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

551–560 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#551

Post by Dylan16807 »

teakettle42 wrote: post #535
Dylan16807 wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They transform from unarmed to armed when they arm themselves with an object they intend to use as a weapon. That makes sense if they intended to use it as a weapon. What if they didn't? > This is very simple, well-established law. Mens rea makes sense for certain crimes. I would not say someone is 'armed' or 'not armed' based on intent. > Google "mens rea". You're not going to beat a charge with the argument of "I…

> A baseball bat at least is pretty dangerous when used as intended. So is a car. A skateboard isn't, and an ice cube isn't. If you claim to not see the similarity between a skateboard and a baseball bat in terms of the potential for serious bodily harm, you're either lying to us to keep this tepid, boring argument on life-support, or just lying to yourself. > The legal system wouldn't implode if it was just 'assault…

> If you claim to not see the similarity between a skateboard and a baseball bat in terms of the potential for serious bodily harm, you're either lying to us to keep this tepid, boring argument on life-support, or just lying to yourself.

It says "intended to be used" right there in the law.

> So you'd charge and punish a shove identically to hitting someone with a skateboard?

Would you charge a shove exactly the same as stomping on someone's face?

Same crime category doesn't mean same punishment. I would charge a big skateboard swing as worse than a shove, and I would also charge a solid punch as worse than a shove.

You're extrapolating from my posts in an extremely uncharitable way.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#552

Post by smaryjerry »

gknoy wrote: post #51
BitwiseFool wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope this comes back to bite them. I already find myself not watching as many videos simply because I can't gauge the like/dislike ratio on them. In the short term I expect an explosion in clickbait and low quality videos because people won't be able to immediately see that the video is bogus from dislike counts. I suspect people will tend to retreat into watching the channels they already like and cut down…

I find what you said really interesting, mainly because I don't think I've _ever_ used likes or dislikes (or their ratio) as a metric for choosing what to watch. The most I've interacted with dislikes is when seeing some helpful low-production-value video, or some artist's music stream, I've wondered why 1-3% of the viewers disliked it. I mean, even when I've found _better_ or _more informative_ videos, I've never be…

For entertainment it’s not that big of a deal but still annoying not to see the ratio to total counts, but for educational content or how to videos it is absolutely critical. Have you ever tried to search got to fix a washing machine or basically anything? Even with likes and dislikes you have to go through tons of videos that are just plain bad advice before you can figure it out. 90% of the time the dislikes help you weed out the straight up clickbait material and the other 10% it tells you when what the person did will actually make a problem worse.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#553

Post by smaryjerry »

jjoonathan wrote: post #99
gknoy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find what you said really interesting, mainly because I don't think I've _ever_ used likes or dislikes (or their ratio) as a metric for choosing what to watch. The most I've interacted with dislikes is when seeing some helpful low-production-value video, or some artist's music stream, I've wondered why 1-3% of the viewers disliked it. I mean, even when I've found _better_ or _more informative_ videos, I've never be…

Dislikes indicate politics, clickbait, or unhelpfulness. Politics is obvious, but clickbait and unhelpfulness can waste a lot of your time before becoming obvious. Dislikes help combat this.

And let’s be honest, most political videos don’t have enough dislikes from both sides.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#554

Post by smaryjerry »

nawgz wrote: post #538
HideousKojima wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The data is published and we can see what it does and doesn't do See my last link

Yes, a link suggesting 1k of 44k participants in the Pfizer Phase III trials were not well monitored and had other logistical issues does not surprise me. It does not concern me either; have you seen the reduced IFR post vaccination? It is not like 2% of 1/3 vaccines phase III participants is even a notable amount of the data. Like I said, if this type of thing is enough for you to go forward and claim that the whole…

Not the original poster but even if completely false information, it should be free to be posted. Let the company be sued for making false claims if they are claiming to be a journalist. If they aren’t even claiming to be a journalist they anyone dumb enough to rely into hem as their only source deserves whatever bad information they believe. If any of these videos with bad information get large enough there will be a response equal or larger in viewership size with the truth.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#555

Post by zthrowaway »

stefan_ wrote: post #261
Miner49er wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It seems to be the literal definition of the peanut gallery. They keep shouting "object" like they are in the court room. You would think the kinda profession that puts "I'm not your lawyer" at the top of their blog post would know better than to run the equivalent of a Twitch react stream. If this is the grand future the grandparent had in mind, I want no part of it.

I’ve learned a lot about the court system and how this entire process works. I feel like I know way more about the lawyer profession as well. They’ve provided a lot more than a simple peanut gallery. This is a great future. You get an inside peek into thoughts of lawyers in real time as a trial unfolds rather than getting it condensed down from a newspaper that may not give the real story. Pretty awesome.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#556

Post by zthrowaway »

xhevahir wrote: post #79
Miner49er wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

[flagged]

Spooooky! Run away from the boogeyman.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#557

Post by voldacar »

_yoqn wrote: post #355
vkou wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would significantly help your point if the conspiracies you were citing were not plain old unsubstantiated bullshit. I, too have a laptop containing damning evidence about , and no, I uh, won't show it to anyone, because I'm scared of the deep state. But I'm not so scared of the deep state that I will keep silent about it. I am at an incredibly particular level of scared. That nobody takes me seriously is, of cour…

> It would significantly help your point if the conspiracies you were citing were not plain old unsubstantiated bullshit. What's unsubstantiated about it? Jack Dorsey admitted he censored the story from the New York Post incorrectly and only after the election did they reinstate the ability to share the article. The computer shop owner who had the laptop had the signed receipt from Hunter Biden. Hunter himself admitt…

The guy should have just released a .iso of the laptop's hard drive. Then we wouldn't still be arguing over its authenticity a year later

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#558

Post by zthrowaway »

Latty wrote: post #267
_yoqn wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is Project Veritas "right-wing"? The guy legally documents people saying things and releases that info to the public.

They are financed by the right wing, and continuously release heavily edited and out of context versions of recordings to push a right-wing narrative. They have paid settlements and plead guilty for causing harm through their sting attempts and disinformation multiple times. Anyone taking Veritas seriously is not looking at their history, which makes it very clear that anything they release is untrustworthy at best.…

> They have paid settlements and plead guilty for causing harm through their sting attempts and disinformation multiple times.

And yet you spread misinformation in this very comment. Bravo.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#559

Post by zthrowaway »

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.

Binger? Is that you?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#560

Post by raxxorrax »

etchalon wrote: post #96

The streams are back up. Yet, this thread quickly devolved into a discussion about the grand conspiracy to censor instead of the repeated failure of automated tools and the ease at which they're abused.

I think corporations have to deal with the issue that their content control is seen as a conspiracy to be honest. Might not be objective, but it is a problem of their own making.
Post reply on HN