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

571–580 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#571

Post by account42 »

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.

Providing something for free (even if in this case, you do pay in many ways) is not a shield from criticism. You can't compare a free service to no service but instead have to compare it to the possible alternative reality where that particular free service does not exist. This is distinction is especially important for areas where network effects effectively prevent any alternatives from gaining traction.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#572

Post by account42 »

root_axis wrote: post #542
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it only possible using algorithms or is it just more profitable using algorithms?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#573

Post by teakettle42 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #551
teakettle42 wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

It also says "in the manner it is used or intended to be used".

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

In Colorado, a simple shove would be third-degree assault, while stomping on someone's face would be first-degree assault.

> 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.

Guess what? Both a fist and a skateboard can be classified as assault with a deadly weapon!

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

You don't need a law degree to wrap your head around any of this. Even the most basic googling would suffice, but you're clearly not even doing that. What you are doing is ignorantly pontificating about something you clearly know nothing about, while making not even a modicum effort to learn.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#574

Post by ajsnigrutin »

lucaspm98 wrote: post #462
ViViDboarder wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sourc…

^ yep, all of this.

Plus of course the "just do this, and it'll be over" (eg. "just 14 days to flatten the curve"), with ever chancing rules and moving the goalposts.

Just a few weeks ago, our government was pointing fingers at denmark, how great they're doing with 85% of population (12yo+) vaccinated, and how we'd be doing the same if we reached those numbers.... two weeks go by, and denmark is implementing new measures due to many new cases even with high vaccinations.

People are basically fed up and are willing to live with the risk. Young people have given up two years of their lives to "save grandma", and they're fed up with that, and just want to live normally. We have record high cases, and instead of "vaccinating grandma", we closed down nightclubs and changed weekly home-testing of kids to mandatory in-school testing two times weekly.... and the reaction? A new protest tomorrow. The testing was said to be to keep schools open, and literally at this moment, they're mentioning remote schooling again.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#575

Post by lmm »

root_axis wrote: post #547
lmm wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

You could say the same for all media. Television is advertising-driven, radio is advertising-driven, even the most respectable of literary magazines is advertising-driven. Most content is pandering to someone or other.

> Can you quantify "affects" and "so many people"? YouTube is mostly an entertainment triviality, even (especially) in the realm of politics

Again, you could (and many would) say the same for television or what have you. It would still be corrosive to society if a single entity controlled the majority of television, or the majority of radio, or... - and that's much the situation that YouTube is in.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#576

Post by pwdisswordfish8 »

Natsu wrote: post #329
pwdisswordfish8 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a year ago when you formed this opinion This is a nonsense sentence. It's not even clear what you're even trying to say here, but it's certain that whatever it is you are making even more bad assumptions about things that you don't actually know to be true. > please show it [...] I was not able to locate any other claims for where the unspent round came from It's like you ignored the entire message and homed in on…

Well, if you don't want to engage in that, don't. Don't claim to have video evidence in your back pocket and then not show it to anyone because you want to shut down other people's discussions. Don't seize on part of my comment and then come back like it's unfair when it happens to you. This isn't trial by Reddit, this is discussion of the evidence that has been investigated by professional investigators and presente…

> this is discussion of the evidence

You (and by now, others, too) are derailing the thread from the topic at hand by trying to make it one, but no, that's not what this is.

this thread is about the meta issues of epistemology in the age of social media echo chambers and the contributions of traditional media to it, and we're best served by staying on that topic

There is no shortage of places to discuss the night of the Kenosha shooting. This is not one of them.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#577

Post by pwdisswordfish8 »

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?

> If this is correct, then I would correct my wording

You should want to correct it regardless of the outcome of that "if".

The fact is, (a) you are carelessly speculating about details when we are right in the middle of a mess that was caused by rampant speculation—the fact that contradictory testimony and video happens to exist is not what made the claim unkosher—and (b) even if you weren't wrong and were recounting pure facts, you are derailing the discussion.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#578

Post by baryphonic »

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 this depends on how you consider a "conspiracy" to be organized. If a conspiracy is a bunch of humans making explicit decisions about each of these incidents, it's laughable.

However, if the "conspiracy" is in fact a bunch of automated tools created by a bunch of humans who all have similar biases in the same ideological direction (biases which happen to be ascendant on elite college campuses and/or in the Bay Area), then this is a fairly reasonable belief.

When an incident like this happens, the outcry is great enough that the humans, who are themselves still human and capable of compassion, can reinstate accounts and override the automated system. But how many "failures" such as this occur where the affected parties simply have no recourse because they don't have the privilege of 60k simultaneous streamers watching?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#579

Post by Dylan16807 »

teakettle42 wrote: post #573
Dylan16807 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> It says "intended to be used" right there in the law. It also says "in the manner it is used or intended to be used". > Would you charge a shove exactly the same as stomping on someone's face? In Colorado, a simple shove would be third-degree assault, while stomping on someone's face would be first-degree assault. > Same crime category doesn't mean same punishment. I would charge a big skateboard swing as worse tha…

> It also says "in the manner it is used or intended to be used".

Yeah but I'm worried about the part before any misuse.

> Guess what? Both a fist and a skateboard can be classified as assault with a deadly weapon!

Cool, then saying someone was 'armed' is extremely meaningless.

Which is what I really cared about here. I commented specifically because I didn't like the description of 'armed'.

I don't care about what label is put on a criminal charge. That's why the things you want me to google aren't helpful to me.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#580

Post by namelessoracle »

Nasrudith wrote: post #233
bjt2n3904 wrote: post #129

Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

So what enemy action is responsible for the defective parts in a factory that makes tens of thousands per day? Scale matters.

When the parts going to one customer consistently fail while another customers parts almost never do it makes one think that at bare minimum they are doing more dilligence for one vs the other.
Post reply on HN