YouTube takes down independent court livestreams • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#161

Post by andrepd » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 10:12 PM UTC

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…

Really? Can you link me to said CNN coverage where they twisting his words?

Anyways this is a classic ruling class tactic: keep the plebs entertained with something else. While they're busy endlessly discussing the Rittenhouse case with ever more inane partisan takes, they're not discussing the impending economic crisis, the unprecedented levels of income and wealth inequality, pressing climate crisis...

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#162

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 10:12 PM UTC

SubiculumCode wrote: post #127

judge2020 wrote: post #35

This might be happening because the same feed is available on YouTube TV, so similar content might be hit by the Content ID system meant to stop people from restreaming TV on YouTube.

Actually, this HN post was a honey trap to identify its conspiratorial user-base. lol

[deleted]

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#163

Post by nefitty » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 10:13 PM UTC

thriftwy wrote: post #100

InitialLastName wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a reason why IMDB is a thing. If they remove ratings, it becomes useless. Ratings are the foundational aspect of IMDB. Are the ratings why people go to IMDB? I use IMDB as a database on the internet for movies and TV cast/crew credits. I almost never look at the ratings for the things I look up.

IMDB ratings are solid and often the main reason why people go to IMDB at all. 8: a masterpiece 7: enjoyable 6: watchable if you like that specific thing 5 and lower: oddball There are some exceptions for niche movies (may have very low or very high rating) and for recently aired, otherwise it's pretty reliable.

I always thought crowd sourced ratings was one of the killer apps of the internet. That's what makes Airbnb possible, what made darknet markets successful, what makes Amazon powerful...

Throwing away ratings is like going into the woods to live and throwing away your book on native plant life. I guess just nibble at whatever looks good, even if it might be void of nutritional value or poisonous at worst.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#164

Post by Natsu » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #63

GenerocUsername wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You are comparing YouTube policing their platform to a a coin flip? YT isn't a public service.

They're gesturing at the argument that was famously made in the 2016 movie Denial.

In that, a Holocaust denier has filed a defamation lawsuit against a Jewish professor. Under UK law, she bears the burden of proof.

When they later confront the denier, they point out that he makes many historical mistakes and every single one of them favors the Nazis and/or Hitler. They then compare this to a rigged coin. If he were being honest and doing history wrong, then some of his mistakes should've gone either way, but the fact that his mistakes are substantially in one direction shows evidence of bias.

Denial is a great film, I recommend it.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#165

Post by tauntz » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #85

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…

Considering the streams are back up, this seems more like a failure of automation and reporting tools than a grand conspiracy.

.. but it's so easy and lazy to just blame "the man" or a big conspiracy.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#166

Post by Karsteski » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 10:14 PM UTC

xhevahir wrote: post #79

Miner49er wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[flagged]

And what if they video streams are right wing? What then?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#167

Post by nefitty » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

serverholic wrote: post #81

1cvmask wrote: post #14

YouTube is the great digital video censorship platform. My all time favorite was when they censored an academic conference on censorship. The HN discussion on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26008217

This is why decentralization is so important. Peertube, IPFS, cryptocurrency, bittorrent, etc. and really web3 in general are trying to move us in that direction. Part of the problem is that people have been told that there is such a thing as a free lunch. Yet YouTube censorship is a great example of where that leads us.

In this context, web3 looks more attractive. Too bad its formative moments are being steered by scammers selling jpegs of stick figure drawings.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#168

Post by remarkEon » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 10:15 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #149

poorjohnmacafee wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well every family member and person I've ever gotten to know well enough where we talk politics, believe that the state naturally seeks to increase its power over time, so that people should be skeptical of the state. As cliche as it is to bring up, this is what the American founding fathers talked extensively about. Freedom of speech is the fundamental way that people can push back when governments do this, inevitab…

The founders also were aware that the only freedom of speech that you have is from the gov't restricting your speech.

This is absolutely not at clear cut as you are describing it. They were well aware that public opinion generally understood is what is supposed to bound government action. I don't have all the Federalist references handy atm, but it is not the case that they would have said "meh if a private corporation does it it's okay". As will all things with those folks it's considerably more nuanced than that.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#169

Post by B1FF_PSUVM » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 10:16 PM UTC

roody15 wrote: post #67

caeril wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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

Sells more soap.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#170

Post by klyrs » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 10:19 PM UTC

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…

I mean, that's definitely your opinion, but this doesn't match any definition of censorship I'm aware of -- it sounds like you want compelled disclosure. It's a single statistic that YT collects per video. YT also has location data for the dissenters. Is it censorship that they aren't showing a country-by-country breakdown of where the dislikes are coming from? Is it censorship that they aren't showing a town-by-town breakdown of where the dislikes are coming from? Is it censorship that they aren't showing the IP address of each dissenter?

Clearly, that got ridiculous. But, what I'm curious about is if there's an underlying principal in your mind here. Because what you appear to be suggesting is a regulation compelling not only disclosure of internal statistics, but specifically how fine-grain those internal statistics are allowed to be? And, for example, what about twitter? They don't have a dislike button -- do you think they should be compelled to implement one? Since your focus seems to be on where people are getting their news, do you think that news sites (above a certain popularity?) should be compelled to implement dislikes on their own content, or only user-submitted comments?