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

591–600 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#591

Post by noxer »

perl4ever wrote: post #279
noxer wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The target audience that is fooled does not read more than headlines especially not thous who already saw the TV coverage of the topic.

The target audience for the "MSM is evil and brainwashing you" line also is fooled because they do not read more than headlines, based on the dialogue right here.

Why would you read from someone you verifiably know they are not reporting the news accurate and unbiased?

Are you telling me people are fooled to miss on the correct reporting? Or whats you train of thought?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#592

Post by smaryjerry »

nawgz wrote: post #562
smaryjerry wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The post your originally responded to claimed that YouTube was taken down legitimate sources of information. You then claimed they are false information as why they are taken down or deserves to be taken down. My point it regardless if it is true it should be shown and not censored. I never mentioned anything about impersonation and said the opposite of what you are questioning.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#593

Post by genewitch »

Jensson wrote: post #476
hasdf wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ar…

> The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word Every game I've played where it is relevant uses the "Assault Rifle" term, and way more young people are familiar with game definitions than anything else. Here is roughly how weapons are defined in games: Submachine gun - Automatic pistol with large clip. Rifle - Single shot long barrel hig…

Just to be pedantic, as we're already in the weeds here, all but "rifle" in your list probably do not use a "clip", they use a magazine. The M1 garand is a rifle that uses a clip, the mini-14 would be a rifle that uses a magazine. Generally.

I understand the point you were making. I do have to ask people, if there's any difference between the Mossberg 464 lever action and the Mossberg 464 ZMB rifle - I mean purely from how scary it is, or whatever.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#594

Post by serverholic »

nefitty wrote: post #544
serverholic wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

You’re making the same mistake again with NFTs. You’re conflating the technology with a use-case of the technology.

An NFT is just a unique piece of data attached to an ethereum account. An NFT doesn’t even have a value. You can create as many as you want and for whatever purpose.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#595

Post by freejazz »

Jensson wrote: post #468
freejazz wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 effecti…

The founders didn't intend anything for "free speech" save for what they enshrined in the constitution. I'm not sure how that could be more clear. Facebook is not a public forum. Back in the founders time, the only public square was the actual public square. There were even fewer publishers with even fewer opportunities for people to have their ideas amplified and disseminated, and even back then they did not think that xyz printing press had any obligation to publish anything anyone wanted to.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#596

Post by kevlar1024 »

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.

The fact is murder has a specific definition "unlawful premeditated killing"

If self defense, not unlawful, which facts lead you to premeditated?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#597

Post by genewitch »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #583
User23 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT still provides quality reporting. But most of their readers stop after the sensational first couple paragraphs and never make it to paragraph 23 where they actually say what really happened. It’s a clever example of what Mark Rosewater calls lenticular design. The low information crowd gets their emotional fix from the headlines and early text and quits there while the Times’ more thoughtful readers get the f…

> The testimony underscores the prosecutors’ challenge in disproving a self-defense claim. In medium font just below the headline.

This is weird to me, 'challenge to disprove self defense' - since the accused was retreating towards law enforcement, and in general you have a duty to retreat if possible, I don't quite get the leap necessary that the pistol wielder was scared for their life. I can, however, believe that post-incident introspection would color the encounter this way, to the person with the pistol.

If there's an active shooter the general thing to do is hide, not go after anyone that is carrying a weapon.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance that any verdict will be accepted as is, though. I know most of my acquaintances have already made up their minds, trial outcome be damned.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#598

Post by root_axis »

account42 wrote: post #572
root_axis wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Both. Yet, even if it were only motivated by profit, YouTube is an ad delivery business, its only purpose is profit.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#599

Post by root_axis »

lmm wrote: post #575
root_axis wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. >…

> 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.

I don't necessarily disagree, but what's your point?

> 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.

This is already the case. Additionally, I don't think you've demonstrated that YouTube's video moderation policy is "corrosive to society"

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#600

Post by betwixthewires »

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.

3 men ganged up on him and took him to the ground, one attempted to crack his skull open with a skateboard. If "attempting grievous bodily harm" is speculative to you you either haven't seen the video of the incident, you're emotionally invested in your position on this beyond reason or you're agitating.
Post reply on HN