YouTube expands restrictions on videos featuring firearms and firearm accessories

Illustration by Alex Castro / The Verge

YouTube has updated its policy on content featuring firearms, expanding the list of accessories that cannot be featured in videos that sell them or instruct users how to manufacture or install the accessories, reports Motherboard.

Under the new restrictions, accessories that cannot be featured in videos that intend “to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales” or “links to sites that sell these items” include those that enable a firearm to simulate automatic fire or convert a firearm to automatic fire (including bump stocks, gatling triggers, drop-in auto sears, and conversion kits), and high-capacity magazines. Videos can also no longer provide instructions on converting firearms to automatic or simulated automatic firing, manufacturing firearms, ammunition, silencers, and the aforementioned accessories. Lastly, videos cannot show users how to install these accessories.

YouTube already had a ban on videos that link to the sale of firearms and bump stocks. It last updated its policy on firearms in October 2017, when it banned tutorials on adding bump stocks to firearms following the Las Vegas massacre.

As Motherboard points out, there are creators who have already felt the results of these new guidelines. YouTube has suspended the channel for Florida-based gun manufacturer Spike’s Tactical, stating that “YouTube doesn’t allow content that encourages or promotes violent or dangerous acts that have an inherent risk of serious physical harm or death.”


The bad thing is how Youtube shit algorithmic affects historical/military channels.

And gaming. I watched a lot of PUBG related content last year regarding weapons, balance and attachments etc. and YouTube started suggesting me videos about real guns and their reviews etc. That really freaked me out and I’ve watched PUBG related content incognito since then.

Good right? Isnt that what we’re supposed to think? Except in my head I keep hearing ‘meaningless virtue signaling cr-p that does basically nothing’. What to do with these thoughts??

we need to stop with the notion of "virtue signalling". I’m not arguing that it does happen, the blanket application of it to anything considered "progressive" these days is nothing more than a subset of butthurt people trying to discredit anyone who they don’t socially agree with.

MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, some of these actions are actually actions that companies / politicians actually morally agree with and wish to change for the betterment of peoplekind.

blanket throwing around VIRTUE SIGNALLING everytime you don’t agree with a socially progressive movement points more a picture on your own politics than those of those you are shouting at

(you being the universal you and not necessarily YOU you)

If they actually agreed with these things, they’d have done something about them years ago instead of suddenly now when they come to a head.

Sexism and sexual assault have been a major public issue since, who knows when.

School shootings are NOT new.

The packaging up and sale of our data and internet usage hasn’t fallen out of the sky.

All of these suddenly urgent topics are used to pander to the whiny masses, who by the way, will completely forget about them when the next big scandal is announced.

FPS games feature firearms so are those banned from streaming?

Read the article.

This is bad. Very bad. Youtube has a wealth of good information especially for people who reload their ammo and build their own rifles that will all be gone thanks to these new policies. These videos made a lot of peoples lives easier, cheaper, and safer and the people who made and watched these videos are not the problem. This type of virtue signaling does nothing to stop mass shootings. If they actually cared about shootings, they would block people from publishing details about shooters.

While Youtube is a private entity and I’m not going to advocate for regulatory intervention on a private platform, I think it is somewhat dangerous that Google is certainly taking advantage of their position as gatekeepers of the internet to push a political agenda.

A lot of those things aren’t even illegal. Hell, in many parts of Europe, silencers are mandatory.

Somehow Hollywood managed to fool the American public into thinking suppressors make weapons silent. I really wish we could get over this misconception and pass the HPA.

Just to rebut the idea that Europe is some sort of gun nirvana, European countries with the most guns per person have less than a third of the same rate in the US, and higher capacity and automatic guns are heavily regulated there.

Automatic weapons are heavily regulated here as well.

At no point did they say it was a nirvana.

"and I’m not going to advocate for regulatory intervention on a private platform "

why you will not advocate (or the reverse) ? States put regulations all the time. For example copyright is HUGE regulations of what a " private platform " can do. Or terrorism laws, or national security and so on…

So, why not one more ? (or why not to not regulate either for all reason) ?

My point is : why you have an opinion ? Is it about something you care enough ?

"gatekeepers of the internet to push a political agenda. "

hu yes.. like Google was already of a thousands of american values, laws or private interest (for example : never annoy an advertisers but the pornography industry). So why not guns or tomorrow bicycles?

Where we put the LINE ? On the guns ? or anything else ? Why the guns ? Why not the guns ?

Again : why you have a clear opinion and reaction NOW ?

So, why not one more ? (or why not to not regulate either for all reason) ?

Just because they do regulate doesn’t mean I support it. I think copywrite, trademark, and patent laws as they exist currently are a mess of trolling and abuse. I don’t currently claim to have a solution for it though and would love to hear any proposal on how to improve it. Terrorism and "national security" laws have unfortunately been widely expanded and abused in recent years thanks to the overblown fear of terrorism and a failed drug war. This is should be addressed by removing the US from foreign entanglements, greatly reducing "defense" spending, and ending the failed war on drugs but unfortunately those things aren’t likely to happen. As for regulating internet speech, government telling a company or person what to say or not say is a violation of the First Amendment and I would be a hypocrite if I suggested they should only be regulated in favor of my beliefs. As dangerous as Google controlling the flow of information is, it would be infinitely more dangerous if the government took control of it.

hu yes.. like Google was already of a thousands of american values, laws or private interest (for example : never annoy an advertisers but the pornography industry). So why not guns or tomorrow bicycles?

Historically, Google has maintained some distance from American Politics. Its always been fairly obvious that they (along with the rest of Silicone Valley) have been left leaning but they never really put forth opinions or policies on subjects that did not directly affect them. Now they are taking a clear and obvious stance to push a political agenda and I’m criticizing them because it would make a lot of useful information harder to find. I am not telling the where to draw any line or what to put on their platform, I’m criticizing the virtue signaling that would be a detriment to a lot of people and questioning weather or not its a good idea for people to put as much faith in Google as they do.

Again : why you have a clear opinion and reaction NOW ?

Anybody who knows me or looks at my comment history knows I have been extremely critical of Google especially for their privacy policies and I personally try to use a few of their services as possible. This isn’t my first or only opinion on Google.

I reload my own ammo, and cannot understand why they’d ban reloading videos, they’re a big help.

What do you think about youtube not allowing porn? Isn’t this, in a sense, also a political agenda?

Porn is an a giant industry that nobody wants to (figuratively) touch and both sides of the political isle have mixed ideas on porn. I don’t see that as a political move as simply a business decision to prevent the site from turning into /b/. There are ways that they could have allowed porn on the site and isolated it to certain restricted sections (Reddit has been fairly successful with this) but their decision and policy was very clear cut from the start and drew a very bold line on what they allowed. The wording of the policy above is written like a bad law and pretty much leaves it up in the air as to whats allowed and not allowed. On top of this, the policy comes after the community has already established a huge presence on the platform and puts a lot of peoples livelihoods at risk.

Google doesn’t want, "the school shooter had a history of browsing YouTube videos of how to make semi automatic weapons fully automatic." Anywhere in the news.

They don’t want headlines with "YouTube" and "violent shooting of innocents" anywhere near each other. Plain and simple.

And somehow banning reloading videos is going to make that happen?

Yeah, hopefully the censoring stops here. It’s one thing to be afraid of gun modification videos that instruct. It’s another if they start banning videos where people are simply reviewing and shooting guns. Hobby videos like any other.

When I watch Talon Sei, it feels no different than watching Marques Brownlee (besides the production value).

And the video game modding community comes rightfully unglued in 3 . . . 2 . . .

Reddit just updated its policies, banning /r/gundeals

It was a sub listing deals on firearms, parts and ammo.

This is ridiculous. r/gundeals was just a bunch of links to third party sites. No transactions took place on Reddit.

View All Comments
Back to top ↑