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

541–550 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#541

Post by lmm »

root_axis wrote: post #439
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because they're de facto not just a public space but a vital part of the public discourse. Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#542

Post by root_axis »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #477
root_axis wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

You can refuse to remove content without a court order even if you're legally allowed to remove it without one. Why should they choose to create a bad user experience by removing content via algorithms? They could just not.

> Why should they choose to create a bad user experience by removing content via algorithms

Removing obscene, explicit, and even illegal content is only practical at YouTube's scale using algorithms, the idea that they should just abandon algorithmic removal of videos entirely is not a realistic suggestion.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#543

Post by root_axis »

rurp wrote: post #357
root_axis wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you expect? It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube, if it's not an intentional effort then I fail to see what the big deal is.

Why do algorithms get a free pass? We generally don't allow those kinds of copouts in most other areas of life. If a physical tool causes harm it's a pretty weak defense to say the effects were too complicated to understand in detail.

What do you mean? YouTube successfully serves billions of users every month, the users that suffer from the fraction of videos temporarily removed by an overfit model are a rounding error; the results of which are essentially harmless. We regularly accept much higher rates of catastrophic failure for things that are actually harmful e.g. traffic accident rates or medical error rates.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#544

Post by nefitty »

serverholic wrote: post #256
nefitty wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context, web3 looks more attractive. Too bad its formative moments are being steered by scammers selling jpegs of stick figure drawings.

Honestly, so what? Is email a scam because it has damaged peoples lives? This kind of logic is how we ended up here in the first place.

I'm not advocating for outlawing the tech. I'm doing my part to hopefully make at least one person have a second critical look.

"Web3" is nothing like email. Email creates value as a communication medium. NFTs transfer wealth from one gullible gambler to another presumably more informed one.

A simple analysis could be something like looking at how the trade velocity of some NFTs dropped to 0. All the people holding tokens as volume evaporates are the losers. It's literally what happened in 2008 with real estate, except it's happening faster, more frequently and at smaller scales. That's the real logic that got us here. We've just democratized the process of getting scammed.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#545

Post by root_axis »

phone8675309 wrote: post #325
root_axis wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you expect? It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube, if it's not an intentional effort then I fail to see what the big deal is.

Just because someone hasn't thought through the logical ends of their system doesn't mean they're not responsible for those ends when they occur.

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Of course the creators of YouTube are responsible for the behavior of YouTube. I'm just confused why a forum for programmers finds it so hard to accept that the program sometimes does things that the creators do not intend.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#546

Post by zthrowaway »

Miner49er wrote: post #76
thepasswordis wrote: post #11

I think at this point we can just expect this stuff. The ridiculousness of it, though. The rekieta law stream (which is fantastic , btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8 ) has anywhere from 4-12 active lawyers giving commentary and context to everything that is happening. This is exactly the type of thing we dreamed about when we were first creating the internet. However: often times these smaller independ…

So I tuned in out of curiosity. I'm assuming these guys are biased in favor of the defense? They were just laughing at the fact that Rosenbaum is dead. Or do they just have a dark sense of humor or something?

If you haven’t watched the entire stream for the past 2 weeks you may be missing context here. Dark humor explains most of this.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#547

Post by root_axis »

lmm wrote: post #541
root_axis wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because they're de facto not just a public space but a vital part of the public discourse. Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people.

> de facto not just a public space

Could you explain what you mean by "public space"?

> vital part of the public discourse

I don't agree. In my view, YouTube is one of the lowest forms of public discourse, its fundamental purpose is to generate ad revenue and the nature of the content hosted there reflects this pernicious incentive. Yes, YouTube does have some great things on it, but it's just one tiny facet of "the public discourse".

> Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people.

Can you quantify "affects" and "so many people"? YouTube is mostly an entertainment triviality, even (especially) in the realm of politics, I don't see how videos being removed from the site is important.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#548

Post by smaryjerry »

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.

This is a real issue on YouTube and every single website that censored any mention or video about Kyle Rittenhouse. There was probably 20 angles I saw the first day after this happened that I couldn’t find again because every website took the videos down. If a person and not a corporation had done that in a topic they could be facing obstruction of justice charges.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#549

Post by smaryjerry »

thirteenfingers wrote: post #86

Between stuffing non-monetized videos with ads, the dislike button thing, and capricious censorship, I'm seriously looking into self-hosting[0] my video and streamed content. Disregarding the difficulty of maintaining a following outside of the big platforms, do any of you HNers have experience with hosting your own video and streaming sites? What software do you use? [0] I could also just switch platforms, but I hav…

Try rumble. It’s growing and pays users for ads run.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#550

Post by smaryjerry »

Minor49er wrote: post #259
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…

The closed nature of these companies feeds into this sort of thing, though. A frequent complaint of channel owners is that they aren't told why they've received strikes against their channels. Google also makes it incredibly difficult to submit feedback about their platforms. And any time something questionable or unfavorable arises, they just claim that it's the mysterious will of their overly-complicated algorithms…

I believe it was a project veritas video that had insider documents from google showing that someone in google had added right wing websites to the porn blacklist. Meaning, a bunch of right wing sites were getting excluded and it was probably some person with vigilante ideals inside google. We can’t forget google is still just a bunch of people working together, and if one person wants to bend others to their beliefs they can if checks are not in place.
Post reply on HN