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

221–230 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#221

Post by ipaddr »

belltaco wrote: post #207
S_A_P wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It all depends on the scientific evidence in the highest quality large clinical trials. Ivermectin has failed to show benefit, the Pfizer drug has. >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. Even more frightening is that a lot of people who think that don't have the same opinion on things like these that are way worse than anything N…

What makes you think European and Canadian are less politicized over Covid?

Canada usually waits for fda approval and data before it approves most things.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#222

Post by forgotmyoldacc »

baryphonic wrote: post #155

Never forget that Susan Wojcicki won a free speech award sponsored by YouTube. [0] Never forget it. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/youtube-ceo-susan-wojcicki-gets-fre...

Genuinely, who cares about the award? I don't think anyone will assume that YouTube abides by free speech just because their CEO won an award no one's ever heard about.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#223

Post by Natsu »

belltaco wrote: post #191
HideousKojima wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I…

> 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.

That charge was dropped because Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle.

However, ADA Binger did take Kyle's rifle, pointed it at the jury without checking it (saying his assistant had), and had his finger on the trigger while doing so.

Thankfully he didn't go full Baldwin, because there was no clip and no round in the chamber and the judge made them check it afterwards, but you can watch the stream if you want to see how it went down.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#224

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Eelongate wrote: post #118
ALittleLight wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

We're finding out that this is a case of eating your seed corn.

If you give people two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true, they're going to prefer the one that flatters their ego. So the ego flattering is short-term profitable.

But eventually there is a story people are interested in enough to actually watch the trial, or read the source documents. Or someone else does that and points them right to the place where the media narrative disintegrates.

Then it's not two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true. The one the media outlet is giving them is demonstrably false. Which makes them more skeptical next time, and when they look, it's false again. And again.

The result is a loss of trust.

What happens then? Have a look at their ratings.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#225

Post by 0des »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #69
gknoy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find what you said really interesting, mainly because I don't think I've _ever_ used likes or dislikes (or their ratio) as a metric for choosing what to watch. The most I've interacted with dislikes is when seeing some helpful low-production-value video, or some artist's music stream, I've wondered why 1-3% of the viewers disliked it. I mean, even when I've found _better_ or _more informative_ videos, I've never be…

I have a great example that illustrates my use of likes/dislikes as a filter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRCSX-u01eM The video is titled: "Boeing C-17 Globemaster Jet Crash All Hell breaks loose" . It has 2,302,640 views and I took a screenshot of the like/dislike metrics before the change took place. 1.6K Upvoted, 21K Downvoted. The spoiler is that the plane taking off never actually crashes. It just looks like…

I still see the up/down counts.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#227

Post by concinds »

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.

Pretty sure YouTube employees have already classified all government channels and public access channels as such. There's a notice below those videos that indicates it. And if not, it should be done anyway.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#228

Post by tadbit »

president wrote: post #144
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #129

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

It's not even just that. Earlier this year, the White House admitted it had a line to Facebook and presumably other social media companies so that it could tell it which stories to censor.

Citation, please. First I'm hearing about this.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#229

Post by HideousKojima »

belltaco wrote: post #191
HideousKojima wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. I…

It wasn't an assault rifle, and it is legal for 17 year olds to open carry rifles and shotguns under Wisconsin law.

Open carrying is not provocation, otherwise open carrying itself would be inherently illegal, nor sure what your reasoning is there.

Edit: Also, what the hell does him crossing state lines have to do with anything? He lives like 5 minutes from the Wisconsin border and lives closer to Kenosha than his three assailants

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#230

Post by shiohime »

foxhop wrote: post #219
shiohime wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We live in a society whose narrative is completely and utterly controlled by megacorporations who create truths that are convenient for them, or their overall agendas, regardless of the actual truth. It's a disgusting world and it's only going to get worse. We're all pawns to these companies that are performing social engineering on scales we cannot even fully comprehend.

Do you say it's almost like super normal stimulation? https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/supernormal-stimuli/#pa... I would say this is what it's like.

It does seem like a pretty good metaphor for what it is like. Thank you for sharing, I've never seen this comic before and I think it does a great job at communicating the message the author was trying to get across.
Post reply on HN