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.
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
190 points (93.2% liked)
3DPrinting
15541 readers
313 users here now
3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.
The r/functionalprint community is now located at: !functionalprint@kbin.social or !functionalprint@fedia.io
There are CAD communities available at: !cad@lemmy.world or !freecad@lemmy.ml
Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
-
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
-
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
-
Do not create links to reddit
-
If you see an issue please flag it
-
No guns
-
No injury gore posts
If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is 
Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
This is not true. No one can legally buy them. You have to manufacture them yourself.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Thank you for clarification :)
load more comments
(10 replies)
Guns without a serial number. They are untraceable.
Guns with a serial number are generally also untraceable, since the serial number is not registered to anyone in most states.
Untraceable for what?
Almost all of them still use metal parts that can be x-rayed and still have barrels that leave ballistic fingerprints on bullets. Serial numbers don't make something GPS-tracked.
Untraceable in terms of ownership? There is no national firearm registry. Guns bought from FFLs require a NICS background check that is stored in an ATF database (of questionable legality), but private sale guns often don't require NICS so the database isn't an accurate registry of gun ownership.
And criminals scratch off serial numbers anyways.
And add on that any laws requiring serialization of privately-made firearms are only affecting nerds, not criminals. Criminals that are making guns because they can't pass a NICS background check will continue not adding serial numbers - because they're criminals.
Guns bought from FFLs require a NICS background check that is stored in an ATF database
NICS checks are not stored. Or at least they're not supposed to be. The firearms info is collected on a form 4473 in paper and kept at the FFL where the firearm is purchased.
But the ATF has been caught several times collecting these records and digitizing them in an attempt to create a registry.
load more comments
(1 replies)
No one really knows. It's a made-up term. But generally it consists of 3D-printed and "80% lower" receivers made at home. Firearms you build yourself don't legally require serial numbers.
Similar to "assault weapons"
load more comments
(2 replies)
How long before that heads to the supreme court?
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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...
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
Floatplane also does this.
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.
Why have none of these big creators banded to put their weight behind one of the fediverse alternatives?
Most alternatives, federated or otherwise, are shit.
If you've ever used PeerTube its nearly impossible to find any content because for some reason it is not federated like every other ActivityPub software.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
view more: next ›