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

191–200 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#191

Post by belltaco »

HideousKojima wrote: post #151
belltaco wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles and point them at others (prior to the incident where life wasn't threatened) as admitted in court.

> 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.

It might also be the result of provocation by someone open carrying around an assault rifle in public, after traveling from out of state in order to specifically do that.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#192

Post by Trumpi »

klyrs wrote: post #106
inChargeOfIT wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about censoring Dislikes? This is in progress now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxOuG8jMIgI&t=1s

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?

> That's their data that they're choosing not to disclose.

And newspapers own the copyright on everything they print, even falsehoods.

What's important is the reason why they are doing it, not whether they have the right, because we all agree that they have the right to do it, but we are not all happy.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#194

Post by dang »

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"

You've unfortunately been using HN primarily for ideological and political battle. That's the line at which we ban accounts, regardless of their ideology or politics, because doing that destroys what HN is supposed to be for. Would you please review the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and stop this? I don't want to ban you, but if you keep this up, we're going to end up having to.

You've also been posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait and/or snarky comments too. That's also against the site guidelines, so if you'd please stop that as well, we'd appreciate it.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#195

Post by __s »

etchalon wrote: post #96

The streams are back up. Yet, this thread quickly devolved into a discussion about the grand conspiracy to censor instead of the repeated failure of automated tools and the ease at which they're abused.

> Streams are back up just in time for the closing arguments

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#196

Post by bequanna »

estaseuropano wrote: post #146
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #129

Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

Thats not fact, just drivel. If it were true YouTube would long be an enemy of pretty much everyone.

Not an enemy of everyone, just the ~50% of the US that doesn’t share YT’s politics.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#197

Post by thesuitonym »

tauntz wrote: post #165
etchalon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's also so easy and lazy to just blame "the algorithm" than fixing your broken system.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#198

Post by skinkestek »

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.

They are pretty smart, I guess they could reuse the same technology they use to not to take down videos with "correct" views that they agree with?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#199

Post by forgotmyoldname »

Apofis wrote: post #186
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

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.

Always resorting to blaming a foreign boogeyman is dangerous thinking. Sometimes you need to accept that there are bad actors within your own country.

For a lot of news programs, the credits are publicly visible and verifiably citizens. The people talking are citizens of your own country. They could care about their country instead of money. They just don’t.

Post reply on HN