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

301–310 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#301

Post by nemothekid »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #289
akudha wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is a clear level of influence and responsibility that separates CNN from TYT, despite TYT being VC funded. That said I wouldn't trust anyone who gets their news from solely TYT (which has a progressive stance) and Stephen Crowder (who has a a right slant). Despite having more funding, I wouldn't be surprised if Crowder was competitive in revenue to TYT.

If your goal is news then getting as close to the primary source is as important as possible, and unfortunately YouTube is making this even more difficult today. If your goal is interpretation you need to listen to a wide variety of experts to form an informed opinion that you can actually defend.

Ultimately, every news outlet is beholden to someone and most have made editorial choices to more palatable to the demographic they have acquired over the years.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#302

Post by acover »

Nasrudith wrote: post #233
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #129

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

So what enemy action is responsible for the defective parts in a factory that makes tens of thousands per day? Scale matters.

It depends on if it was intentional. When incentives aren't aligned and the cause of failure isn't transparent, then it seems reasonable to consider self-motivated intent.

What do you do when a factory sends you inferior bolts that don't meet tolerance? You test every they send you. The trust is gone.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#303

Post by thepasswordis »

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.

The fact that there is a faceless algorithm which has seemingly been programmed specifically to remove content which fails to align with a specific political narrative, and that no human is in active control of this, is actually worse.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#304

Post by AnthonyMouse »

root_axis wrote: post #268
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

It's an adversarial proceeding where both sides get to present their case and a takedown has to be for a violation of a law that complies with the First Amendment.

Notice that this is different than what you promote. Search results are sorted by an algorithm; that's unavoidable and excessively simple algorithms like "alphabetical order" are useless. And then it's a hard problem, to which the best solution is probably multiple independent search engines with different algorithms.

But removing the thing whatsoever? Court order or GTFO.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#305

Post by andybak »

ipaddr wrote: post #249
andrepd wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please tell us more about your theories on this.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#306

Post by vkou »

_yoqn wrote: post #255
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.

[flagged]

It would significantly help your point if the conspiracies you were citing were not plain old unsubstantiated bullshit.

I, too have a laptop containing damning evidence about , and no, I uh, won't show it to anyone, because I'm scared of the deep state. But I'm not so scared of the deep state that I will keep silent about it. I am at an incredibly particular level of scared.

That nobody takes me seriously is, of course, further proof that the powers that be are repressing the truth.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#307

Post by flenserboy »

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…

I'd put a dollar on that particular stream being what caused this. They have been savage.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#308

Post by HideousKojima »

ryantgtg wrote: post #298
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…

I suggest not ever using the phrase “assault rifle” because you’ll just get responses where people say “it’s not an assault rifle” and they’ll think they actually won an argument.

As opposed to falsely claiming he had an assault rifle and thinking that somehow strengthens the emotional/moral impact of an argument?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#310

Post by ryantgtg »

hn8788 wrote: post #285
ryantgtg wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary!

Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? Would there have more or less danger to himself as a response worker free of weapons vs one with a huge weapon?

The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it.

Post reply on HN