to everyone that supports the 2a that even simple instructions on how to be safe are considered by some to be "controversial".

 

[chicharrones]

Your first post is a great and in depth report, MG. Well done.

However, instructibles has got to be a private website and they get to do what they want to do. Controlling them from the outside is about the same as me trying to control a popular search engine that I don't like to name.

I have known of instructibles for several years. I think it is a good web site for people with few or developing mechanical skills. For people that are mechanically inclined, not so much.

 

[doubleh]

Your first post is a great and in depth report, MG. Well done.

However, instructibles has got to be a private website and they get to do what they want to do. Controlling them from the outside is about the same as me trying to control a popular search engine that I don't like to name.

I have known of instructibles for several years. I think it is a good web site for people with few or developing mechanical skills. For people that are mechanically inclined, not so much.

Gotta agree with you. Their house, their rules. I had never heard of it so I checked it out. I also agree about the mechanically inclined opinion.

 

[Danoobie]

On the one hand, I agree wholeheartedly with you, OP.

OTOH, how many of us here want to take the responsibility that what we demonstrate on the internet may be used improperly,
by minors in an unsafe way, or by people with bad intent?

Yes, liberals have taken liberties in their abuse of the net, especially with their
hoplophobic attitude towards firearms.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

I found Instructables to be basically useless in regards to learning to do anything of real value. Mostly what I have found there are vague, or even misleading, instructions to accomplish pointless, inane tasks.

The site is for user generated content (the vast, vast majority). There is no correlation between the quality of one post and that of the next. It's the same as Youtube. Yup, a majority is worthless content with no practical use whatsoever, but it's also the only site I know of where one can post a DIY on whatever topic no matter how obscure. Forums are horrible for that since the formatting options suck and you aren't able to edit past a certain time-frame. As an example of a quality DIY, I'd suggest my own: How to convert a Wheeler Table Mag Vise Block into a Portable Rifle Stand. It's a recent repost, it used to have more views. The pictures are perfect, and the steps are detailed and well redacted. It's an obscure topic that few people would be interested in, but it certainly is useful to me at the range. Over the course of years on the internet, someone who's looking for that is bound to find interest in it (or equivalent projects). What other non-forum site could I have posted that on? That's a real question. I'm sure there is one, but I haven't heard about it.

Never heard of them, and don't care either. I don't think someone should be forced to show gun content on their site as I also wouldn't let someone to force me to show anti stuff on my site (if I had one).

That being said, it is a warning sign to everyone that supports the 2a that even simple instructions on how to be safe are considered by some to be "controversial"

Of course no one should be forced, I fully agree. I'd like to say it's the opposite, that it ideally should be in their best interest thanks to more content and more viewers. And I'd argue advertiser-friendly viewers. We spend money online on gun stuff. Children don't have as much disposable income as we do (I'd hope).

However the site is like YouTube. It's based on the "anything is welcome" idea. With anything basically meaning if it's legal and not blatantly and explicitly offensive, it should be good to go. My point is that companies should be made aware that firearms and firearm enthusiasts are not unsavory, non-family-friendly topics or people, and that they probably already form a good part of their demographic. Companies seem to think that shunning away firearms is a free way to avoid controversy. Ideally it would be the contrary, it should be a sure way to create it. It should be as reprehensible to ban firearm topics as it should be to ban LGBT topics, on the sole basis of being controversial. We shouldn't just quietly nod in agreement and accept that were controversial (and I mean in general, regardless of this site).

I agree with the second part totally. It isn't about this site. It's about this trend. When is the last time any company has reversed it's policy and said "we'll treat firearms exactly the same as everything else". Like they say, politics is downstream from culture. I've lived in countries where you're never exposed to firearms in any way as you grow up, and by the time you are old enough to own one, the topic seems too distant or hard to get into to be worth the effort. The US is far from that point, but it's undeniably going in that direction. We're becoming too controversial and too much of a hassle to be involved with.

Your first post is a great and in depth report, MG. Well done.
However, instructibles has got to be a private website and they get to do what they want to do. Controlling them from the outside is about the same as me trying to control a popular search engine that I don't like to name.
I have known of instructibles for several years. I think it is a good web site for people with few or developing mechanical skills. For people that are mechanically inclined, not so

Thanks.

It's not about controlling. Honestly, the main reason why I posted this is because I would have wanted to know myself. There is nothing regarding firearms in the TOS, and there are some firearm related content on the site so one might mistakenly believe it's acceptable content. This post is basically to warn others to not waste their time. Not you guys, mind you, but with some luck searching for "Instructables firearm policy" or something like that will lead to this post in the near future. No one else seems to have discussed this topic online, so the only alternative was being the first to point it out.

OTOH, how many of us here want to take the responsibility that what we demonstrate on the internet may be used improperly,
by minors in an unsafe way, or by people with bad intent?

I'd say it's the wrong question. Want to? None of us. Are willing to in practice? Well, I'd say anybody who has ever affirmed or denied anything publicly has accepted in practice. And I'm not even talking solely about firearm content. Whether consciously or not, I bet we've all said something online (here or elsewhere) that could somehow be misconstrued or misinterpreted. I sure have. That's simply out of our control. If one isn't willing to live with that risk, than one would probably not be living a meaningful existence. Like with most topics, risk management is much more realistic than risk avoidance. But in practice, when is the last time one saw a YouTube tutorial video that was wrong and said "I'm going to sue this guy". Thankfully, Cunningham's law is always diligently at work to make sure that if there's an error, it's exposed. And if were talking exclusively about improper or unsafe use, well no one can take responsibility that but the person who commits the action.

 

[Danoobie]

Case in point: How willing would you personally be, to hear some 17 year old had printed a set of your instructables, then built
a ghost glock with another set of internet instructions, and while apparently trying to follow your instructions, did so improperly,
accidentally shot himself in the leg, went into shock, and bled to death in his room, when nobody was home? Fault and blame aren't the issue, here, moreso the
ability of others to do the opposite of what you intended, in the first place.


Young kids do stunts they have seen on cartoons, like Beavis & Butthead. Many folks
interpret "Don't Try This At Home!" as a dare.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

Case in point: How willing would you personally be, to hear some 17 year old had printed a set of your instructables, then built
a ghost glock with another set of internet instructions, and while apparently trying to follow your instructions, did so improperly,
accidentally shot himself in the leg, went into shock, and bled to death in his room, when nobody was home? Fault and blame aren't the issue, here, moreso the
ability of others to do the opposite of what you intended, in the first place.

What is the question here? Whether I'm willing or not is irrelevant (it's not like being unwilling to pay taxes changes anything). Would I be indifferent if that happened? Absolutely not. Would I feel responsible if that happened out of no fault of my own? Well, not really (no). Do I think I would be liable in any way? I'd have a hard time believing that, provided the content was legal and there wasn't some egregious mistake. You pointed out that they hypothetically did so improperly. There are plenty of videos on Youtube showing how to build an 80% lower, ranging from mentally inept to professional productions. I don't think one would be any more responsible than any YouTube creator would be. And regardless, I don't consider a firearm tutorial to be any more potentially-dangerous to the viewer than a "how to change your brake pads" tutorial. The only difference is that one is potentially controversial to a small minority of people who would get offended simply be knowing that content is available to someone.

Whether it's comparable or not, I can't help but think of the guy that trying to destroy an AR-15 actually illegally converted it into an SBR (initially at least. I understand it was later further cut). The comments point this out repeatedly. If I was him I wouldn't be worried about getting in trouble because someone followed the video. I'd be more worried about my actions, and even then, not much.

 

[entropy]

That's how a lot of felons get caught is posting their crimes on You Tube; It's all there in living color, it'd be an easy conviction, if the ATF decided to persue it.

 

[Danoobie]

What is the question here? Whether I'm willing or not is irrelevant (it's not like being unwilling to pay taxes changes anything). Would I be indifferent if that happened? Absolutely not. Would I feel responsible if that happened out of no fault of my own? Well, not really (no). Do I think I would be liable in any way? I'd have a hard time believing that, provided the content was legal and there wasn't some egregious mistake. You pointed out that they hypothetically did so improperly. There are plenty of videos on Youtube showing how to build an 80% lower, ranging from mentally inept to professional productions. I don't think one would be any more responsible than any YouTube creator would be. And regardless, I don't consider a firearm tutorial to be any more potentially-dangerous to the viewer than a "how to change your brake pads" tutorial. The only difference is that one is potentially controversial to a small minority of people who would get offended simply be knowing that content is available to someone.

What I was saying is the hypothetical 17 year old guy would successfully build the ghost gun. Then follow your instructions, but either ignore an
important part, get careless, or just not properly absorb the material you made, which I'm sure is actually fine. People are screwed up, they do screwed up
things. Many of us know folks who are drunks, go thru life perpetually hammered. Even though what happened to the kid wasn't your fault-(let's face it,
he would have violated about a half dozen federal laws, by the point where he accidentally shot himself)- in this scenario, come on, you have to admit you
wouldn't feel good hearing about it. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Odd Job]

We are veering off topic here.
I agree with Robert: if it is a private website the owners get to choose what content they host. We may not like it, but we can go elsewhere for information.