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

181–190 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#181

Post by jjk166 »

remarkEon wrote: post #158
freejazz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How exactly would they know that it's public access? Their algorithms don't understand what content is, it just recognizes patterns in data, and that one snippet of video is sufficiently similar to another as to be considered the same snippet. Putting in a rule to deal with an edge case is non-trivial, and there are an infinite number of edge cases.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#182

Post by pwdisswordfish8 »

Natsu wrote: post #157
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, 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? G…

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

It doesn't imply that. It would be nice if, in a thread about the media misreporting the facts of the case and feeding the biases of the folks who are supposed to be benefiting from the coverage, we wouldn't make other assumptions. You might think it's reasonable to make this assumption, but (a) the people leaping to conclusions—many of which turned out to be wrong—and repeating them ad nauseum over the last year also thought their assumptions about Rittenhouse were reasonable, and (b) as it turns out, the source of the ejected round is knowable/known since it was also caught on video (and it wasn't Grosskreutz doing as you said).

[I'm not going to actually delve into the details on that, since as far as I'm concerned this thread is about the meta issues of epistemology in the age of social media echo chambers and the contributions of traditional media to it, and we're best served by staying on that topic and not straying into the details of the case, which provides us a vehicle for the discussion but other than that is really just a tangential third rail.]

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#183

Post by remarkEon »

randallsquared wrote: post #173
remarkEon wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is all the metadata really in place such that CBS' and other networks' streams are able to be labeled as sourced from public access? I don't know, but my assumption is that it isn't, and that large media companies wouldn't bother to use it even if it's technically feasible. Given the lack of such metadata on the streams which typically have protected content, the system taking these down probably just looks at simila…

I think the conclusion I'm drifting toward is thus "YouTube could make it possible for wonkish commentary on live public access topics by creators on the platform, but they don't care enough to do it", which makes sense.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#184

Post by S_A_P »

akudha wrote: post #136
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 only thing they need from viewers is eyeballs. Truth and facts don’t get you eyeballs, outrage and propaganda do. It is insanely hard to present only facts and be truthful and impartial. It is quite easy to pick a narrative and stick to it, damn the facts. MSM is funded by advertisers and big corporations. They’ll do what their money masters want them to - vilifying unions is a good example.

I’m surprised how blantant the narrative pushing is orchestrated. This example happened the other day on NBC news(main channel). So regardless of your stance on ivermectin, this is what played the other day: Aaron Roger’s used ivermectin at the advise of Joe Rogan. Ivermectin is oftentimes used a horse dewormer. Return from Pfizer commercial. Pfizer has announced a new Covid antiviral drug that combines mRNA therapy with a low dose HIV drug and has proven (some high 80s/90s number). Pfizer is asking for an emergency approval for treatment with Covid 19.

Look, I don’t know if Ivermectin is effective for Covid or not. From what I have heard it seems like looking into it with an unbiased lens may be worth it. I don’t care if it is effective or not so much as I don’t think news and corporate interest should drive the national opinion.

I’m not even that scared about the anti viral that Pfizer is pushing. HIV drugs have been around long enough to establish a safety profile and weigh the risk vs reward. I do think, that despite reports ivermectin has a pretty solid safety record. However safe HIV drugs are, the commercials for them list significant side effects. Again I hesitate to post this as someone thinks I’m pushing ivermectin as a legitimate therapy. I truly do not know…

To me the sequence of the story commercial and the counter story made me feel a bit queasy.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#185

Post by marcusverus »

HideousKojima wrote: post #30
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…

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

Anderson Cooper 'confronted' Grosskreutz about contradicting his sworn testimony, but the guy (clumsily) dodged the question, and apparently Cooper wasn't interested in following up on it.

Cooper: On Good Morning America today you said that you were absolutely not pointing your gun at Rittenhouse. Can you clarify there?

Grosskreutz: Yes, absolutely. Um. First and foremost, [the cross examination] was a very tense situation. Something that I've never been in before. Just like never being shot before. I think it's important to note though, specifically during cross that, if there's skilled attorney, they're able to present questions to help support their narrative. That's their job. And with one of the exhibits that Attorney Sharrad(?) had introduced, there's a photo of me with my gun pointed towards the defendant. Either just after or right during he had shot me in my right arm. I think it's important to note though that the physiology of my wound would be inconsistent with someone being shot with their arm in.. we'll say the traditional way that you would point your gun at somebody or something. The only way that I could have sustained the injury that I have is if I had been shot with my arms up.

Cooper (looking perplexed): So... so you're say--did you ever point your gun at him?

[someone speaks to Grosskreutz off camera, he looks at them, turns back] Grosskreutz: I think that in the still photos it certainly looks like it. But never intentionally. You have to understand that, following that gunshot, I was--I had no use of my arm. I wasn't able to move anything. I--and--in my right arm, or in my right arm.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/11/12/gaige-grosskreutz-i...

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#186

Post by Apofis »

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

Can we get over the notion that foreign state interference is not a thing in our media? There, you have your culprit; outside of other national interests whom social unrest and division benefits. They play both sides, same as the admen. Suddenly, what is happening and why is crystal clear.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#187

Post by r00fus »

Natsu wrote: post #164
r00fus wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Thanks for the background. Fascinating analogy that YouTube is allegedly equivalent to a holocaust denier by removing streams in a biased manner.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#188

Post by remarkEon »

jjk166 wrote: post #181
remarkEon wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How exactly would they know that it's public access? Their algorithms don't understand what content is, it just recognizes patterns in data, and that one snippet of video is sufficiently similar to another as to be considered the same snippet. Putting in a rule to deal with an edge case is non-trivial, and there are an infinite number of edge cases.

You don't have to make the algorithm do it, is what I'm saying.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#189

Post by 908B64B197 »

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…

> 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.

At least, here in America we decided that justice should be public and cameras freely admitted into courtrooms. It's sad to see that YouTube is trying to work against these ideals of transparency, openness and universal access.

It is not, however, a universal freedom. In many foreign countries (even in Canada) it's simply impossible to get a simple video and audio feed outside of the courtroom.

Only people with the means of queuing up and spending the whole day in court can get the privilege of seeing and hearing justice with their very own eyes and ears. The rest have to rely on what these people will decide to write in either the state backed medias or billionaire owned news outlets.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#190

Post by akudha »

S_A_P wrote: post #184
akudha wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing they need from viewers is eyeballs. Truth and facts don’t get you eyeballs, outrage and propaganda do. It is insanely hard to present only facts and be truthful and impartial. It is quite easy to pick a narrative and stick to it, damn the facts. MSM is funded by advertisers and big corporations. They’ll do what their money masters want them to - vilifying unions is a good example.

I’m surprised how blantant the narrative pushing is orchestrated. This example happened the other day on NBC news(main channel). So regardless of your stance on ivermectin, this is what played the other day: Aaron Roger’s used ivermectin at the advise of Joe Rogan. Ivermectin is oftentimes used a horse dewormer. Return from Pfizer commercial. Pfizer has announced a new Covid antiviral drug that combines mRNA therapy…

Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky describes in detail how the media lies, manipulates, twists the facts/truth to fit a particular narrative. He gives example after example after example. They also selectively ignore certain stories while simultaneously amplifying certain other stories.

This has been going on for decades, this is nothing new. What is new is the medium and the cost. TV is still expensive even today, while internet is cheap, its reach is much larger and it has permanent memory.

This is why we should support smaller independent outlets like TYT. We may or may not like their style, but they don't rely on corporate sponsors and that deserves respect. I am also happy about independent newsletter publishers (on substack, for example) - these are a drop in the ocean, but still a start.

I can't name a single large publication (left, right, center, liberal, conservative... whatever) that I trust or respect :(

Post reply on HN