edit: title word
A new California law was just passed which made “ghost guns” illegal. He was involved in ghost guns, at some level. It wasn’t illegal before. Now it is. So now is when he got the boot.
CA doesn’t control the Internet Plus he had none of that content on his channel save for one video on the history of printed guns which got him dinged just over a year ago and he removed it
What is a ghost gun?
Ghost guns are unregulated firearms that anyone — including minors and prohibited purchasers — can buy and build without a background check.
3D printed guns fall solidly into this category.
The 1968 Firearms Act encased in law the right to make your own firearms and made it illegal to sell them So, Printed or Milled it was always illegal to sell legally made homemade firearms
Thank you for clarification :)
Why are these an issue though? It is not like people can just print the ammunition too. So they can only buy them with a gun license anyways.
Reloading ammunition is a thing. In fact, it’s preferable.
But for that you need all the parts, including the gunpowder. And for the gunpowder you need a special permission for handling explosives, at least in my country. So you just move into areas of even more difficult to procure things. it seems far easier to just buy a gun and ammunition somewhere else and take it over the border into California.
In America you MIGHT need to show ID for age verification purposes in most states when purchasing gunpowder.
There is no country wide law requiring a permit to purchase everything you need to make bullets.
The exception might be buying a large amount(like 50lbs) but low pounds(<10lbs) is legal without a permit.
This is not true. No one can legally buy them. You have to manufacture them yourself.
You can buy the plans as long as they are sold by a licensed company. That’s where the buying part comes in but yes the sale or even transfer of the physical item is illegal.
SCotUS said otherwise Download and share all the plans you want
If by SCOTUS you mean Trump, then he did say it was okay.
in 2015 Defense Distributed sued the government for the right to sell their blueprints for their 3d printable guns. They lost in the federal courts and their appeal failed under the ruling that it was a violation of current firearm export laws.
In 2018 the Trump administration settled with Defense Distributed and allowed them to share their blueprints as well as giving them $40,000 in compensation for previous legal fees. Side note: The founder of Defense Distributed left 3 months after the payment and was then arrested in Taiwan after having sex with an underage minor in Texas.
in 2019 the attorney general filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration and the federal courts reversed the Trump decision once again making it illegal to share files without a license.
As far as I am aware, I am not aware of any changes since then.
Your TDS is showing, seek help
I’m not a lawyer, but what I heard is 3d guns somehow does not fall under definition of firearm in US.
A couple of things regarding this:
Federally there is no law that says you can’t print and carry your own gun, no serial number required.
However several states have strict laws and there are weird caveats. It has to be for personal use, cannot be sold or transferred and under the Undetectable Firearms Act any firearm that cannot be detected by a metal detector is illegal to manufacture, so legal designs for firearms such as 3d printed guns require a metal plate to be inserted into the printed body. Also online posting of plans for 3D-printed firearms require a license under the Export Administration Regulations issued by the Bureau of Industry and Security.
So if you design your own gun, or get one from a company that has an export license, print it and then ensure that it has enough metal in it to be detectable… Go for it, should be legal.
Guns without a serial number. They are untraceable.
Thanks :)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/wzwA1rzL7z8?feature=shared
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Sounds about right, I remember watching his content on that regards awhile ago when I was interested in the topic, before my state made them illegal that is.
Basically if you wanna operate a company hosted on servers in a specific place you’re going to have to abide by the laws of that place. Or if you want the ability to do business in a specific place you’ll need to abide by their laws even if you’re not from that place.
How long before that heads to the supreme court?
3D Print General had one video where I recognized an AR-15 lower being printed in the background. The voice over was on the printer or filament (I forget).
Hoffman Tactical is still on YouTube. I was made aware of this channel when researching CF Nylon. HT has several promotional videos of his 80% printed AR rifle, and long discussions about which filament to use for which part of a rifle.
It’s very inconsistent.
There are these periodic revolts against Youtube by creators who depend on them for their income due to Youtubes varous bullshit - which I agree with.
But, then they all just STFU and go back to continuing that dependence.
Why have none of these big creators banded to put their weight behind one of the fediverse alternatives? I am not ignorant with regard to the need for bandwidth, storage, and CPU to sustain these services, but I’m also not proposing anyone should just drop their lucrative Youtube situation and jump ship, either.
Get some of the big guys - especially the big tech Youtubers - to put their weight behind one of these alternatives, and I think it could build over time.
But it’s not gonna happen until they do, so we just get a few dramatic events a year where everyone gets up in arms about how much Youtube sucks, and then returns to normal.
Edit: A bit disappointed how many replies seem to boil down to a belief that the Youtube business model is the only one that shall ever exist or ever could exist for content creators. Rome wasn’t built in a day, ya’ll. (And neither was youtube.)
To make a YouTube alternative you need a global ad platform, storage capacity for exabytes worth of data, a global network of CDNs, and a global payment system for creators. These all need to operate at a massive global scale delivering content to viewers.
No one but Google has this.
Uh… pornhub actually does all of above though.
No one but Google has this.
Today.
It’s a sort of chicken-and-egg problem, also similar to the social media critical mass problem.
Creators won’t move until the audience is there. Audience won’t go until their favourite creators are there. Both won’t move until the platform can handle the traffic, but the platform doesn’t have the money to afford the required infrastructure until they have revenue coming in from large audiences…
The Pirate Bay has this tho. And pornhub has.
The Pirate Bay is not hosting or delivering video, they are just indexing P2P content and hosting magnet links. Pornhub is closer but not at nearly the same scale as YouTube.
There is also PeerTube
Google is getting sued over that Global Ad Platform and teaming up with Facebook to control over 50% of the online Ad market
Google loses bid to keep Texas’ ad tech lawsuit in New York https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/google-loses-bid-keep-texas-ad-tech-lawsuit-new-york-2023-10-04/
They are doing this with Nebula, even though that’s not federated. Judging by the reviews of the Nebula app, they can’t seem to get the usability of their app to an acceptable standard.
Nebula is great. The app certainly isnt streamlined, just a lot of clicks to get to the video(s) you want to watch
I wasn’t aware of that, I’ll check into it, thanks!
But, IMO, I think we’re learning that services like that are inevitably going to be enshittified if not federated.
Youtube lets you monetize videos - I’d assume you can make more (and earn a living) more easily there than via an alternative. I agree they should be looking at alternatives but until they can earn a living there I doubt much will change.
Nebula, Curiosity, Floatplane. The problem is not the videos, it’s the revenue. Many popular YouTubers, don’t actually make a living out of YouTube. But out of sponsored videos. Many more just live out of Patreon. For example, James Stephanie Sterling intentionally doesn’t monetize the videos and intentionally break different copyrights with different litigious holders to avoid anyone monetizing the video (copyright lockdown). It’s the ones who are way too small to live off of alternatives or don’t fit other platform’s brand that get left out to fend on their own against YTs gargantuan and irrational stranglehold monopoly on the space. There’s simply not a large enough market of users willing to pay, Google made sure to make it that way.
For years YT has waged war against small niche channels. They don’t bring enough ad revenue, unlike the MrBeasts and the Michael Brownlees level channels.
Even the biggest YouTubers don’t make enough money to sustain something as large as YT. And if they wanted to, they would have to give seats and voice to the same type of undesirable stock bros that make Google the enshittified hellhole it is now.
Yeah. YouTube is a Stockholm syndrome type of addiction with them it seems. To my whine and bitch about YouTube’s shit policies, but continue to throw money at them.
I’ll never understand it.
Why have none of these big creators banded to put their weight behind one of the fediverse alternatives?
Because they can’t make money from them. Are the fediverse alternatives going to have ads? Require a subscription plan? If their income will only come from in-video sponsors, then it doesn’t matter if they don’t have monetization on YouTube.
I just want to point this out: Louis Rossman is trying to fix this in a way, by allowing people to subscribe to a person and not one of their platforms, so if they get banned their new platform of choice will show up to all of their subscribers instead of them having to try and move their audience to a new nearly unused platform.
Can’t Stop the Signal
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=R-QtwGfILTo
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
WE NEED BREAK UP GOOGLE AND YOUTUBE NEEDS TO BECOME PUBLIC DOMAIN!!!
What do you think public domain means? Cos I don’t think it means what you think it means
Remove their office walls! Make their private office public!
Probably what op meant
A federal server system for things like Wikipedia would be lovely.
Until only government approved editors take over…
deleted by creator
can’t we just fight the beurocracy with even more of it? I love that movie brazil.
