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

151–160 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#151

Post by HideousKojima »

belltaco wrote: post #140
HideousKojima wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rosenbaum was literally a convicted child rapist, multiple witnesses testified that he threatened to kill Kyle if he caught him alone, and he's on video shouting "SHOOT ME N***A" repeatedly. So most people aren't feeling much sympathy for the fact that he died.

We have a justice system if there are crimes like that. >So most people aren't feeling much sympathy for the fact that he died. The GP said they were laughing and celebrating it, that's quite different from 'aren't feeling much sympathy for someone dying'.

>We have a justice system if there are crimes like that.

And robust self-defense laws for when someone poses an immediate threat and there's not enough time to go to law enforcement to help.

>The GP said they were laughing and celebrating it, that's quite different from 'aren't feeling much sympathy for someone dying'.

It's called "understatement." To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while they are in the process of trying to assault and/or kill someone (which the evidence clearly shows) is in fact something to be celebrated. The world is a better place for his absence from it.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#153

Post by noxer »

graton wrote: post #125
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Gr…

CNN also had an article with the same information: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-mon...

The target audience that is fooled does not read more than headlines especially not thous who already saw the TV coverage of the topic.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#154

Post by irae »

shiohime wrote: post #130
klyrs wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's their data that they're choosing not to disclose. That is not censorship. Analogously, if somebody asks for your name and you don't mention your middle name, that is also not censorship. HN only shows max(upvotes-downvotes, -4) to the original commenter. Censorship?

imo it's censorship to the degree that seeing a ratio does explicitly or implicitly set a specific context to a video. For example, say we have a government published video for an initiative that is incredibly unpopular. However, by masking the actual dissent, all you see is one side of the equation, not allowing you as a citizen to easily see how contentious / controversial something that could directly affect your…

It could be argued as censorship only if they have it enabled on the whole platform and on the hypothetical video you mentioned it decides to turn off for whatever reason. Censorship is against an individual or a target group.

Since they analyzed the platform as a whole and decided there are more harm than good in dislikes, and they are applying globally (allowing for a transition period), it is just how they decided the feature set to behave. You can't call it censorship if it applies to 100% of people and content without exception.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#156

Post by robbedpeter »

metamet wrote: post #110
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.

> when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war I think that's an oversimplification. Rittenhouse's decision to show up there armed was due to the partisan division and demonization. Rittenhouse showing up armed and killing two people is a product of the stoked polarization.

Rittenhouse showing up was a result of unrest in a town where he had friends and family. He gave aid to rioters and protesters as well as counter protesters. He showed up to protect and help people, and if he hadn't been armed, he could have been shot and killed or beaten to death, because he told people he was there to help the police. It wasn't until he'd been shot at, attacked with a skateboard, and had a gun aimed at him by an asshole who threatened to kill him earlier that Rittenhouse used his weapon.

I think being armed was probably responsible and it's fairly clear given the evidence from the trial that it was used in a responsible way that exemplifies the use of lethal force in self defense.

The media stoked narratives that caused the riots are to blame. Sensationalism of topics like police on black violence manipulates people into believing things that aren't true, and they react in ways that might very well be reasonable if the narratives were true. I think Rittenhouse is going to sue the ever loving shit out of a lot of legacy media corporations, and maybe that will make them a little more cautious when hyping the tabloid bullshit.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#157

Post by Natsu »

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…

Yes, that was terrible. First, here's a copy of the photo of their interaction for reference which I found online. There are plenty of copies, including in the tweet referenced by Snopes below if you don't like this one:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/290695292964306948/90...

Now here's what Grosskreutz said on the stand:

Corey Chirafisi: Now, you’d agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse. Correct?

Gaige Grosskreutz: Yes.

CC: Okay. And once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that’s when he fires his gun. Yes?

GG: No.

CC: Sir, look, I don’t want to – does this look like right now your arm is being shot?

GG: That looks like my bicep being vaporized, yes.

CC: Okay. And it’s being vaporized as you’re pointing your gun directly at him. Yes?

GG: Yes.

CC: Okay. So when you were standing 3-5 feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired. Right?

GG: Correct.

CC: 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?

GG: Correct.

Now compare that to what Grosskreutz said to ABC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oocNVvTHP5M

ABC: "So here you’re allowed to say whatever you feel like you need to say. So you’re saying you weren’t pointing your gun at him? Is that what you’re saying?”

Grosskreutz: “That’s absolutely what I’m saying, yes.

Problems with this:

* Grosskreutz has a $10M lawsuit against the city over this.

* Grosskreutz' phone was not searched, despite a signed search warrant for the same, due to the DA's personal intervention. Nor was his and only his police interview recorded.

* Grosskreutz has an expired CCL, so was not legally carrying.

* As a side note, the illegal gun charge against Kyle, meanwhile, was dropped. Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle, so Kyle's possession was ruled to be legal under WI's poorly-written laws.

* Grosskreutz lied to the police both about having a gun at all, then later changed his story to dropping it, but was caught on camera in possession of it the entire time.

* The police testified that this is the one and only time they have ever done things that way.

* Grosskreutz testified that he chose to attack because Kyle re-racked his gun. However, this does not happen anywhere in the video of the exchange and no unspent ammo from Kyle's gun was found.

* What was found is an unspent round matching Grosskreutz' glock.

* This implies that Grosskreutz re-racked his gun at some point--something he claims is a threat to kill.

* While that was not seen on camera, this must have happened while he still had two arms.

* Grosskreutz' roommate posted on social media that Grosskreutz regretted not killing Kyle. He later claimed to have been lying when brought to the stand.

In short, ABC put on someone who has changed their story multiple times when confronted with new evidence, who provably lied to the cops that were investigating a murder, and who has $10 million reasons to lie about everything.

This particular exchange has even been fact-checked, so ABC has little excuse for platforming someone they know or should have known to be lying without challenging them:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige-gro...

One wonders if this coverage will ever show up with a "disputed by fact checkers" label on social media?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#158

Post by remarkEon »

freejazz wrote: post #145
remarkEon wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm re-streaming a public access channel, say PBS, that is live-streaming a trial and I'm doing commentary on it how exactly does that trigger an automated copyright take-down notice? Am I missing something on how public events are covered under copyright law? (IANAL)

You are missing the fact that automated copyright take-down systems aren't perfect and are likely designed to learn towards taking fair things down, and not living infringing things up.

I'm not missing anything. If this is automated, you're telling me they can't put in a rule that says "if public access, then take-down not apply"? Maybe you're making a different claim that a network stream (from CBS or another) is not eligible for re-stream? That I find more compelling, but then again it also shouldn't be hard to add another layer to that rule.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#159

Post by adminscoffee »

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…

let's just replace google with a better source. it's bound to happen when you choose profit over freedom

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#160

Post by laurent92 »

yuliyp wrote: post #75
laurent92 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are delusional. I confronted my father about not being in favor of basic democratic principles (67, I’m 40), he maintained he wanted freedom of speech until, after a few targetted questions from myself, he admitted to having limits to it. Same for the right to vote, which he defends fiercely, except for the people who are under influence, foreign or otherwise. Such horrible people maintain a doublespeak even in…

Do you really think your father is a horrible person because some of the ideas in his head might be wrong, or come from a different set of values than you? Are all of your own views self-consistent? Have you ever come to a conclusion, and later changed your views after thinking further or getting new evidence, or from discussing them further? I also find myself disagreeing with my father's politics often. I do compar…

Yes, of course. He constantly lies to hide his real political opinions: He obviously fights for women to succeed, he favors my sisters every time he can, he’s a staunch feminist, but he doesn’t want to lose his son. He puts a visible fat thumb on the balance in favor of women, and he’s surprised that I point out his fat thumb resting on the balance.

It’s sad, I’m sad, he’s sad, but he keeps doing it, and doesn’t want to discuss it.

To answer your question, I have often changed my mind in my life. Precisely because I’ve always engaged with opponents, had animated debates, and sometimes encompassed their point of view. I don’t understand how one can stay stuck on a demonstrably false information, and be so mean about it that you wouldn’t want it undemonstrated. But I feel like 10-20% of the Gen Z generation has the same problem dealing with their parents consuming fake news.

Post reply on HN