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

241–250 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#241

Post by formerly_proven »

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…

Honestly I'm surprised how closely the scenes here match typical movie trials, though I understand that it's unusual for the jury to be removed from the courtroom during closing arguments because the state's attorney makes a mistake. And then get removed again literally 10 seconds later because the state's attorney does the same thing again.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#242

Post by throwaway0a5e »

Miner49er wrote: post #76
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…

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?

The prosecution kinda rushed to charge the kid before the lions share of the evidence was even collected. Of course a bunch of defense lawyers are gonna root against that.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#243

Post by jacobolus »

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…

> 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.

People did look into this with an unbiased lens (did dozens of medical studies, many still ongoing) and so far there is no good evidence that it has any beneficial effect whatsoever. On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption (there have been thousands of calls to poison control centers about Ivermectin in the past few months, and some have died).

From what I have seen everyone pushing Ivermectin is a grossly misinformed and non-credible amateur. Some of these snake-oil salespeople may have direct financial interest, while others just want to promote their own questionable agendas, e.g. trying to undermine/disparage some extremely effective vaccines.

This is a horrible example of something “worth looking into”.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#244

Post by _yoqn »

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'.

Some leftists literally threw parties to celebrate the fact that Rush Limbaugh died from lung cancer. Where was the outrage then? People who think someone is worthless will celebrate their death regardless of their criminal record.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#245

Post by AnthonyMouse »

root_axis wrote: post #238
_-david-_ wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is always the algorithm to blame, never the people who wrote it, audited it, etc.

What do you expect? It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube, if it's not an intentional effort then I fail to see what the big deal is.

> It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube

Well there is; you don't put takedowns in the hands of an algorithm. Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#246

Post by Ancapistani »

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

> attempting to cause social unrest

This seems the likely result, but I’m not quite convinced it’s their motivation.

It seems just as likely to me that they’re reporting based on analysis from people who are ideologically motivated, consciously or not.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#247

Post by _yoqn »

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]

Since when is Project Veritas "right-wing"? The guy legally documents people saying things and releases that info to the public.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#248

Post by screye »

Miner49er wrote: post #76
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…

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?

I have followed them for the last couple of weeks, and there is a good reason for that.

The prosecution has beyond ridiculous arguments time and again over the last 2 weeks. The lawyers all started out really civil, and some of the violations (especially the 5th amendment one that even got the Judge angry) began to make then exasperated.

Combine that with the general silence of the defense, and by now they are all pretty angry at how much of a mess this is.

A lot of ridiculous arguments were brought up by the jury about Rosenbaum, to the point that internal jokes have started emerging surrounding the death of Rosenbaum. Most serve to ridicule the prosecution, rather than Rosenbaum himself.

Lastly, They you are in profession where every time you're in court, some has died. You develop a cruel sense of humor to cope. Very common for victims of abuse or military to have similar coping mechanisms. It seems bizarre from a civilian's POV, but that's just our privilege.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#249

Post by ipaddr »

andrepd wrote: post #161
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…

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...

All of those are media created issues as well.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#250

Post by LegitShady »

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.

It's public video - there's no copyright to claim.
Post reply on HN