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

521–530 of 645 posts

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#521

Post by [deleted] »

_yoqn wrote: post #244
belltaco wrote: post #140

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.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#522

Post by curryst »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #424
YeBanKo wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don’t. You can continue denying common sense. But if someone threatens to assault you with a skateboard, bare hand or an item from your desk, then will intuitively discover the difference.

Is that the bar? Anything more effective than fists, even if just by preventing the attacker from being hurt, is a deadly weapon? My normal desktop items could break skulls too, I'm pretty sure. And the pens, oof...

We don't have to argue about it, you can look at the Wisconsin law for it.

> “Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

I would say a skateboard, wielded as a weapon, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Getting hit in the head with a skateboard even once seems likely to cause a concussion or maybe even internal bleeding.

You probably do have a good number of items that could be classified as deadly weapons on your desk, depending on how they were used.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#523

Post by ALittleLight »

ryantgtg wrote: post #510
ALittleLight wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe it's against the hackernews rules to accuse people of trolling. I'm not trolling either way though. Perhaps if, as you say, you don't know anything about the case, you should stop sharing your opinion on it. You are misstating matters of fact and being misleading. To me, when you say you don't know anything about the case and then share the tiny detail you do know, it comes across as someone selectively pre…

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 - that results in places where people settle things for themselves or for their tribe rather than relying on the courts. It results, in other words, in internecine violence.

The media too is important to have faith in. When it's working well the media calls attention to parts of society that aren't working well so we can repair or replace them. But if people don't trust the media then we won't come to know or believe problematic things are problems.

I see, with this trial, which I have been following, an instance where the media is incorrectly attacking a court that seems to be functioning reasonably. I see commentators on social media turning that flywheel too - feeding the unjustified attacks on the court.

I think the consequences of this are going to be damage to faith in the media and in the courts. That's bad. One way to reduce the badness is to stop making unsupported hyperbolic claims. If you don't know what you're talking about, find out, or don't talk.

Regarding the judge and zooming in, I'm not certain which moment you are referring to. There was a moment at the trial where the prosecutor wanted to use an iPad to "pinch to zoom" on some video and the defense objected saying that Apple algorithms might "enhance" the video by adding information that wasn't there. The judge determined that the prosecutor needed to get an expert to testify that Apple's "pinch to zoom" does not add data. I believe the ultimate resolution was that they used a PC instead and zoomed in on that.

It sounds a little silly to argue over pinch to zoom, but AI assisted super resolution algorithms do exist. To my knowledge they aren't used in Apple devices - but I don't know why it's a problem to have an expert clarify this or to use a different device that everyone is more comfortable with.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#524

Post by LordDragonfang »

ryan93 wrote: post #449
LordDragonfang wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Since Rittenhouse was walking down the middle of a wide brightly-lit street towards a line of cops, it is probably not the case that those yelling "stop him" merely wanted to make sure that Rittenhouse did not escape legal accountability (for Rittenhouse's shooting minutes earlier of Rosenbaum). Considering that these were protest against the police , it's not reasonable to assume that the people present had any fai…

The protests days before this were against the police. This night it was all rioters who showed up just to cause trouble

As MLK said, a riot is the language of the unheard. Even if what you say is true, it sort of supports the point rather than refuting it. These people feel as though the police aren't listening to them.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#525

Post by HideousKojima »

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.

One of them is, and he has repeatedly lied about what happened, including what is plain as day on video

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#526

Post by etchalon »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #245
root_axis wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you expect? It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube, if it's not an intentional effort then I fail to see what the big deal is.

> It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube Well there is; you don't put takedowns in the hands of an algorithm. Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law.

If "courts of law" decided what content should and should not be on YouTube, they'd be hosting hardcore porn.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#527

Post by HideousKojima »

ryantgtg wrote: post #492
HideousKojima wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. Yes, exactly my point. It's cosmetically scary and calling it an assault rifle makes the minds of many of those hearing it jump to a fear-based response. When in reality an AR-15 is no more or less deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle in the same caliber. Slapping black plastic on a gun may make it look "scarier" to the uninformed, but it doesn't c…

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.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#528

Post by potato7890 »

tablespoon wrote: post #509
jbverschoor wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Archive is removed?

> Archive is removed? Huh? What does archiving have to do with anything? What seems to have happened is someone is confusing the Washington Post for the New York Times in a way that leaves a misleading impression in this thread. It's like if you're talking about your software engineer friend Denny, and someone responds with a criticism of some software engineer named Eric like he's talking about the same person.

The parent comment to the subject of my response established the scope of this discussion as including legacy media in general, one comment invoked the NYT, and I can bring up another publication as well.

The general point is that there are plenty of subtle ways to present/disseminate new that allows bias to seep through.

In this example the WP reported it in the least effective way possible - as an edit to an existing article that most people would never revisit. Even then, they choose to keep the first half of that head line - as opposed to at the forefront presenting a piece of update that will have actual material impact on the case, which to an unbiased/oppositely-biased publication would be a separate headline. Instead, it’s more important that you know Grosskreutz “feared for his life”, which is even more subtly manipulative.

Edit: Just to harp on this point of how ridiculous Grosskreutz fearing for his life is as a headline by that point: his friend, who posed for a photo with him together in the hospital, had posted an deleted on facebook a post stating that Grosskreutz had said that his only regret was not emptying his mag into Rittenhouse. And the fact that there has always been video of the incident showing Grosskreutz approaching a downed Rittenhouse and drawing his handgun as he was shot - even before his corroborating admission. And their headline emphasizes that Grosskreutz had feared for his life without mentioning any of the evidence contrary to this narrative.

I bring this up to support the argument in the parent comment to the one I responded to, this example betrays a blatant and willful intent to misrepresent the facts on the part of at least this one member of the mainstream media.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#529

Post by waych »

etchalon wrote: post #519
waych wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the same failure in automation that is keeping Rittenhouse from being searched on Facebook?

I literally just searched Rittenhouse on Facebook.

Interesting. Perhaps they fixed the automation glitch now that it has been called out.

Still broken for "kyle rittenhouse" however.

Re: YouTube takes down independent court livestreams

#530

Post by coffeecat »

Karsteski wrote: post #282
PrincessJess wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder what it's like to have this incredibly narrow-minded worldview.

I assume the parent comment is sarcasm, but unfortunately, it's the internet and therefore Poe's law applies.
Post reply on HN