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

401–410 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#401

Post by Eelongate »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #399
Eelongate wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've heard of levers, I'm sure. One classic 'simple machines'. Skateboards have more leverage than fists.

They're not that big compared to arms. Moderately more leverage, but a significant reduction in weight.

They're about as long medieval maces, with a similarly heavy bit of metal on the end. And when either is held in the hand and swung, they have substantially more leverage than the hand itself. Unless you think he was swinging a skateboard from his armpit?

This conversation is getting ridiculous.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#402

Post by AussieWog93 »

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…

>Hitchens on freedom of speech, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY&t=0

Interesting to watch this with hindsight and see how wrong he was about Religion and why they were censorious.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#404

Post by detaro »

Eelongate wrote: post #391
ryantgtg wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

"Machine gun? Not a machine gun? What's the difference?" You may not appreciate it, but there is a substantial difference, not just practically but legally. If you're ignorant of that difference, that's fine. Everybody is mistaken or ignorant some of the time. We're all human after all. But if you know the difference and choose to use the wrong terminology anyway, then you are being deliberately deceptive. Either way…

Where's the legal definition of "assault rifle" == "machine gun" from?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#405

Post by thebigspacefuck »

endisneigh wrote: post #211

It's hilarious how some people are always saying everything is some conspiracy. You work at any of these companies (YouTube, Twitter, Meta, Snap) and the amount of internal outages is so frequent your eyes glaze over. Not to say that the outages necessarily affect users, but so much so that I just assume all of this stuff is just the result of automation gone wrong. The bar for conspiracy I think needs to be pretty h…

Search “Kyle Rittenhouse” on Facebook. Nothing returns. Search “Rittenhouse Kyle” though, a lot of results. Definitely being blocked there

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#406

Post by crate_barre »

hollerith wrote: post #370
LordDragonfang wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 mainstre…

I agree with you: let us not leave anything important out. Many young men were following Rittenhouse, yelling things like "Get him" and "Beat him up". I sensed a lot of dangerous emotions in the videos, in the sound of the voices and the movements of the bodies. Some say that those yelling "get him" merely wanted to makes sure than Rittenhouse did not escape legal accountability (for Rittenhouse's shooting minutes ea…

The lack of a toxicology report on everyone involved is what I want to know about. How many of them (Rittenhouse included) were high, or a little buzzed, at the very least?

Or am I so naive and that a mob-like situation truly brings out the animals in all of us. Cooler heads did not prevail on either side.

Whatever happens, everyone involved should never be allowed to own a gun again. They could have all gone to a bar and had a fist fight and be done with it.

And the mother even drove the kid down there armed. The chaos of Mania makes me wonder if this is the last of this behavior we’ll see from everyone before this decade calms down.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#407

Post by Dylan16807 »

YeBanKo wrote: post #393
Dylan16807 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts aren't automatically reasonable. You're endorsing the classification. Fists can do just as much damage as a skateboard.

Yeah, and a knife can kill just as well as a gun. Except it can’t. A medium build woman can break one’s skull with 2-3 swings of a skateboard, especially if it lands on the edge or on a sticking metal part. To achieve the same damage with fists, it would take years of training and would also cause a significant damage to one’s hands.

If hitting with just the right angle on a hard bit is good enough to count then half the things on my desk are deadly weapons. I can't get behind that definition.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#408

Post by remarkEon »

0des wrote: post #389
remarkEon wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not. Most hunting rifles for e.g. deer rifles fire larger caliber rounds than the rifle in question in the case. Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but "big" does not necessarily mean "more deadly", nor does "big" actually apply to this rifle.

Thank you for the reply! While I have the chance, allow me one last question: When it comes to AR15 platform, what differentiates a pistol from a rifle?

Disclaimer: I own a few guns and am an Army vet, but this is just my current understanding. I recommend consulting the ATF guidelines yourself and/or your local sheriff's office since rules tend to vary by state and jurisdiction.

The ATF makes these rules, and currently (my understanding, haven't looked in a while to see if anything changed with the new administration) an AR pistol is something that's less than 26" overall with a barrel of less than 16". There's also rules about how you can't put an actual buttstock on it (but you can put a "brace" ... the definition of which can be confusing). Anything shorter than that and does have an actual stuck is an SBR (short-barrel rifle) and you need an ATF tax stamp for that.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#409

Post by freejazz »

bradlys wrote: post #374
loonster wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temporal proximity. If it tripped today because it was automatic, why didn't it trip the other 10 days they used the same feeds?

Because 40,000 people maybe?

Ding ding ding! You got it.

And what's more annoying is how everyone is so quick to disregard what's an obviously more simple explanation than a vas conspiracy to shape people's minds by temporarily taking down a YouTube stream

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#410

Post by jjoonathan »

oriki wrote: post #148
jjoonathan wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clickbait is bad enough without removing one of the last few tools left in the arsenal to fight it.

I feel like we have different definitions as to what clickbait is - when I see a clickbait video, I can simply identify it by it's title and thumbnail, I've never needed to look at the like:dislike ratio to confirm that it's clickbait. What kind of videos do you find as clickbait?

An interview where they spend 30 minutes off-subject and 1 minute on-subject. A tutorial with 10 minutes of detailed explanation and a "now draw the owl" step buried 3/4 of the way through. A thumbnail that promises a level of complexity, sophistication, or accomplishment that winds up never actually happening in the video.

Content farms aren't the only ones in the clickbait game these days.

Post reply on HN