YouTube takes down independent court livestreams • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#261

Post by stefan_ » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

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?

It seems to be the literal definition of the peanut gallery. They keep shouting "object" like they are in the court room. You would think the kinda profession that puts "I'm not your lawyer" at the top of their blog post would know better than to run the equivalent of a Twitch react stream. If this is the grand future the grandparent had in mind, I want no part of it.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#262

Post by pwdisswordfish8 » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 11:49 PM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #202

pwdisswordfish8 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 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 leap…

I'm basing my opinions on those statements made in open court that were subjected to cross-examination, not random social media nonsense, which is pretty much all there was a year ago when you formed this opinion. The police said the unspent round did not match Kyle's weapon. It does match the ammo in the Glock. If you have video evidence of another Glock (EDIT: or any other gun using the same ammo) being racked at t…

> a year ago when you formed this opinion

This is a nonsense sentence. It's not even clear what you're even trying to say here, but it's certain that whatever it is you are making even more bad assumptions about things that you don't actually know to be true.

> please show it [...] I was not able to locate any other claims for where the unspent round came from

It's like you ignored the entire message and homed in on the sweet temptation to muse further about the events of the night of the shooting itself, as if this were exactly the sort of trial-by-Reddit thread that I said I would not take part in here.

After the response you just received, do you really expect that the person who wrote it would meet your challenge, which would require an about-face, throwing everything just said out the window, and willingly contributing to derailing the discussion from the topic at hand?

In other words: no, and furthermore, since you're all over this thread trying to turn it into exactly what it shouldn't be: please stop.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#263

Post by rajup » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 11:50 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #80

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

They're playing to the crowd. Many people already have opinions formed when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war, and media outlets don't generally like to alienate their audience.

This is the Nick Sandmann saga all over again. A couple of years later we will hear of these outlets quietly settling various lawsuits with Rittenhouse. But hey at that point the outrage machine has moved on to something else, they have made their bucks. Small price to pay.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#264

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 11:50 PM UTC

thirteenfingers wrote: post #86

Between stuffing non-monetized videos with ads, the dislike button thing, and capricious censorship, I'm seriously looking into self-hosting[0] my video and streamed content. Disregarding the difficulty of maintaining a following outside of the big platforms, do any of you HNers have experience with hosting your own video and streaming sites? What software do you use? [0] I could also just switch platforms, but I hav…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#265

Post by ryantgtg » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 11:51 PM UTC

ALittleLight wrote: post #97

sneak wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're playing to the crowd. Many people already have opinions formed when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war, and media outlets don't generally like to alienate their audience.

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…

Personally, I haven’t followed this story or the trial closely at all. But what you describe would be woefully inadequate coverage of an event. The details are important, and to me the important details (that allow me to form an opinion) are “guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.” Nuff said. My opinion is the same as it would have been 20 years ago based on those details.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#266

Post by Eelongate » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 11:52 PM UTC

0des wrote: post #210

belltaco wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is an assault rifle?

I know you're being rhetorical, but since some may not actually know:

If we're being pedantic: A machine-gun with a box magazine, chambered for an intermediate rifle cartridge. Rittenhouse's rifle only had two of those three characteristics. Some would have you believe the missing characteristic (being a machine-gun) is unimportant, yet that's the characteristic with the most stringent federal regulation.

If we're being emotive: Any rifle that looks 'assaulty'. Obviously this is extremely subjective. It's possible to construct an assault rifle that fulfills the pedantic definition but lacks the 'assaulty' aesthetic.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#267

Post by Latty » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 11:53 PM UTC

_yoqn wrote: post #247

xhevahir wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

They are financed by the right wing, and continuously release heavily edited and out of context versions of recordings to push a right-wing narrative.

They have paid settlements and plead guilty for causing harm through their sting attempts and disinformation multiple times.

Anyone taking Veritas seriously is not looking at their history, which makes it very clear that anything they release is untrustworthy at best. They are very clearly far-right political operatives, and in no way a neutral entity.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#268

Post by root_axis » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 11:56 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #245

root_axis wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law.

Why?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#269

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 11:56 PM UTC

_yoqn wrote: post #244

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'.

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.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#270

Post by rurp » Mon, Nov 15, 2021, 11:57 PM UTC

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...

That award immediately comes to my mind every time I read a story like this, which I find hilarious. I'd bet the same is true for a number of others as well, given how high profile and ridiculous that free speech award was.