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

351–360 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#351

Post by LordDragonfang »

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…

>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

You mean Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head. Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them.

Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing "the mainstream media" of lying by omission.

edit: this is obviously a complicated case, but arguing whether his later shooting was in self-defense only serves to obfuscates the fact that this is a young man who brought a semi-automatic rifle to a protest, murdered an unarmed man, and then killed another before the shooting in question took place.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#353

Post by steve76 »

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

[dead]

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#354

Post by germinalphrase »

arminiusreturns wrote: post #53
BitwiseFool wrote: post #8

I really want to stress that while the internet has enabled just about everyone to act as a citizen journalist, it is not the ubiquity of information that matters, but rather, the access to information. YouTube and Google wield great power when it comes to gatekeeping information. The sinister part is that plenty of people, left and right, will defend Google's ability to do this merely because they are "a private com…

This is why everyone should read RMS's Right to Read story. Its not just about censoring the output, they want to censor our inputs too! While the RMS parable is less about censorship and more about drm its still relevant. [1] Unfortunately there are a lot of people who are so bought into the tribalistic dialectic that, in the more recent version, they heard about all the censoring, they saw the people being censored…

There is little consistency of belief across the political spectrum. This breeds hypocrisy and mistrust which fuels further mistrust and hypocrisy. It’s just general cultural ugliness all the way down.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#355

Post by _yoqn »

vkou wrote: post #306
_yoqn wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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 cour…

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

What's unsubstantiated about it? Jack Dorsey admitted he censored the story from the New York Post incorrectly and only after the election did they reinstate the ability to share the article.

The computer shop owner who had the laptop had the signed receipt from Hunter Biden. Hunter himself admitted he's under investigation by the FBI for tax fraud.

The drug and sex pictures in the laptop were not the most incriminating material. It was the emails to foreign powers selling his father's influence as Vice President and a longstanding senator that is the real damning stuff.

Now, if you have a laptop containing emails selling your significantly political parent's influence to foreign interests then that might be of interest to the general public. If you just gave stupid pictures of yourself doing drugs then nobody cares.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#356

Post by ALittleLight »

katbyte wrote: post #346
ryantgtg wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Kyle is also a child who illegally obtained the assault rifle he should not have possessed?

That's not true. Wisconsin law permits 16 and 17 year olds to carry rifles. Just today the judge dismissed the weapons charge for this reason. Kyle had the weapon lawfully - that point has already been adjudicated in a court of law.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#357

Post by rurp »

root_axis wrote: post #238
_-david-_ wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is always the algorithm to blame, never the people who wrote it, audited it, etc.

What do you expect? It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube, if it's not an intentional effort then I fail to see what the big deal is.

Why do algorithms get a free pass? We generally don't allow those kinds of copouts in most other areas of life. If a physical tool causes harm it's a pretty weak defense to say the effects were too complicated to understand in detail.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#358

Post by jpindar »

katbyte wrote: post #350
robbedpeter wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rittenhouse showing up was a result of unrest in a town where he had friends and family. He gave aid to rioters and protesters as well as counter protesters. He showed up to protect and help people, and if he hadn't been armed, he could have been shot and killed or beaten to death, because he told people he was there to help the police. It wasn't until he'd been shot at, attacked with a skateboard, and had a gun aime…

He is a child and was not legally allowed to purchase and pisses that weapon?

False. He did not purchase the rifle (a friend of his who lives in Wisconsin did), and it wasn't illegal for him to possess it in Wisconsin, which is why the charge of possession was dropped.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#359

Post by space_fountain »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #40
shadowgovt wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's entirely possible they were taken down in the first place because so many parallel streams of coverage on the same data tripped either a spam detector or an honest-to-God bug in the YouTube backend ("Hm... lots of parallel channels running the exact same bytes. I bet we can consolidate this if we just tee the stream sinks against a source that oops that's a hotspot ...").

doubt. Over the last 6 years there have been toooooo many coincidences which go in 1 direction politically instead of equally in both directions. You only need to flip a coin 5-6 times before you suspect it might be rigged... and after 100's of tosses there is no longer any question.

I think this might be your selection bias. I personally often see creators complaining about their views being censored regardless of political stripe. I think it's easy for the anecdotes we're exposed to feel like statistics, but remember we don't have the full story and the media we're consuming goes a long way towards the stories we hear

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#360

Post by pfisch »

roenxi wrote: post #326
jacobolus wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t know if Ivermectin is effective for Covid or not. From what I have heard it seems like looking into it with an unbiased lens may be worth it. People did look into this with an unbiased lens (did dozens of medical studies, many still ongoing) and so far there is no good evidence that it has any beneficial effect whatsoever. On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses n…

That study is publishing risk ratios like 0.60 for mortality [0] vs standard care, with very low confidence. If my mother caught COVID, in the absence of anything better, that study adds to my opinion that I'd quite like her to take some Ivermectin. It might help, it doesn't seem to harm. It'll make her feel better for having done something. It certainly could turn out to be nothing. But on the other hand, why not ge…

It could harm though. Drugs have side effects, and you are talking about giving someone who is already very ill drugs where you have no idea if they work or not, that could weaken them even more. You could use that logic to justify taking any drug you want as a treatment.

There isn't strong evidence, and you can't just eyeball studies and assume you understand them with no training.

I have cystic fibrosis, and I have tried to do things like this before by looking at studies on unverified treatments. It doesn't work. You just end up with snake oil. I have a masters in biomedical engineering, and I couldn't do it.

Interpreting studies is hard. Interpreting meta analysis accurately is super hard. Tons of studies are fake, or have bias, or have poor methodology. That website is total bullshit and is just throwing all the studies in to their statistical soup and mixing them together to come up with nonsensical results.

"There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion."

Lol, wtf?

Post reply on HN