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

451–460 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#451

Post by lazide »

belltaco wrote: post #275
ipaddr wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think European and Canadian are less politicized over Covid? Canada usually waits for fda approval and data before it approves most things.

They might be politicized internally, but they don't give a crap about Trump vs Biden, or red vs. blue. UK, Brazil and India have right wing govts, do you really think they would suppress real cures and destroy their economy and popularity of their leaders and parties due to lockdowns, hospitalizations, and the dead filling up burial grounds. If HCQ or IVR actually worked, a leader would have mandated it and would ha…

Bolsanaro in Brazil definitely tried to do that with HCQ - but it didn’t actually work, so at some point he just stopped and pretended he never did it.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#452

Post by hasdf »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #445
hasdf wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

?? you can clearly see him hitting kyle with the skateboard at around 15 seconds here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg

That's the same video I linked. He makes contact with the board, yes, but he basically just lands on Rittenhouse. It's not like the After going frame by frame, on the youtube version, though, Hubor does pull his arm back slightly, so I'm no longer as confident that there's absolutely no wind-up.

there is a picture about halfway down this page that makes it look like he is really nailing kyle with the board. it looks brutal, right on his neck. -- but when I watch the video it goes so fast that it could also just be him basically running into him. So.. idk

https://heavy.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-video-photo...

I guess it just goes to show how hard it is to pull facts out of a couple seconds of grainy video

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#453

Post by stale2002 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #417
stale2002 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are just going to call the entire court system rigged, or whatever, then it is corrospondingly difficult to take what you are saying seriously. As a general rule, I think that the legal experts know more about this than you do.

No, not rigged. But sometimes things get interpreted in ways that really stretch the meanings of words. I think anyone that has looked at legal history can agree with that. And sometimes legal definitions are dumb, which isn't even a court thing. Also even if it's correct inside its realm, if enough objects count as deadly weapons then "he had a deadly weapon" loses most of its impact and gets misleading. I'm reminde…

But as a general rule, if we think about all this in aggregate, we should agree that the literal legal experts are way way more likely to get this stuff correct than you are.

If we were evaluating how valuable someone's opinion is on all this stuff, your opinion would be way down the list, compared to legal experts.

And if we compared a random ununiformed opinion, such as from you, and compared it to the opinions of the legal system, it is way more likely that you don't really know how any of this works, as opposed to the actual legal experts.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#454

Post by ipaddr »

andybak wrote: post #305
ipaddr wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those are media created issues as well.

Please tell us more about your theories on this.

Many of the issues you believe are important are only important because the media told you they were and provided a neat story.

Great recent example: Afghanistan.. do you know what happened to those people who fled? What about the ones that never made it out on time. The media changed the topic and people stopped caring.

What do you think would happen if wealth gap stops being talked about? People stop caring because people only care about their pay and buying power. Global warming same. It takes planting 1,000 new trees to offset a flight from Austria to Scotland. If global warming was taken seriously these people would meet virtually and society would be changed to tax companies with offices. That's not what the media is talking about.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#455

Post by ipaddr »

what_is_orcas wrote: post #292
ipaddr wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those are media created issues as well.

You're asking me to believe that the income/wealth gap and climate change are media-created?

Media shaped and presented in a false light yes. And you are told what is acceptable to feel about it.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#456

Post by YeBanKo »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #428

I have said it at the very beginning of this case. As much as I hate cameras everywhere, this is the one time, I am so glad everyone can see exactly what happened. There is no 'he said, she said'. We can all see what happened from multiple angles ( including FBI drone ). If that is the case, it goes down to the 'narrative'. Was the Kyle a poor kid trying to get away from vicious mob and killing in self-defense, a blo…

Could you please link the videos you are talking about? Every time I try to find them, I end up with videos overlayed with a bunch of commentaries and opinions, low resolution/quality or without clear marks of who is where and timeline of the events. I genuinely am wondering if I missing anything.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#457

Post by jbverschoor »

tablespoon wrote: post #437
potato7890 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Was…

Archive is removed?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#458

Post by Dylan16807 »

Jensson wrote: post #444
Dylan16807 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

But if someone charged at you holding a rock ready to swing it high, would you fear for your life? Almost surely, yes, you should fear for your life in that situation. This isn't about possession but about a confrontation. A person with a rock wont get caught by police and taken to court over owning a weapon. But a person swinging the rock around and charging at people will get charged for attacking people with a dea…

If it's about confrontation, I'd fear for my life if someone came at me hard enough even if they were empty-handed or holding something tiny.

And I'll point out that the original post I responded to was saying that they were armed. To me that implies the object needs to be a weapon in a vacuum.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#459

Post by Jensson »

Fnoord wrote: post #334
CyberRabbi wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance).

Popper said we should tolerate the intolerant as far as possible. His statement mostly related to when the intolerant starts to get physical or other real actions, not people just talking, he wouldn't agree with this modern interpretation of his words: "don't let intolerant people speak, shut them up!". He was very much in favor of conversations, so a platform where tolerant and intolerant people can meet and discuss is exactly what he would have wanted.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#460

Post by wrekone »

teakettle42 wrote: post #441
Dylan16807 wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A skateboard, when used as a weapon, is a deadly weapon. weapon, n: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage. Does a skateboard have other innocent purposes, to which it is generally put to use? Of course — that’s generally why skateboards are brought to riots. It provides plausible deniability during the times when you’re not using it to hit people in the head with a deadly weapon.

> that’s generally why skateboards are brought to riots.

A skateboard can certainly be a weapon but I believe this is conjecture.

Post reply on HN