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

561–570 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#561

Post by raxxorrax »

prince005 wrote: post #502
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.

It's very sad to see how people blame and thrash services like youtube instead of respecting the fact that all of it is provided absolutely free of cost.

Youtube gets their content free of costs and sometimes they ban that content like these live streams. I think banning something is a pretty decisive form of criticism.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#562

Post by nawgz »

smaryjerry wrote: post #554
nawgz wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You condone posting false information freely while impersonating credible organizations, and assert that the people fooled by this are the problem and not the liar?

I don’t get that stance, but more importantly: why is this relevant to anything in discussion here?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#563

Post by voldacar »

belltaco wrote: post #498
roenxi wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is currently a court case trying to decide if they are victims or not. We'll hopefully get to know what the jury think after considering all the evidence.

Too bad the victims are not around to defend their actions and give the jury the full picture.

You seem to be privy to some evidence that the court is not. Care to share it with us?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#564

Post by raxxorrax »

tablespoon wrote: post #512
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree with your guess of "failure of automated tools", the streams being back up is only partially helpful; much of the damage is done, and it will further polarization because more people now feel persecuted.

> While I agree with your guess of "failure of automated tools", the streams being back up is only partially helpful; much of the damage is done, and it will further polarization because more people now feel persecuted. If people react to a glitch that way, I'd argue that the damage had been done before the glitch.

Lacking trust isn't really damage. The "glitch" that can suppress information and live streams that effectively warrants suspicion in my opinion. You simply have to believe Youtube here. Why did it match the content? Certainly because someone fed it with parameters.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#565

Post by raxxorrax »

_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…

I think his laptop is nobodies business and there are many privacy violations against Hunter Biden just because he is the son of a president you might or might not like.

But this is pretty much a conspired removal of content.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#566

Post by voldacar »

ALittleLight wrote: post #97
sneak wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're playing to the crowd. Many people already have opinions formed when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the ongoing US culture war, and media outlets don't generally like to alienate their audience.

I think people only have opinions because of what they have heard from the media. I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on video or given by eye witnesses. Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by the criminal just…

> I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms

I do - more neutral, emotionally cooler headlines like this will get fewer clicks and therefore generate less ad revenue

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#567

Post by raxxorrax »

etchalon wrote: post #85
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…

Considering the streams are back up, this seems more like a failure of automation and reporting tools than a grand conspiracy.

His funding campaigns were stopped, you cannot find his name on certain social media sites. I don't care if is a grand conspiracy or a group of fools responsible for this. The result is the same and needs to be addressed without you trying to paint this as unreasonable.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#568

Post by raxxorrax »

CyberRabbi wrote: post #78
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…

> 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…

It isn't unexpected perhaps, but still disappointing. Many want to turn times back to carefully curated content.

That isn't even a senseless wish when people of all ages use the internet, but that is a parenting issue and not solvable by censorship.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#569

Post by angry_octet »

swlp21 wrote: post #126
angry_octet wrote: post #89

[flagged]

I'm not sure I understand - do you mean these suggestions are placed there by Twitter to deligitimize the original tweet [who, in that case, would have a valid complaint but is being maligned by association with the addition of "crank stuff"] ? Or are you saying the original tweet is from a crank and the placement by twitter of additional "crank stuff" is proof of the crank label? BTW when I view the tweet (also not…

I don't know why it was showing this content. I don't believe there is any motivation like de-legitimisation, it's just their algo, possibly it thinks showing that content boosts engagement.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#570

Post by majou »

Natsu wrote: post #478
cocoricamo wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm not mistaken Lachowski testified that when attending Grosskreutz after being shot he found the glock on the ground and cleared it. There was one in the chamber. The unspent ammo from the glock comes from Lachowski clearing it. Grosskreutz didn't rerack the gun, but he did have one in the chamber ready to shoot, meaning that he meant to take out Rittenhouse when he advanced before having his bicep blown off.

I don't think I saw that person's testimony, so I'll have to find and review it. Thank you for that. If this is correct, then I would correct my wording from re-racking to racking. You're right that it casts doubt on whether he was not prepared to shoot anyone. After all, why'd he prepare his gun to fire if he wasn't willing to do so?

I'm not sure if he racked it or not, but it is common to carry with a round in the chamber.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5e30ynJn4

Post reply on HN