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

271–280 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#271

Post by klyrs »

shiohime wrote: post #180
klyrs wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, that's definitely your opinion, but this doesn't match any definition of censorship I'm aware of -- it sounds like you want compelled disclosure . It's a single statistic that YT collects per video. YT also has location data for the dissenters. Is it censorship that they aren't showing a country-by-country breakdown of where the dislikes are coming from? Is it censorship that they aren't showing a town-by-tow…

I guess, the underlying principal in my mind is around the intent of why they are removing such a feature, when it has very valid uses even as a consumer of content. I understand some of the issues with the upvote/downvote concept in terms of targetted ratio campaigns, however, I think it is censorship if they are removing this information for the intent of social engineering, which I think that they are. I know I'm…

> I apologize if it's a bit hard for me to explain my reasoning here, but it just truly unsettles me.

I feel you here, but you're not making a principled argument. You're appealing to a fundamental right to free speech, but that just doesn't fit the situation.

If we're going by intent, YT's statement is that people seem to be biased by the rankings. Taking it at face value, they want people to think for themselves, and not pre-judge the content based on what previous viewers thought. That sounds like a good thing to me. That said, I don't consume youtube except when my kid watches minecraft stuff there, so I couldn't care less what happens to/on the platform. What I care about is the legal mechanisms in play -- and your suggestion is quite alarming from that perspective.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#272

Post by Eelongate »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #257
screye wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

Why does everything have to be a coping mechanism. Why can't they just be desensitized because they deal with it so much?

Isn't desensitization a coping mechanism? I understand these to be one and the same. Surgeons have "gallows humor" too, as do EMTs. People who see awful stuff a lot build up mental defenses to it, like joking about it. The effect, not being impacted by the stimuli like other people would be, is called desensitization.

> Black comedy is common in professions and environments where workers routinely have to deal with dark subject matter. This includes police officers,[36] firefighters,[37] ambulance crews,[38] military personnel and funeral directors,[39] where it is an acknowledged coping mechanism. Outsiders can often react negatively to discovering this humor; as a result, there is an understanding within these professions that these jokes should not be shared with the wider public.[37][38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_comedy#Nature_and_functi...

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#273

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#274

Post by endisneigh »

Minor49er wrote: post #259
endisneigh wrote: post #211

It's hilarious how some people are always saying everything is some conspiracy. You work at any of these companies (YouTube, Twitter, Meta, Snap) and the amount of internal outages is so frequent your eyes glaze over. Not to say that the outages necessarily affect users, but so much so that I just assume all of this stuff is just the result of automation gone wrong. The bar for conspiracy I think needs to be pretty h…

The closed nature of these companies feeds into this sort of thing, though. A frequent complaint of channel owners is that they aren't told why they've received strikes against their channels. Google also makes it incredibly difficult to submit feedback about their platforms. And any time something questionable or unfavorable arises, they just claim that it's the mysterious will of their overly-complicated algorithms…

I'm not arguing that there's no censorship. All platforms that have user submitted content have censoring to varying extents, including this website.

What I'm saying is that there's no conclusive proof there's some sort of grand conspiracy at work here.

[1] First link says certain types of conservative media is blacklisted. However it's not like there isn't thousands of conservative videos on YouTube.

[2] Your second link isn't really relevant or surprising, unless there's proof that Schmidt somehow took actions to promote Clinton beyond the (imo) very clear media bias towards her.

[3] I'm not saying you should trust these companies - you shouldn't. I'm just saying that there's no proof of a conspiracy and most of these issues are probably just technical underlying. Still shouldn't trust them, though.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#275

Post by belltaco »

ipaddr wrote: post #221
belltaco wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They might be politicized internally, but they don't give a crap about Trump vs Biden, or red vs. blue.

UK, Brazil and India have right wing govts, do you really think they would suppress real cures and destroy their economy and popularity of their leaders and parties due to lockdowns, hospitalizations, and the dead filling up burial grounds. If HCQ or IVR actually worked, a leader would have mandated it and would have become hugely popular for saving their country from a pandemic that other countries are getting roiled by. Imagine how much more popular Boris or Modi would become, it would literally seal their next election win.

Or maybe IVR or HCQ aren't good drugs against covid and are hyped up for political reasons by some and then pushed by others who aren't capable of properly reading or understanding scientific studies.

This conspiracy only makes sense to people who cannot think broadly, skeptically and logically.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#276

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

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.

Does this trigger a "stream suspended for policy violations" or some more copyright-specific message?

In the end this will boil down to speculation until/if YouTube makes a statement, but at least it can be informed speculation.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#278

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

_-david-_ wrote: post #3

Is it just me or does it seem like these "accidents" impact smaller and perhaps less politically authoritative channels than the big channels? I am not just talking about this incident but others as well.

"Reputation" in one form or another is often considered in abuse-fighting mechanisms, so it would be surprising if this weren't the case.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#279

Post by perl4ever »

noxer wrote: post #153
graton wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN also had an article with the same information: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-mon...

The target audience that is fooled does not read more than headlines especially not thous who already saw the TV coverage of the topic.

The target audience for the "MSM is evil and brainwashing you" line also is fooled because they do not read more than headlines, based on the dialogue right here.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#280

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

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.

While I agree with your guess of "failure of automated tools", the streams being back up is only partially helpful; much of the damage is done, and it will further polarization because more people now feel persecuted.
Post reply on HN