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

111–120 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#111

Post by afpx »

Miner49er wrote: post #76
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…

So I tuned in out of curiosity. I'm assuming these guys are biased in favor of the defense? They were just laughing at the fact that Rosenbaum is dead. Or do they just have a dark sense of humor or something?

I didn't even know who the guy was until today. So, I guess this is what I'm missing by not having television?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#112

Post by Karsteski »

trhway wrote: post #94
rat87 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I see it as progress that YouTube kicks off antivax conspiracies. It would be nice if Facebook did the same

From USSR times I'm very sceptical about supposed truths which can't stand on their merits alone and require active administrative suppression of the doubt to maintain the perception of truthiness.

Out of curiosity, why did people downvote this comment? I find that it states a very valid concern in our digital age where information can be very effectively suppressed from the majority of people, regardless if I agree or disagree with the message of said information.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#113

Post by merpnderp »

rat87 wrote: post #84
kyleblarson wrote: post #73

It doesn't fit the narrative that they and the entire mainstream media are so desperate to perpetuate. Allowing the plebs to see unbiased content and judge for themselves terrifies them. Same thing with removing the downvote count. They can't stand to see ratio of down to up votes on content about the current US administration, COVID, etc.

"unbiased content"

I think they mean unbiased by the giant advertising agencies through which all major media's takes are filtered through. If you're watching CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc, you're watching what their advertisers approve of. And usually that approval is "The hottest take that, causes the most angry tweets, that gets the most views, of our dish soap." But also sometimes corporate politics bleeds through. Like you the WaPo ignoring or soft-pedaling Amazon stories.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#115

Post by short12 »

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…

Too bad he didn't pull the trigger considering he had already gunned down people. Isn't that the narrative? If some starts shooting people some one with a gun will stop him

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#116

Post by rabuse »

infamouscow wrote: post #102
roody15 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes its like they are shaping reality and attempting to cause social unrest. What the ultimate aim of such a narrative is I am unsure? Just keep people divided? Get more viewers who are "outraged"? Dystopic

The fact is most people don't want to know about things that conflict with their world view. I don't think what the media is doing is intentionally malicious, they just need to perpetuate a specific world view to keep their viewers.

This is a naive view of it, IMO. Political ideologies run rampant at large corporations nowadays, and then it trickles into the actual product/service due to management.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#117

Post by shuntress »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #40
shadowgovt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ...").

doubt. Over the last 6 years there have been toooooo many coincidences which go in 1 direction politically instead of equally in both directions. You only need to flip a coin 5-6 times before you suspect it might be rigged... and after 100's of tosses there is no longer any question.

This is a false equivalency and willful ignorance of the Overton window.

"Reality has a well known liberal bias"

If heads & tails are left & right and the edge is far right extremism, it's not a "coincidence" that these "coin tosses" go in "1 direction politically instead of equally in both directions" when "1 direction" is left or right and the other "direction" is far right extremism

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#118

Post by Eelongate »

ALittleLight wrote: post #97
sneak wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're playing to the crowd. Many people already have opinions formed when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war, and media outlets don't generally like to alienate their audience.

I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal just…

> I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media.

While I think there is doubtlessly some truth to that, I think it misses the bigger picture which is: People weren't blank slates going into this story. Most people who care about the trial one way or the other already had opinions about subjects relating to the trial before they ever heard of this particular incident. People already had opinions about gun control, self defense, protesting, etc.

Media companies, knowing there are already a bunch of people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it convenient to pander to people with these preformed opinions or biases.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#119

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

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…

> Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head

I've more or less read that fact on NYT though.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige...

> “So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked.

> “Correct,” Mr. Grosskreutz answered.

> “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun — now your hands down, pointed at him — that he fired, right?” Mr. Chirafisi said.

> “Correct,” he said.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#120

Post by rabuse »

colordrops wrote: post #28
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.

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.

While I agree that network effects play a large role in entrenchment, I wouldn't be so surprised if smaller players start swooping up the dissenters and begin slowly chipping away at the giants.
Post reply on HN