Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#21

Post by sm4rk0 »

fault1 wrote: post #12
BitwiseFool wrote: post #8

I really want to stress that while the internet has enabled just about everyone to act as a citizen journalist, it is not the ubiquity of information that matters, but rather, the access to information. YouTube and Google wield great power when it comes to gatekeeping information. The sinister part is that plenty of people, left and right, will defend Google's ability to do this merely because they are "a private com…

Isn't this just a market opportunity for other companies? Google isn't the only company that owns the field of information retrieval. They just came the right place/right time after the .com crash.

It is in a perfect market, but Google holds the monopoly and the game is set against competition.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#22

Post by caeril »

thepasswordis wrote: post #11

I think at this point we can just expect this stuff. The ridiculousness of it, though. The rekieta law stream (which is fantastic , btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8 ) has anywhere from 4-12 active lawyers giving commentary and context to everything that is happening. This is exactly the type of thing we dreamed about when we were first creating the internet. However: often times these smaller independ…

> these smaller independent journalists and commenters go against the reality that media companies want you to believe you live in.

For an example from this specific case, compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head, to the coverage of his testimony by CNN, et. al.

The mainstream media lies, constantly and blatantly, not by minor omissions or bad research, but by gross, egregious violations of truth that can only be explained by extreme malice and contempt for their viewers.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#23

Post by shadowgovt »

crocodiletears wrote: post #2

Note: the streams in the screenshot have since been restored.

It's entirely possible they were taken down in the first place because so many parallel streams of coverage on the same data tripped either a spam detector or an honest-to-God bug in the YouTube backend ("Hm... lots of parallel channels running the exact same bytes. I bet we can consolidate this if we just tee the stream sinks against a source that oops that's a hotspot...").

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#24

Post by furgooswft13 »

skinkestek wrote: post #15

It is pretty amazing isn't it? Fun to work at Google these days? Get to manipulate the crowds big time? Edit: at least you have now gotten me to watch it. Seriously interesting. Good thing the kid has gotten a good lawyer.

Remember when Google employees made a big stink about Project Dragonfly (censored search for China) and got it "cancelled"? Pepperidge Farm does.

Now just wait a few days for a wild "whistleblower" to appear claiming Google coulda censored shit _even sooner_.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#26

Post by imwillofficial »

fault1 wrote: post #12
BitwiseFool wrote: post #8

I really want to stress that while the internet has enabled just about everyone to act as a citizen journalist, it is not the ubiquity of information that matters, but rather, the access to information. YouTube and Google wield great power when it comes to gatekeeping information. The sinister part is that plenty of people, left and right, will defend Google's ability to do this merely because they are "a private com…

Isn't this just a market opportunity for other companies? Google isn't the only company that owns the field of information retrieval. They just came the right place/right time after the .com crash.

And how is it a fair market when the government subsidies give google et al a home field advantage?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#27

Post by perihelions »

This is inverted moderation: they're penalizing anodyne, wonkish lawyers' podcasts, while leaving up most of the nonfactual, inflammatory ragebait. This is the exact opposite of how every platform professes to moderate.

The rules-violating stuff must look very impressive for ad engagement metrics.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#28

Post by colordrops »

fault1 wrote: post #12
BitwiseFool wrote: post #8

I really want to stress that while the internet has enabled just about everyone to act as a citizen journalist, it is not the ubiquity of information that matters, but rather, the access to information. YouTube and Google wield great power when it comes to gatekeeping information. The sinister part is that plenty of people, left and right, will defend Google's ability to do this merely because they are "a private com…

Isn't this just a market opportunity for other companies? Google isn't the only company that owns the field of information retrieval. They just came the right place/right time after the .com crash.

There are a couple problems with the "market opportunity" argument. The first is that no, there isn't a market opportunity due to network and monopolistic forces. The second is that there is a fundamental issue with the system itself, whereby both state and private establishment players eventually force any player with a large piece of the market to do things like censor certain narratives.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#29

Post by fault1 »

sm4rk0 wrote: post #21
fault1 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this just a market opportunity for other companies? Google isn't the only company that owns the field of information retrieval. They just came the right place/right time after the .com crash.

It is in a perfect market, but Google holds the monopoly and the game is set against competition.

A monopoly for information retrieval? Surely not.

For online ads? Sure you can make that case.

Their business in the end is based on delivering relevant content. If there is a market for the traffic Google refuses to host, then there are probably market opportunities there.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#30

Post by HideousKojima »

caeril wrote: post #22
thepasswordis wrote: post #11

I think at this point we can just expect this stuff. The ridiculousness of it, though. The rekieta law stream (which is fantastic , btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8 ) has anywhere from 4-12 active lawyers giving commentary and context to everything that is happening. This is exactly the type of thing we dreamed about when we were first creating the internet. However: often times these smaller independ…

> these smaller independent journalists and commenters go against the reality that media companies want you to believe you live in. For an example from this specific case, compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head , to the coverage of his testimony by CNN, et. al. The mainstream media l…

Also compare Grosskreutz's testimony to his statements to various news networks this past week, where he repeatedly contradicted his own sworn testimony.
Post reply on HN