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

331–340 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#331

Post by phone8675309 »

bequanna wrote: post #206
rossdavidh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely true, especially given that the streams in question have apparently been restored. And, given the potential for lives lost and property damage, perhaps justified.

Are you saying we should suppress the truth because we’re worried the woke mob won’t like it? One solution: Open, transparent justice and cities enforce laws for rioters instead of letting them throw city burning temper tantrums.

> Are you saying we should suppress the truth because we’re worried the woke mob won’t like it?

Yes, because right-wingers have never committed violence when they got the outcome they didn't like./s

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#332

Post by jimt1234 »

clavicat wrote: post #319
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

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…

+1 for Paul Kersey LOL

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#333

Post by lalaland1125 »

caeril wrote: post #22
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…

> 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…

CNN directly includes this fact: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-mon...

> "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced at him with your gun ... that he fired," Chirafisi said. "Right," Grosskreutz responded.

I always find it funny how 99% of the time when people claim "the mainstream media is too biased to cover this", if you look at the corresponding article it is 100% covered.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#334

Post by Fnoord »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #78
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…

> It's sad. In reality, there has never been much tolerance for free speech. This has been the norm for all of human history. It has also been the norm that people with non-controversial thoughts have believed they had freedom of speech. It’s only once you finally happen to have a thought that isn’t tolerable by those in power that you realize there was never any freedom from the beginning. Is that sad? It’s an incre…

The world is as happy as you project it to be.

Freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to spout anything without repercussion. Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance).

I'd like to believe we have more freedom of speech nowadays than 100 years ago when society was more hierarchical. However... every fart you make gets recorded and if zoomed in on, it gets reprimanded to the point where a cardinal Richelieu would be able to get the subject hanging.

With regards of multi-culture and tolerance: certain behaviour is not accepted, and if ghat does not get assimilated the main culture become more racist to the subculture. Subcultures are free to maintain a part of their identity, its how certsin customs got into other society after war etc.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#335

Post by loonster »

freejazz wrote: post #139
perihelions wrote: post #27

This is inverted moderation: they're penalizing anodyne, wonkish lawyers' podcasts, while leaving up most of the nonfactual, inflammatory ragebait. This is the exact opposite of how every platform professes to moderate. The rules-violating stuff must look very impressive for ad engagement metrics.

Pretty sure it was just automatic and based upon the fact that they are using the same feed, but let's not let reason get in the way of finding our conclusions when they can just confirm how we want to feel.

They have been using the same feeds for two weeks. Automatic doesn't sound as likely.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#336

Post by LordDragonfang »

thepasswordis wrote: post #303
etchalon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

>there is a faceless algorithm which has seemingly been programmed specifically to remove content which fails to align with a specific political narrative

Or, without having to put on a tinfoil hat, it's been trained to remove content that discusses shooting and killing people?

Or even more benignly, a lot of people reported the stream because users also have a vested interest in abusing censorship systems for political purposes, and it's not always easy to separate that kind of collective bad actorship from legitimate reports.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#337

Post by Fnoord »

adminscoffee wrote: post #159
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…

let's just replace google with a better source. it's bound to happen when you choose profit over freedom

The latter of which seems to be bound to happen to any publicly owned company. They capitalize on network effect and market share ie. popularity. And the irony is that this very website tries to accelerate such (in the form of a unicorn!)

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#338

Post by freejazz »

remarkEon wrote: post #168
freejazz wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is absolutely not at clear cut as you are describing it. They were well aware that public opinion generally understood is what is supposed to bound government action. I don't have all the Federalist references handy atm, but it is not the case that they would have said "meh if a private corporation does it it's okay". As will all things with those folks it's considerably more nuanced than that.

I don't actually think it's more nuanced than that because the constitution is pretty explicit about "free speech" and the founders certainly weren't advocating that publishers have to publish things they didn't want to publish so maybe you can do us all a favor and explain where you think the nuance is as opposed to just suggesting it has to be more complicated than that.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#339

Post by jxidjhdhdhdhfhf »

bequanna wrote: post #196
estaseuropano wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats not fact, just drivel. If it were true YouTube would long be an enemy of pretty much everyone.

Not an enemy of everyone, just the ~50% of the US that doesn’t share YT’s politics.

It's likely that much more than 50% of the population disagrees with at least one YT political view.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#340

Post by freejazz »

remarkEon wrote: post #158
freejazz wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the fact that automated copyright take-down systems aren't perfect and are likely designed to learn towards taking fair things down, and not living infringing things up.

I'm not missing anything. If this is automated, you're telling me they can't put in a rule that says "if public access, then take-down not apply"? Maybe you're making a different claim that a network stream (from CBS or another) is not eligible for re-stream? That I find more compelling, but then again it also shouldn't be hard to add another layer to that rule.

It might not be an issue of the difficulty. All of these will inherently be error prone, so why automate something that isn't going to significantly going to reduce your workload in the end, while also simultaneously annoying the advertisers that actually pay YouTube.
Post reply on HN