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

311–320 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#311

Post by Fnoord »

ignoramous wrote: post #179
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…

> This is exactly the type of thing we dreamed about when we were first creating the internet This is one reason why I think P2P tech like peertube will not only be around longer but even thrive.

Yes, and Mastodon, and and (I know there's many more). Thing is, it will probably fracture at some point (look at how Mastodon split over (AFAIK?) Hentai), and then the mainstream is still Twitter/Facebook/YouTube etc. The alternative media needs to have enough legal and non-lunatic content. If say 99% of Bitcoin transactions are proven crime related (drugs, murder, etc) that's an argument to make Bitcoin illegal. But nobody's gonna argue to make roads or postal service illegal because these are also used for legal purposes. Massively, if I might add. In this context I remember Freenet, some Java P2P network and predecessor of Tor. One of the problems on it was that certain nefarious (disgusting) content was popular on it, and one of the main devs in an interview suggested that people should popularize other content instead. But therein lies the conundrum: such can be abused to obfuscate the bad actor/content. Its the same reason the US Navy wanted Tor to be used by others than them alone. What use is a piece of anonymity software if its obvious only one government department in the world uses it? None. Meanwhile, if you can roll X out for say a target group you find interesting, perhaps its easier to monitor. If you want to infiltrate say BLM for an information position in closed communities, and BLM is mostly on Mastodon (I don't know; its hypothetical), then at least the protocol is going to be obvious. Media like Twitter/Facebook/YouTube allow one to blend in, and have a large potential group of viewers. My point being, mainstream/status quo nor alternative/exclusive is a panacea. Each has their pros and cons, depending on where your focus/morals lie.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#312

Post by germinalphrase »

Dma54rhs wrote: post #297
germinalphrase wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is disrespectful of the dead and should be removed.

These are the past crimes they've been sentenced guilty already at court not some rumor or events they never got punished for. Calling a pedophile a pedophile is not disrespectful.

Listen, I have no connection to these people and really don’t care, but using sports slang to celebrate these deaths - as if such events are common and desirable in Kenosha - is indeed callous and disrespectful. Call me old fashioned.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#315

Post by ashtonkem »

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.

That is almost certainly what happened. Google's systems are lazy and automatic, reading into it further is trying to create patterns where none exist. Chances are he got mass reported for whatever dumb thing, valid or not, and Google's system tripped without any human review. This after all is the same company and system that banned influential YouTubers for impersonating themselves, after all.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#316

Post by usui »

roenxi wrote: post #138
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 think at this point we can just expect this stuff. It'd be interesting to have a poll of the people defending YouTube back when they started taking a political stance and see if they think that a line has been crossed somewhere between there and here, or if this is still the sort of behaviour they expect from YouTube. It seems that YouTube has taken a firm stance against being a knowledge repository a la Wikipedi…

Google Search? A knowledge repository? Literally day-by-day it becomes near impossible to find the knowledge you want by a fresh concoction of being flooded by paid-for links, incorrect web scraping/SEO spam, or downright scrubbed from the web.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#317

Post by ryantgtg »

HideousKojima wrote: post #308
ryantgtg wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You are either being intentionally disingenuous or you are so deep in this that you don’t understand how other people think. To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. And saying “actually it’s technically not an assault rifle” makes absolutely no difference. It’s not always a false claim; rather it’s a minor, irrelevant detail. Swatting it down doesn’t matter, except to the person swatting it down.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#319

Post by clavicat »

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

To understand what’s going on, just analyze the controversy like you would analyze any street conflict in a third-world country. A petit-bourgeois MAGA chud gunned down three members of the lumpenproletarian Sturmabteilung. Now the lib bourgeoisie need to avenge their fallen clients by making an example of the Rittenator as a warning to any other members of the chud class who get the idea of emulating Paul Kersey the next time the libs sic the lumpenproles on the suburbs to punish them for political insubordination. Perfectly normal, comprehensible third-world politics.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#320

Post by shiohime »

klyrs wrote: post #271
shiohime wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, a…

Sure, the legal mechanisms around such a thing isn't too much on my mind when I'm making this argument, as ultimately I believe the government is incapable of introducing any legal mechanisms outside of the ongoing antitrust case that has the capacity to lessen the influence Alphabet has on the general public. I agree with you I think on the perspective that I certainly wouldn't want someone to attempt to legislate that YT cannot unpublish this information, or regulations on how transparent a company has to be with this information.

So yeah, from a legal perspective, it probably doesn't fall within the domain of censorship, especially since as you say, YT can fully make a case that they are attempting to remove initial bias of videos, and probably win any legal bouts with that standpoint. I would personally argue that it's not removing bias from videos as you are able to still see one side - the upvote side. Hence it feels as though the intent behind this is not to remove bias, but to remove dissent. You see a video that has 100000 likes? That must be pretty popular! However the same video could have 4-5x the amount of dislikes, and you would never know. By virtue of simply publishing any of the like/dislike information, you are giving an initial bias to users prior to seeing the content of the video if the user is able to see this prior to consuming the vid. If they truly wanted to remove initial bias, as an engineer I'd never implement this solution, but only show that information after you watch the video. Even something as simple as showing it at the end of the video could accomplish the idea of removing bias.

Of course I would be unable to argue this point really beyond what I'm doing / attempting to do here, as I have no legal experience or even really experience in debate around such subjects, I'm just an engineer that feels the need to vent a bit of dissatisfaction with the direction the web is turning. Anyways, thanks for listening a bit even if it was a bit ranty.

Post reply on HN