Live data from Hacker News

YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

twitter.com

631–640 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#631
post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Can you link me to said CNN coverage where they twisting his words? Anyways this is a classic ruling class tactic: keep the plebs entertained with something else. While they're busy endlessly discussing the Rittenhouse case with ever more inane partisan takes, they're not discussing the impending economic crisis, the unprecedented levels of income and wealth inequality, pressing climate crisis...

All of those are media created issues as well.

Ah, alright. Thanks for being so upfront, saves me wasting my time x)

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#632

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 Ba…

Intent matters. It's not like the secret Bay Area college elite cabal all sat down one day and one of their secret meetings and decided to write

    if streamer.is_black() or streamer.is_woman():
        streamer.suspend()
into the algorithm. That's an irrational belief. But because of our racist past, present, and future, when mysterious ML models come into play, it's entirely possible for that to happen, and frequently. But unless you believe the above code exists somewhere and was written by a human, it's a bit much to call that a conspiracy. Which is probably why it's written in quotes.

Thus, the problem to raise isn't that parties with no recourse might be silenced. That's absolutely an issue, but clearly the mere argument hasn't gotten YouTube to sufficiently change their ways. That's because that conspiracy doesn't exist. The argument to make is that it degrades YouTube's content as a whole. There are a number of other Internet video hosting platforms, most recently TikTok, and it behooves YouTube to spend more time adjusting their algorithms simply because content creators are going to create a little something with the hope to go viral, then get their content taken down, and then move to another platform, rather than say anything about it to more than a couple of real life friends. TikTok's ascendancy (and Vine before it) proves that YouTube's dominance is not assured. The right winds of change could result in YouTube to be displaced, and YouTube's "algorithm" being incorrect too frequently with takedowns is sure to play a role.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, that's my point, too! In this particular event, everyone aside from him was uninformed. Walking through the streets of a riot (I won't say "brandishing" but...) carrying what LOOKS to be a big scary gun is sending a very strong message to other people around him. A lot of people equate that gun with "active shooter" and "paramilitary."

Then they should learn to change their emotional response to it, or seek to repeal the 2nd Amendment that allows people to open carry. Their emotional response is on them.

I disagree given that it’s impossible to know the intentions of the gun wielder, and there is lots of precedent for people who look just like that (white man carrying an AR15) being a mass shooter. If I was marching around (legally) carrying a big ass knife, I’d think I’d also possess enough awareness to realize that some folks might be uncertain of my intentions.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That all sounds reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to explain these details. And sorry for thinking you were trolling. I definitely regret chiming in. I don't like arguing on the internet, I genuinely haven't followed the case, and I was getting hit by more replies than I expected (that were leveling weird things against me based on the few words I said). My entire opinion on this event (not the court case), is e…

Someone's life is on the line. I don't think it's appropriate to hear a few random things about the case and then assert your conclusions. Even more important than an individual's life is the public's faith in the systems that make up our country. The Justice system and the media largely work because people believe in them. If you think the Justice system is unjust, you don't trust police or prosecutors or judges - t…

Again, I wasn't commenting on _the case_, but on the topic of this particular thread, which was about news coverage of _the event_ (not the continuing news coverage, but the initial "here are the immediate facts we know"). And that the information I received from that lead me to reach some opinions on Kyle's overall wisdom and that a bad outcome of some sort is not surprising (which has nothing to do with "guilt"). And I still think you're conflating the "claims" I've made with claims/opinions about the court case. It's not impossible to separate the two, but I think this isn't the medium for it.

I know that my opinion of the actual case does not matter, but for the sake of clarification I'll say that I have a decent amount of trust in the system and I hope/expect a fair outcome based on the evidence. And I also trust you, as someone who has followed the case and taken the time to respond to me in a clear manner.

I agree with everything you said about the media.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#635
post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pathetic response. Misdirection, bending half the points made, ignoring the rest. Go away, stop trying to argue antivax stance is as valid as Galileo’s literal science, the data is clear

You are arguing in bad faith. You’ve stopped talking about the topic and instead about me. Grow up.

I'M arguing in bad faith? Tell me who made these quotes.

> misinformation is rarely intentional

> [banning antivax propaganda suggesting a vaccine given to billions of people will do some yet undiscovered harm from a private web platform] is akin to the church silencing Galileo or banning Copernicus’s books on heliocentric theory because they went against mainstream science at the time

> The point is these companies do not have scientists and do not have the latest data [on a topic which we all have the data on]

> Misinformation is not impersonation [he says in response to someone telling him to check out how Fox News is quite literally a propaganda arm cosplaying as a news station]

You are a hypocrite and a god damn fool. Go away.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#636
post #380
post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could harm though. Drugs have side effects, and you are talking about giving someone who is already very ill drugs where you have no idea if they work or not, that could weaken them even more. You could use that logic to justify taking any drug you want as a treatment. There isn't strong evidence, and you can't just eyeball studies and assume you understand them with no training. I have cystic fibrosis, and I have…

> There isn't strong evidence, and you can't just eyeball studies and assume you understand them with no training. I'm no medical anything but I do have extensive academic and statistical training. There is enough in these studies for someone to take Ivermectin as an "eh, why not?" gambit. There is evidence it is helpful, although the evidence isn't conclusive (or even especially strong). Some doctors are already pre…

If that is true then why are you sourcing a website that is making wildly ludicrous statistical claims?

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#637
post #260
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles and point them at others (prior to the incident where life wasn't threatened) as admitted in court. That charge was dropped because Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle. However, ADA Binger did take Kyle's rifle, pointed it at the jury without checking it (saying his assistant had), and had his finger on the trigger while doing so. Thankfully he didn…

All I can say is what a fucking idiot if I was on the jury I would have lost my shit on him. Even if you clear a gun I still pretend a magic bullet fell from the sky and some how chambered itself. Never point a gun a someone unless you are defending yourself or plan to shoot them. That is how hundreds of people had died. I can believe it that is so crazy. Obviously he was trying to provoke an emotional response by po…

That proves his point that pointing a rifle at someone makes them mad

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#638
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a justice system if there are crimes like that. >So most people aren't feeling much sympathy for the fact that he died. The GP said they were laughing and celebrating it, that's quite different from 'aren't feeling much sympathy for someone dying'.

Some leftists literally threw parties to celebrate the fact that Rush Limbaugh died from lung cancer. Where was the outrage then? People who think someone is worthless will celebrate their death regardless of their criminal record.

Idk but I wouldn't be surprised. Yet if a Livestream of people celebrating Limbaugh's death was also flagged/ brought down I wouldn't be outraged either.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#639
I'd suggest those who haven't watched at least the closing arguments from both sides (4 hrs of video in total) to watch it first.

There's no point in sounding like legal experts or arguing over semantics for the sake of defending the position you have already taken before spending the time watching the full version of both sides arguments.

https://youtube.com/c/fox6milwaukee

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#640
post #637
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All I can say is what a fucking idiot if I was on the jury I would have lost my shit on him. Even if you clear a gun I still pretend a magic bullet fell from the sky and some how chambered itself. Never point a gun a someone unless you are defending yourself or plan to shoot them. That is how hundreds of people had died. I can believe it that is so crazy. Obviously he was trying to provoke an emotional response by po…

That proves his point that pointing a rifle at someone makes them mad

The crowd was complaining that a laser pointer (thought to be a gun sight) was pointed at them. Kyle's weapon has no such sight, making that impossible.

There's a disputed drone video footage where some think they see Kyle raising his gun in his left hand, but if you look at the video, the pixels they're pointing at exist before Kyle even reaches that point, meaning it can't be a gun. It may be a mirror or some other part of the car.

This is a major dispute because the prosecution gave the defense a low-quality, strange resolution rip of the video while having a higher-quality version for themselves. They admitted that "our version is better" in open court, before backing off to claim it's "just playing weird."

Kraus, who said he would have a much better job if he knew this encoding stuff, was seen with Handbrake installed on his laptop. The program was installed shortly after Kyle plead guilty according to the dates on the file.

Post reply on HN