GrandTheftVideo.com

Gun Vloggers Are Flipping Out At Youtube's Crackdown On Their Videos (HBO)

This week YouTube will begin enforcing new rules restricting gun videos that facilitate private gun sales or link to websites that sell guns. For content creators Ian McCollum and Karl Kasarda who make gun videos that were already being swept up by YouTube’s new content policing technology, these new gun specific rules mean that perhaps they’ll have to quit YouTube altogether.

The “adpocalypse”, as it has come to be known online, began last December when YouTube launched an A.I. powered automated content policing tool which removes advertisements from content that falls into the company’s broad “Not Advertiser Friendly” category, such as “sensitive social issues” or “tragedy and conflict.”

Kasarda and McCollum run two successful YouTube channels that focus solely on guns. Kasarda’s channel “InRangeTV” has more than 150,000 subscribers and McCollum’s “Forgotten Weapons” has more than 700,000. They both make content that violates the new rules but don’t have plans to change what they are doing.

“Watching a video is not an illegal act. Learning information or learning about how things work should not be an illegal act, unless we’re wanting to move into a dark age. If we really want to call information dangerous where does that stop?” Kasarda said.

While Kasada and McCollum recognize that YouTube is a private company and has the right to police its content, they view these new rules as a dangerous slippery slope away from freedom of speech on the Internet’s largest public square of video content.

VICE News visits the online gun video duo from Tucson, Arizona and talks about the climate for gun videos on the platform.

Subscribe to VICE News here:

Check out VICE News for more:

Follow VICE News here:
Facebook:
Twitter:
Tumblr:
Instagram:
More videos from the VICE network:

22 thoughts on “Gun Vloggers Are Flipping Out At Youtube's Crackdown On Their Videos (HBO)

  1. You guys make it sound like the immigrant vegan try to shoot up YouTube's headquarter was a gun vlogger Because that doesn't fit your narrative these guys especially ian Show the beautiful history of antique firearms and goes into depth with what caused their creation I know his videos have inspired hundreds of people take get into antique guns as a hobby and even more to look at working at military museums

  2. Although I am a true multiculturalist leftist living in Belgium, I consider that the right of owning guns is a sign of true freedom. The Americans must preserve and protect this right as long as they still have it because when that right is removed it's never given back.

  3. Good job vice, you took a shooting that killed multiple people by a vlogger that had nothing to do with guns, tried to do an interview with 2 of the smartest gun guys on YouTube, and it back fired

  4. You see with your own eyes that the media (Vice in this case) misrepresented facts in this video.

    With the intro implying that it was a disgruntled gun vlogger who shot up YouTube when it wasn't.

    This is so typical of the media regarding gun stories that it is apparently standard practice taught in
    "journalism" classes.
    Yet you will see people posting here that base their opinion on gun issues solely on what the media
    feeds them because they have no actual first hand knowledge or experience.
    And continuing to do so even when faced with concrete evidence that the media is pushing agenda
    rather than facts.
    Anti-gunners, why?
    Is it because you are too embarrassed to admit you were manipulated?
    Is it because you seek out confirmation for your own bias that is not rooted in fact and the
    media is supporting that bias?
    I spent years in Law Enforcement and am a firearms instructor and armorer for several weapons
    platforms.
    I have actual first hand knowledge of criminal behavior, gun crime, and firearms.
    And there are many like me who know this stuff. Ask me.
    Do you think some reporter at Vice or MSNBC is going to have more fact based insight into the
    firearms issue than someone like me?
    Sure, listen to the news, but do it with healthy skepticism and look for information from people
    who's claim to expertise is more than a journalism degree mommy and daddy paid for.

  5. Lmao,
    >youtube demonetizes gun channels
    >Karl realizes he can now do whatever he wants when its fully viewer funded

    Vice:
    "GuN vLoGgErS aRe FlIpPiNg OuT"

    How did journalists ever have any credibility?

  6. at the end of the day youtube has a right to do whatever it wants…its not making gun videos illegal its saying not on our website
    make your own website if you'd like shrugs

  7. Implying that because they dont rely on ad revenue their income is not secure. Meanwhile the reason they demonized themselves was because YouTube's ad revenue system was unsecure at best, often just completely de-monetizing their videos.

  8. Information = Knowledge and Knowledge = Power
    whenever one movement wants to crackdown on another movement it becomes a battle of information to empower/disempower those who would support or fight against any movement.
    For instance if someone was showing how to turn smoke alarms into small dirty nukes then they would be empowering though their presentation of knowledge how to do this (and though not everyone would use such information for anything other then "wow that's how its done" the risk of someone using this Information is a risk to national security.

    But all of this is moot compared to the ultimate fact that YouTube is a company in control of what it hosts and what it does not host and it was this way right from the beginning (the same goes for any company that hosts user made content or is just a social media provider)
    In using the company's product people agree to the terms and the main term is the company controls the content.
    If they really did not like this the best option would be creating videos that link to their real content elsewhere (until this also gets stopped) but complaining that a company places its own interests first on a site that is solely for the company's profit is quite funny, after all if people really did not want company's like google and Facebook to wield so much power it would be a matter of not using them excursively (and that's the biggest problem with social media, is the fact social media fails unless its the market leader therefore its either a success that has too much power over the end user or its a niche following that is useless to most people unless they fit in to the small demographic)

    TLDR: Using youtube enables youtube to control what content you see because its the very right of the company to decide on its delivered content, if people don't like this its best then not to use youtube.

  9. We are already into a Dark Age… And it is only going to get worse.
    People now view verifiable and irrefutable facts as "opinions."
    Flat Earthers are somehow a thing, even though you can send a GoPro to space for cheap…

Leave a Reply to James Salinas Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.