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

281–290 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#281

Post by lovelyviking »

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...

It even worse. Ukraine is under Russian attack for more then 7 years. Yet all disputes are directed to 'Moscow office' because Susan Wojcicki thinks it is absolutely logical to have such structure.

As result any attempts to stand against Russia sponsored propaganda and lies are prosecuted by Youtube.

There are brave Ukrainian man and women who with their own time and resources are trying to stand against huge Russian propaganda machine. The task itself is almost impossible and in addition to that Youtube acts against them.

Recently Youtube have managed to close Ukrainian channel with 125k subscribers. No warnings, no nothing. The channel was criticizing Russia sponsored propaganda and lies.

I wish someone who can speak with this Susan Wojcicki would deliver her warmest "hi" from Ukraine and a big thanks for supporting Russian war against Ukraine.

Not only democratic Ukraine faces aggression from Russia it also faces injustices on Youtube. This is absolutely unacceptable situation.

Recovered channel with video describing situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY_02243_Ck&t=354s

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#283

Post by waych »

etchalon wrote: post #85
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…

Considering the streams are back up, this seems more like a failure of automation and reporting tools than a grand conspiracy.

Is this the same failure in automation that is keeping Rittenhouse from being searched on Facebook?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#284

Post by unavoidable »

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.

Europe and Canada approved AstraZeneca's vaccine while the FDA didn't (not debating whether it was a "good" decision, just that it did). Canada also approved of vaccine dose mixing (out of necessity, but nonetheless it was clearly not following the FDA). Plus, by and large Europe and Canada's leaders did not actively harm Covid treatment and vaccine efforts (many policy missteps, but nobody was actively politicizing the virus itself).

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#285

Post by hn8788 »

ryantgtg wrote: post #265
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…

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…

It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#286

Post by PrincessJess »

freejazz wrote: post #149
poorjohnmacafee wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well every family member and person I've ever gotten to know well enough where we talk politics, believe that the state naturally seeks to increase its power over time, so that people should be skeptical of the state. As cliche as it is to bring up, this is what the American founding fathers talked extensively about. Freedom of speech is the fundamental way that people can push back when governments do this, inevitab…

The founders also were aware that the only freedom of speech that you have is from the gov't restricting your speech.

They didn't account for a corporatocracy.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#287

Post by judge2020 »

LegitShady wrote: post #250
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.

Not DMCA; Content ID has never been a legal force YT is forced to comply with, but rather they do it on their own will to appease rights holders to not sue them en mass. YT can remove any video under the guise of "copyright content detected" even if it's not something copyrightable.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#288

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#289

Post by ThunderSizzle »

akudha wrote: post #190
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…

Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky describes in detail how the media lies, manipulates, twists the facts/truth to fit a particular narrative. He gives example after example after example. They also selectively ignore certain stories while simultaneously amplifying certain other stories. This has been going on for decades, this is nothing new. What is new is the medium and the cost. TV is still expensive even today, whi…

TYT may be smaller than Comcast, but it's not small. They received millions in VC funding, much of it partisan and political. That's about as far from independent as possible.

An independent news source should be primarily funded by either non-patisans for good will or by viewers. I'll take Stephen Crowder over TYT any day.

But either way, Stephen Crowder has much of an agenda to gain viewers as TYT - if your viewers support you, then more viewers is more support.

If your viewers don't support you money-wise, then those interests are more indirect, such as a desire for implicit campaigning by donars, like TYT, or for corporate funding, like NBC/Fox.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#290

Post by dontcare007 »

ryantgtg wrote: post #265
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…

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…

But you get some details wrong, and elide some details that are important, just as the media does.
Post reply on HN