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

201–210 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#201

Post by spoonjim »

Apofis wrote: post #186
roody15 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes its like they are shaping reality and attempting to cause social unrest. What the ultimate aim of such a narrative is I am unsure? Just keep people divided? Get more viewers who are "outraged"? Dystopic

Can we get over the notion that foreign state interference is not a thing in our media? There, you have your culprit; outside of other national interests whom social unrest and division benefits. They play both sides, same as the admen. Suddenly, what is happening and why is crystal clear.

You don't need to believe in a foreign boogeyman to believe that American society is fundamentally broken and is thus tearing itself apart. I don't see anything that's happened in the last 10 years that required the involvement of a foreign actor. This stuff was pioneered by guys like Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell, not Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#202

Post by Natsu »

pwdisswordfish8 wrote: post #182
Natsu wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that was terrible. First, here's a copy of the photo of their interaction for reference which I found online. There are plenty of copies, including in the tweet referenced by Snopes below if you don't like this one: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/290695292964306948/90... Now here's what Grosskreutz said on the stand: Corey Chirafisi: Now, you’d agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse. Correct? G…

> * This implies that Grosskreutz re-racked his gun at some point--something he claims is a threat to kill. It doesn't imply that. It would be nice if, in a thread about the media misreporting the facts of the case and feeding the biases of the folks who are supposed to be benefiting from the coverage, we wouldn't make other assumptions. You might think it's reasonable to make this assumption, but (a) the people leap…

I'm basing my opinions on those statements made in open court that were subjected to cross-examination, not random social media nonsense, which is pretty much all there was a year ago when you formed this opinion.

The police said the unspent round did not match Kyle's weapon. It does match the ammo in the Glock.

If you have video evidence of another Glock (EDIT: or any other gun using the same ammo) being racked at the scene, please show it. There were claims previously that it came from Kyle's rifle, but it was not a match and this is attested to by the prosecution's own police witness.

I was not able to locate any other claims for where the unspent round came from after several searches. This makes me wonder if you can actually produce the claimed video evidence of another source of the same ammo.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#203

Post by superflit2 »

nope35467 wrote: post #134
caeril wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> these smaller independent journalists and commenters go against the reality that media companies want you to believe you live in. For an example from this specific case, compare the actual unedited testimony of Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head , to the coverage of his testimony by CNN, et. al. The mainstream media l…

A quick search shows that NPR and the New York Times both covered this aspect of Mr. Grosskreutz' testimony. Covering additional details from the testimony is not lying. More importantly, focusing narrowly on that fact detracts from the fact that Mr. Rittenhouse had already shot and killed two other people that night. Mr. Grosskreutz' pointing of his gun, whether intentional or not, is not what turned Mr. Rittenhouse…

Well he did the Kenosha Hat trick Shot a wifebeater, a pedo, and a burglar.

To not make it inflammatory I will use this reference [1]

"For example, yes, at age 19, Rosenbaum was sentenced to prison for sexually abusing five children — all boys between the ages of 9 and 11 — in Arizona’s Pima County in early 2002, according to his case file obtained via a public records request by Snopes."

"Huber, who was 18 years old at the time, threatened his brother and grandmother at their home with a knife, choked the brother, and demanded that they follow his orders."

"Grosskreutz had not committed a felony crime, our analysis of court records showed.

He was, however, found guilty in 2016 of breaking Wisconsin’s law governing the use of dangerous weapons — a misdemeanor offense — per Milwaukee County court records. He had apparently gone somewhere “armed while intoxicated,” though the court records did not elaborate on what exactly had happened. "

The reference was not updated then the court papers have more information.

[1] - https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-r...

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#204

Post by mbostleman »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #8

I really want to stress that while the internet has enabled just about everyone to act as a citizen journalist, it is not the ubiquity of information that matters, but rather, the access to information. YouTube and Google wield great power when it comes to gatekeeping information. The sinister part is that plenty of people, left and right, will defend Google's ability to do this merely because they are "a private com…

In my very layman view, one loses the "private" status when they become a monopoly. And anyone that knows enough law to be dangerous can point out plenty of technical reasons why Google isn't a monopoly. But everyone knows a monopoly when they see one. And everyone knows when a company has the vertical and horizontal scale to crush competitors before they get out of the gate.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#205

Post by Natsu »

r00fus wrote: post #187
Natsu wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're gesturing at the argument that was famously made in the 2016 movie Denial. In that, a Holocaust denier has filed a defamation lawsuit against a Jewish professor. Under UK law, she bears the burden of proof. When they later confront the denier, they point out that he makes many historical mistakes and every single one of them favors the Nazis and/or Hitler. They then compare this to a rigged coin. If he were b…

Thanks for the background. Fascinating analogy that YouTube is allegedly equivalent to a holocaust denier by removing streams in a biased manner.

It's funny because I was discussing this just the other day wishing there was a better way to address that fact pattern--a history of biased decisions--without dragging irrelevant and inflammatory stuff into the mix.

Sadly, nobody in that discussion could quite find a good way to reference it without the inflammatory bits at the time.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#206

Post by bequanna »

rossdavidh wrote: post #59
politician wrote: post #4

Dry run for when the verdict is announced.

Likely true, especially given that the streams in question have apparently been restored. And, given the potential for lives lost and property damage, perhaps justified.

Are you saying we should suppress the truth because we’re worried the woke mob won’t like it?

One solution: Open, transparent justice and cities enforce laws for rioters instead of letting them throw city burning temper tantrums.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#207

Post by belltaco »

S_A_P wrote: post #184
akudha wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing they need from viewers is eyeballs. Truth and facts don’t get you eyeballs, outrage and propaganda do. It is insanely hard to present only facts and be truthful and impartial. It is quite easy to pick a narrative and stick to it, damn the facts. MSM is funded by advertisers and big corporations. They’ll do what their money masters want them to - vilifying unions is a good example.

I’m surprised how blantant the narrative pushing is orchestrated. This example happened the other day on NBC news(main channel). So regardless of your stance on ivermectin, this is what played the other day: Aaron Roger’s used ivermectin at the advise of Joe Rogan. Ivermectin is oftentimes used a horse dewormer. Return from Pfizer commercial. Pfizer has announced a new Covid antiviral drug that combines mRNA therapy…

It all depends on the scientific evidence in the highest quality large clinical trials. Ivermectin has failed to show benefit, the Pfizer drug has.

>I don’t care if it is effective or not so much as I don’t think news and corporate interest should drive the national opinion.

Even more frightening is that a lot of people who think that don't have the same opinion on things like these that are way worse than anything NBC News does:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh4uS4f78o

They always focus and nitpick on media that's mostly following the science, and ignore the other side pushing drugs with unsound studies as some kind of magic drugs.

>From what I have heard it seems like looking into it with an unbiased lens may be worth it

And do you really think every country where covid isn't as politicized, like India, Brazil (both of who have extensive experience using ivermectin and HCQ for other users), China, UK, European countries, Canada etc. haven't looked at it with an unbiased lens?

Maybe listen to actual scientists with decades of drug development research experience instead of 'both siding' the conversation?

E.g https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/ivermectin-covid-1...

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#208

Post by jjk166 »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #8

I really want to stress that while the internet has enabled just about everyone to act as a citizen journalist, it is not the ubiquity of information that matters, but rather, the access to information. YouTube and Google wield great power when it comes to gatekeeping information. The sinister part is that plenty of people, left and right, will defend Google's ability to do this merely because they are "a private com…

Well for better or worse, our freedom of speech only limits government interference. You and I and every other private citizen is free to say, and to not say, anything they like within an extremely broad range. While private companies may have an ethical requirement to avoid censorship, they don't have a legal one. No matter how big their datacenters, no matter how large their audience, you don't have the fundamental right to force them to rebroadcast your message if they do not wish to. You may dislike or even be disgusted by their decisions, but remember that anyone who has the power to limit Google's freedom has the power to limit yours.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#210

Post by 0des »

belltaco wrote: post #191
HideousKojima wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We have a justice system if there are crimes like that. And robust self-defense laws for when someone poses an immediate threat and there's not enough time to go to law enforcement to help. >The GP said they were laughing and celebrating it, that's quite different from 'aren't feeling much sympathy for someone dying'. It's called "understatement." To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while th…

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. > To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while they are in the process of trying to assault and/or kill someone (which the evidence clearly shows) is in fact something to be celebrated. The world is a better place for his absence from it. I…

What is an assault rifle?
Post reply on HN