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

371–380 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#371

Post by cbozeman »

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…

I love how you're being downvoted, even though you've given the perfect explanation of what happened.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#372

Post by andai »

paganel wrote: post #176

On that note, google-ing "WarRoom podcast" doesnt' return as the first result a link to the website itself [1], the first page is occupied by other podcast websites that "re-publish" (is that the correct word?) said podcast. Yandex does the correct thing, the website actually behind Bannon's podcast is the first in the SERPs, DDG has it as the 3rd result, still ok, because visible. So it looks like the people at Alph…

I've noticed Google hiding websites from the search results, if you look up the name of a site they won't like, you won't find the site, only results about the site.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#373

Post by User23 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #119
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…

> Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head I've more or less read that fact on NYT though. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige... > “So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked. > “Correct,” Mr. Gr…

The NYT still provides quality reporting. But most of their readers stop after the sensational first couple paragraphs and never make it to paragraph 23 where they actually say what really happened.

It’s a clever example of what Mark Rosewater calls lenticular design. The low information crowd gets their emotional fix from the headlines and early text and quits there while the Times’ more thoughtful readers get the full picture. Given the paper’s financial success in the Internet age I think we can say they’ve found a good business model.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#375

Post by Dylan16807 »

YeBanKo wrote: post #365
LordDragonfang wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth noting that the statement you quoted from GP is objectively incorrect without the qualifier that Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed at Kyle's head, because Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them. Keep that in mind while we're talking about omitting information to manipulate the narrative.

How is it objectively incorrect, if he pretty much quoted a direct speech verbatim? At least one of them hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard, so he was armed.

If you're calling a skateboard a weapon I'm going to take everything you say with a mountain of salt.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#376

Post by lifeformed »

robbedpeter wrote: post #156
metamet wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war I think that's an oversimplification. Rittenhouse's decision to show up there armed was due to the partisan division and demonization. Rittenhouse showing up armed and killing two people is a product of the stoked polarization.

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…

The other two attacked him because he just shoot and killed an unarmed person. Justified or not, it's reasonable that others would get upset and try to stop him.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#377

Post by kyleee »

User23 wrote: post #373
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head I've more or less read that fact on NYT though. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige... > “So when you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Corey Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked. > “Correct,” Mr. Gr…

The NYT still provides quality reporting. But most of their readers stop after the sensational first couple paragraphs and never make it to paragraph 23 where they actually say what really happened. It’s a clever example of what Mark Rosewater calls lenticular design. The low information crowd gets their emotional fix from the headlines and early text and quits there while the Times’ more thoughtful readers get the f…

Is that an ethical approach?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#378

Post by lovelyviking »

lovelyviking wrote: post #281
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…

For those who are not aware about what is going on. Simple Ukrainians by their own initiative make calls to Russian citizens directly to tell them the truth about war that Russia started against Ukraine.

They use facts,official documents, OSCE public reports, public Videos and pure logic to convince Russians that their country indeed have started unprovoked War against Ukraine and covers it with lies pretending it never did. The deadly War that took already more then 15000 lives.

They use all possible methods to convince Russians but usually Russians are in complete denial. Ukrainians are recording those conversations and put on Youtube for everyone to observe. I was also shocked to find out how many Russians are actually support this war and cruelty toward innocent neighbor.

One example of such channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6sS9akmYgA

Preview Picture for Video says:

Russian:

  -  Where Russian army?  

 Blogger showing document: 

  - HERE!
Those Ukrainian channels trying to tell the truth are under constant attacks from Russian bots and strikes. If Susan Wojcicki have found her precious time to receive award about free-speech whether it is fake or not she SHOULD act accordingly and demonstrate it with her own actions. And we should keep her accountable if she doesn't.

Please someone who can, deliver that message to Susan Wojcicki. Not only she could change that malicious practice she SHOULD change it. There are no excuses. For each such 'shit happening' there is a person responsible for it. She is absolutely responsible for not protecting the truth here.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#379

Post by systemvoltage »

nefitty wrote: post #163
thriftwy wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMDB ratings are solid and often the main reason why people go to IMDB at all. 8: a masterpiece 7: enjoyable 6: watchable if you like that specific thing 5 and lower: oddball There are some exceptions for niche movies (may have very low or very high rating) and for recently aired, otherwise it's pretty reliable.

I always thought crowd sourced ratings was one of the killer apps of the internet. That's what makes Airbnb possible, what made darknet markets successful, what makes Amazon powerful... Throwing away ratings is like going into the woods to live and throwing away your book on native plant life. I guess just nibble at whatever looks good, even if it might be void of nutritional value or poisonous at worst.

It’s amazing that this needs to be spelled out for the HN community. I thought how can you ever oppose this - I am trying hard to listen to the counter arguments but it’s just not holding up. Something sinister is going on and we are secretly wishing for an authoritarian world - my cynical guess.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#380

Post by roenxi »

pfisch wrote: post #360
roenxi wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I'm no medical anything but I do have extensive academic and statistical training. There is enough in these studies for someone to take Ivermectin as an "eh, why not?" gambit. There is evidence it is helpful, although the evidence isn't conclusive (or even especially strong). Some doctors are already prescribing it, quite reasonably.

Post reply on HN