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

461–470 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#461

Post by ibejoeb »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #413
betwixthewires wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say unarmed men, surely you don't intend to omit the fact that they ambushed him and were chasing him and attempting to grievously assault him while he was trying to get away? This omission game goes both ways. You're leaving pertinent information out to support your narrative also.

Continuing to clarify the facts of the situation. He had already committed murder at this point. It's not unusual (though it is unwise) to attempt to prevent a murderer from running away. Furthermore, saying that anyone was "attempting to grievously assault him" is speculation, since he shot and killed the first person to reach him after he tripped, and then shot the next person who was trying to disarm him.

> He had already committed murder at this point

Had he?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#462

Post by lucaspm98 »

ViViDboarder wrote: post #109
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep... even with covid, "it's just 14 days, to flatten the curve", "covid passports are just a conspiracy theory", "all vaccines are safe", "...except astrazeneca" ... "...except J&J" .... "...except moderna",.... add inflation denials, and yeah... Basically the difference between conspiracy theories and reality was ~6 months.

You do understand that COVID was new to everyone and, as such, new information has been learned as we’ve progressed through this pandemic that has caused a shift in course? It doesn’t have to be because of a conspiracy for new information to direct in a different way. In fact, if despite new information we didn’t adjust, that’d be just plain regressive.

The main problem is changing recommendations without new information, just a new politically driven "right-think." Also, there were several shifts in course that directly contradicted science but virtue signaled the right message at the time. It's very hard to build trust in the government, and once it's lost even the most reasonable requests will be questioned.

A relevant comment I saved but no longer have the source for:

"Closing borders is racist. Two weeks to flatten the curve. Don’t mask. Mask. Stay Inside. Trump didn’t close the borders fast enough! Double mask. Protest crowds are not superspreaders. Trump Rallies are superspreaders. School is dangerous, distance learning is good. Go outside, inside is bad. Dems - don’t trust Trump Vaccines. Biden/Pelosi - we can’t mandate vaccination. Dems - you must trust our vaccines, they are effective. Biden/Pelosi - we are mandating vaccines. No mask if vaccinated. School is good, kids don’t get it. Still mask if vaccinated. School is bad, kids are getting it. Vaccine boosters because they are not as effective as we thought."

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#463

Post by hasdf »

detaro wrote: post #404
Eelongate wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

the phrase comes from the unique German WW2 weapon "Sturmgewehr 44" (literally Assault Rifle 44).

It was the first example of the Assault Rifle weapon type with the defining characteristics being an intermediate cartridge (between pistol round and rifle round) that allows controllable automatic fire at engagement ranges further than submachine guns.

Most AR15s cannot be considered 'Assault Rifles' as although they are chambered in an intermediate cartridge, they are for the most part semi-automatic and not capable of automatic fire.

Note that 'Assault Rifle' does not seem to be a ATF defined term, they always use the term Machine Gun for automatic weapons. The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#464

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

YeBanKo wrote: post #456
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.

So when it first happened NYT had all the videos listed here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenos...

I tried accessing them now, but paywall hit me hard.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#465

Post by Jensson »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #458
Jensson wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I agree that the person wasn't armed. Armed typically means weapons made to kill like firearms, I just object to the deadly weapons discussion since that is a much more lax term.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#466

Post by ibejoeb »

kyleblarson wrote: post #73

It doesn't fit the narrative that they and the entire mainstream media are so desperate to perpetuate. Allowing the plebs to see unbiased content and judge for themselves terrifies them. Same thing with removing the downvote count. They can't stand to see ratio of down to up votes on content about the current US administration, COVID, etc.

The other frustrating assertion is that this is all perpetuated to drive outrage because supposedly outrage gives rise to more ad sales. That might be strictly true, but that's not the point.

The point is to control the dissemination of and characterization of information. Corporate press is already owned and operated by the ultra-wealthy. This is not how they make their money. This is how they mold society to work in the ways they want.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#467

Post by sergiogjr »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #450
teakettle42 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If we go with that definition, and nothing else, then imagine "one of them threw an ice cube at someone, so he was armed". It's a thing used to inflict bodily harm in that context, but calling it "a weapon" seems crazy to me.

How big of an Ice cube? As big as a brick? Yes, can be just as deadly and a coble stone.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#468

Post by Jensson »

freejazz wrote: post #338
remarkEon wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely not at clear cut as you are describing it. They were well aware that public opinion generally understood is what is supposed to bound government action. I don't have all the Federalist references handy atm, but it is not the case that they would have said "meh if a private corporation does it it's okay". As will all things with those folks it's considerably more nuanced than that.

I don't actually think it's more nuanced than that because the constitution is pretty explicit about "free speech" and the founders certainly weren't advocating that publishers have to publish things they didn't want to publish so maybe you can do us all a favor and explain where you think the nuance is as opposed to just suggesting it has to be more complicated than that.

Lets say we have a company that pays politicians to do what they want, this is what you call free speech. This company also has the power to silence peoples voices on the public forum of that day, this is what you call free speech. Do you think this is what the founders intended by "free speech"? I do not, these two together means that the line between government and big corporation gets blurred, and that now effectively the people who decides what gets legislated are also the people who are free to censor people.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#469

Post by encryptluks2 »

ibejoeb wrote: post #466
kyleblarson wrote: post #73

It doesn't fit the narrative that they and the entire mainstream media are so desperate to perpetuate. Allowing the plebs to see unbiased content and judge for themselves terrifies them. Same thing with removing the downvote count. They can't stand to see ratio of down to up votes on content about the current US administration, COVID, etc.

The other frustrating assertion is that this is all perpetuated to drive outrage because supposedly outrage gives rise to more ad sales. That might be strictly true, but that's not the point. The point is to control the dissemination of and characterization of information. Corporate press is already owned and operated by the ultra-wealthy. This is not how they make their money. This is how they mold society to work i…

The more those without look to media for information and answers, the more they can be manipulated and taken advantage of. It is rare to find fact-based reporters and unfortunately many people are too far gone to appreciate it when they do exist.

Kids are often brainwashed from a very early age and many thoughts and opinions are just what they have grown to believe based on the media they consumed and those around them watched and believe.

Post reply on HN