Live data from Hacker News

YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

twitter.com

431–440 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#431
post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" o…

I appreciate your time to explain that, thanks. I'm now off on a journey to find the exact line between what is a brace and what is a stock! Take care, my friend.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#432
post #132
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unbiased content"

I'd like to think a court would be the definition of unbiased.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Courts certainly can be biased (there are many famous examples). Reporting of court proceedings can certainly be biased too.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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? A skateboard held in your hand can't use much of the mass of your arm to help, it's mostly impacting with its own weight. Your hand can impact with a lot more weight behind it even though the swing radius won't be as big.

People die if you hit them with in the head with a fist sized rock, that is what is required for something to be a deadly weapon. A metal rimmed skateboard can deal more damage than a rock so it is a deadly weapon.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that the bar? Anything more effective than fists, even if just by preventing the attacker from being hurt, is a deadly weapon? My normal desktop items could break skulls too, I'm pretty sure. And the pens, oof...

If you started using your desk items as a weapon and swung them at a person in a manner that could reliably kill them then the court would consider you to have a deadly weapon as well. If you use an item in a manner that can reliably kill people then you use a deadly weapon even if it wasn't intended to be a deadly weapon. Is a pair of scissors a deadly weapon? Yes. Is a heavy hard blunt object (like a statue) a dead…

Well, noted I guess. I probably dismissed the idea in the wrong way then. Next time I'll just say "'deadly weapon' is a very low bar and doesn't mean much".

It's not productive to argue about definitions, even if they don't make sense to me. My intent wasn't a semantics argument.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#435

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…

> On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption Maybe the solution to this is to allow OTC sales of human grade Ivermectin. The drug is one of the safest in the world. No reasonable reason to deny the drug if someone wants it.

> The drug is one of the safest in the world.

This is not true at all. Ivermectin has some nasty neurological effects (vertigo, seizures, blindness) at high doses.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#436
post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have paid settlements and plead guilty for causing harm through their sting attempts and disinformation multiple times. I saw that they pled guilty to trespassing but have otherwise won all their completed defamation cases. Do you have a source/list of which cases they pled guilty to "misinformation" or similar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_c... > In March 2013, O'Keefe settled the case with Vera, paying Vera $100,000. He tried to entrap someone for human smuggling. The guy immediately reported it to the police, but O'Keefe released edited footage anyway. > The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit…

From the wikipedia link:

> Vera filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against O'Keefe and Giles for recording him without his permission, which was a violation of California law.

While recording that conversation appeared to be illegal, that is neither "for causing harm through their sting attempts and disinformation" and definitely not "multiple times".

I'm all for calling out bad actors but at least call them out for what they've done vs what you imagined.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#437

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…

Would be interesting to see the percentage people who only saw the first headline: https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/202... “Gaige Grosskreutz says he feared for his life before Kyle Rittenhouse shot him during Kenosha unrest” “Gaige Grosskreutz says he feared for his life, pointed gun at Kyle Rittenhouse before getting shot”

>>> 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...

> Would be interesting to see the percentage people who only saw the first headline: https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/202...

What does a Washington Post headline have to do with a New York Times article?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? A skateboard held in your hand can't use much of the mass of your arm to help, it's mostly impacting with its own weight. Your hand can impact with a lot more weight behind it even though the swing radius won't be as big.

People die if you hit them with in the head with a fist sized rock, that is what is required for something to be a deadly weapon. A metal rimmed skateboard can deal more damage than a rock so it is a deadly weapon.

I can understand that, and see my other response https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29236031, but even so...

How many people, if you asked "Do you have any weapons in your backyard?", would say "Yes, several rocks."

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law. Why?

It's an adversarial proceeding where both sides get to present their case and a takedown has to be for a violation of a law that complies with the First Amendment. Notice that this is different than what you promote. Search results are sorted by an algorithm; that's unavoidable and excessively simple algorithms like "alphabetical order" are useless. And then it's a hard problem, to which the best solution is probably…

> It's an adversarial proceeding where both sides get to present their case and a takedown has to be for a violation of a law that complies with the First Amendment.

Why should this be the standard by which YouTube can remove videos? Why shouldn't they be legally allowed to remove content via algorithms even if it creates a bad user experience?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#440

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…

You know, you could just... not use youtube. It actually isn't that hard.

I think every home/car repair that I did in the last year I learned by watching a youtube video. I would argue that not using youtube is actually very very difficult in 2021
Post reply on HN