201–210 of 835 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Either that or standing a bit away from crowd filming.
Objective data? Video? Even an account from journalists?
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1267449066947932163?s...
https://twitter.com/JordonLee/status/1267600319522971649?s=2...
Disclaimer: I am a bleeding heart liberal and this may filter my observations. I have been to a few rallies/vigils/marches lately and all incidences of violence that I have witnessed either in person or through media has been instigated by the police. As far as I know,every documented case where a formerly peaceful crowd turns into chaos has been started with police shooting pepperspray, teargas, or whatever into the…
Realizing how angry the people are and how massively outnumbered they are they've decided to come out hard with violence in an attempt to squash the protests, which makes sense.
I don't think it would take much for the people to overcome the Law Enforcement with their overwhelming numbers. Once the news gets around that it's happened in one place, that will embolden others to do the same. I just hope it doesn't get wickedly violent if it happens.
@dang are you making an exception for these posts given the current situation? Although important, I do not see anything of technological interest. Any post about the protests are going to incite flame wars and make HN indistinguishable from any other social website right now.
This is incredibly uncharitable to HN. Yes, the discussion on average is far from ultra-rationalistic, but it's also far, far, far from "any other social website right now".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now, on the front page, there are posts about the recreation of the first automobile, the archaeological discovery of cannabis residue at a dig site, news articles about meetings between Zuckerberg and civil rights leaders. While this site trends heavily towards tech, it is not so narrow-minded that we cannot discuss things not strictly related to that subject.
i bring up this argument when anti ccp topics get flagged or modded, but for some reason the argument does not work in that context
The moderation question is always: what serves intellectual curiosity? https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.... Once a topic becomes repeated enough, there's a power-law-style dropoff in how interesting it is (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...), except to people who have a strong identification with one side of an argument, and that sort of interest isn't intellectual curiosity, it's loyalty to a cause. That may be an admirable quality in many ways, but it's not a good fit for this site.
Nationalistic flamewar, which is the theme you're referring to, definitely falls in this category. That doesn't mean that "anti ccp" stories don't get attention here—they certainly do. Just not enough to satisfy the warriors, and rightly so, since warriors want every story that serves their cause to be on HN's front page.
See also https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... for how we handle major ongoing topics.
Edit: it looks like we've had a similar conversation before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22870427, which makes me think that your "for some reason" is an insinuation of the sort the site guidelines specifically ask people not to post: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Please don't do that here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Third party oversight. This country was founded on checks and balances. There are no checks to their power as it stands now.
> Third party oversight. Aren't the journalists supposed to be the third party oversight? Showing and telling the rest of us what's happening so that when one side oversteps we as a society can take action to correct it?
Important to note: I have seen not one example of a non-press person claiming to be press and I've been watching all the livestreams constantly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are on the right track, in so far as we need to understand what the constant across many different cities around the country. Here is what I think (I know I will be burned at the steak for this): The media market is the constant. Media organizations and reporters are incentivized to get the most extreme and sensationalistic footage, so they are taking more risks and crossing more lines than every before.
If your theory holds, there should be footage out there showing media taking risks. Either from the media themselves or from bystanders. I've not seen any footage that reflects that - and there is plenty of footage of police attacks on reporters at this point. Reporters know that these attacks are happening - it's their job to know what's going on! They don't want to be attacked, so they aren't taking risks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Intentionally picked up from a position that police told them was okay to take. Offered to move for a subsequent officer who confronted them, and were arrested for resisting arrest. Don't take my word for it, cameras were rolling the whole time. Governor acknowledges that this was improper. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/29/cnn-reporters-cover... Another case where a reporter shows his credentials and gets arr…
The first one is concerning, but the incident appears to be resolved now (?). The second one does not seem like a major problem to me, as the police might not know a random filming guy showing some piece of paper to be an actual reporter, rather than just a friend of the rioters filming their action for YouTube. It seems it also was resolved. Unless there's an easy way for police to make a credible determination if t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Third party oversight. This country was founded on checks and balances. There are no checks to their power as it stands now.
> Third party oversight. Aren't the journalists supposed to be the third party oversight? Showing and telling the rest of us what's happening so that when one side oversteps we as a society can take action to correct it?