[HN Gopher] YouTube takes down independent court livestreams ___________________________________________________________________ YouTube takes down independent court livestreams Author : crocodiletears Score : 335 points Date : 2021-11-15 19:47 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (twitter.com) (TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com) | [deleted] | [deleted] | thirteenfingers wrote: | Between stuffing non-monetized videos with ads, the dislike | button thing, and capricious censorship, I'm seriously looking | into self-hosting[0] my video and streamed content. Disregarding | the difficulty of maintaining a following outside of the big | platforms, do any of you HNers have experience with hosting your | own video and streaming sites? What software do you use? | | [0] I could also just switch platforms, but I have similar | problems with all the big platforms. Vimeo is a potential paid | option, but their streaming plans are a bit out of my budget. | angry_octet wrote: | The Twitter suggested content when you open this tweet (in a tab | without twitter login) is insanity crank stuff: anti-vaxxers, | LGBT hate, Scott Adams, Posobiec/Pool/Ben Shapiro, race hate... | | And people wonder why extremist politicians prevail. | mikevm wrote: | Ben Shapiro is under insanity crank stuff? I think the only | crank here is you. | skinkestek wrote: | Same with Scott Adams... | swlp21 wrote: | I'm not sure I understand - do you mean these suggestions are | placed there by Twitter to deligitimize the original tweet | [who, in that case, would have a valid complaint but is being | maligned by association with the addition of "crank stuff"] ? | | Or are you saying the original tweet is from a crank and the | placement by twitter of additional "crank stuff" is proof of | the crank label? | | BTW when I view the tweet (also not logged in), I got no | suggestions at all, so Twitter are presenting it in a different | way to different visitors (i.e. you and me for sure). Perhaps | you were part of an A-B test? | eertami wrote: | You're not wrong. I clicked through on one guy and he's posted | all caps angry rants about this trial 2 to 3 times per minute | for the last hour. | | It's getting harder to tell the difference unhinged lunatics | and paid bots. | paganel wrote: | On that note, google-ing "WarRoom podcast" doesnt' return as the | first result a link to the website itself [1], the first page is | occupied by other podcast websites that "re-publish" (is that the | correct word?) said podcast. Yandex does the correct thing, the | website actually behind Bannon's podcast is the first in the | SERPs, DDG has it as the 3rd result, still ok, because visible. | | So it looks like the people at Alphabet/Google are well into | suppressing political discourse, in which case I think a break-up | of the company once this administration is voted out is totally | in the cards. | | [1] | https://listen.warroom.org/?__cf_chl_rt_tk=gIeuKWPwW6dBmcIkh... | BitwiseFool wrote: | 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 company". | dfxm12 wrote: | When we're ingrained to all but deify corporatism, capitalism | and laissez faire, it's only natural that the people will think | that a private company must be allowed to do what it wants. | | Such ingratiation has also poisoned the well against even | considering options like having a strong/big government step | in, handing Google over to the people, etc. | | As long as greed is good, cash is king, and stock prices are | equated with the economy, you're not going to see anyone | challenge the status quo of a corporation acting in their own | best interest, not mine or yours or ours. | Aunche wrote: | > 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 company". | | People didn't merely defend Google to gatekeep information, | they demanded it. A decade ago, Youtube, along with other | social media companies, was happy to be pro-free speech. It's | not like they have any reason to cut engagement and ad revenue. | However, they after two adpocapyses and even the President | demanding that they censor more misinformation, they have been | pushed into the position of the gatekeeper of the internet. | Given that they aren't paid for this position, they will | obviously choose most cost effective-route possible, hence why | they censor whatever they think will be controversial. | chrisdhoover wrote: | There was a time when Google was happy to stay out of | politics and culture wars. The had few lobbyists and donated | little. They were happy building a private surveillance | apparatus. But the government, mostly democrats came calling | and demanded action against whatever the hysteria de jour | was. It was never about policing the internet. It was always | about sucking funds out of Google. Then brainwashed graduates | took positions at Google and here we are. The perfect | mechanism for propaganda and thought control | mbostleman wrote: | 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. | jjk166 wrote: | 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. | nova22033 wrote: | _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 company"._ | | A lot of people will defend google ability to do that because | they have a "first amendment right". | | Adding air quotes or actual quotes doesn't change that.. | fault1 wrote: | Isn't this just a market opportunity for other companies? | | Google isn't the only company that owns the field of | information retrieval. They just came the right place/right | time after the .com crash. | eftychis wrote: | Are you going to vote with your money and pay for such a | company to exist is the right question I would say. | sm4rk0 wrote: | It is in a perfect market, but Google holds the monopoly and | the game is set against competition. | fault1 wrote: | A monopoly for information retrieval? Surely not. | | For online ads? Sure you can make that case. | | Their business in the end is based on delivering relevant | content. If there is a market for the traffic Google | refuses to host, then there are probably market | opportunities there. | imwillofficial wrote: | And how is it a fair market when the government subsidies | give google et al a home field advantage? | fault1 wrote: | government subsidies? | colordrops wrote: | There are a couple problems with the "market opportunity" | argument. The first is that no, there isn't a market | opportunity due to network and monopolistic forces. The | second is that there is a fundamental issue with the system | itself, whereby both state and private establishment players | eventually force any player with a large piece of the market | to do things like censor certain narratives. | rabuse wrote: | While I agree that network effects play a large role in | entrenchment, I wouldn't be so surprised if smaller players | start swooping up the dissenters and begin slowly chipping | away at the giants. | BitwiseFool wrote: | In principle, yes. But Google seems to hold a unique position | because of network effects. Countless YouTube clones have | been created but none ever seem to gain enough critical mass | to become viable competitors. Trying to build a competing | platform on the value proposition of being anti-censorship is | also fraught with perception issues. | oriki wrote: | I mean, not just perception issues, but also the fact that | you're inherently setting yourself up to build a platform | with a core userbase of "People banned from [the more | popular version of the platform they're cloning]." You | build VidMe and the first people interested in VidMe are | people that got kicked off of YouTube, which it turns out | are rarely oppressed free speech advocates and much more | often trolls and similarly unwanted individuals. If your | userbase is entirely toxic, nobody wants to stay there, and | your platform never really succeeds because of that. | | It's worth noting that I'm loosely parroting the content of | a Folding Ideas video[1] that covers the discussion of the | creator vs platform relationship overall. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3snVCRo_bI | gwright wrote: | > Isn't this just a market opportunity for other companies? | | Perhaps but that doesn't preclude criticizing those editorial | choices as harmful (false narratives, ideological bubbles, | general free-speech principles). | rat87 wrote: | > 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 company". | | How is this sinister, it seems trivially correct | | It course Google and other companies will mess up with their | moderation and should be called on it when they do but what | exactly is wrong with them moderating in general? | belltaco wrote: | YouTube didn't start removing conspiracy and culture war videos | until advertisers started boycotting them back in 2017/2018 for | having such content. | | YouTube has only recently started making a profit. If they | didn't censor videos they'd be unable to pay for the servers, | storage and bandwidth that everyone seem to feel entitled for. | throwawaygh wrote: | You know, you could just... not use youtube. It actually isn't | that hard. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | If most people do watch YouTube, and YouTube censors stuff, | then me not watching YouTube doesn't magically get that | information to the other people | throwawaygh wrote: | You can make the exact same criticism of OAN, Fox News, or | MSNBC. At the end of the day, non-public venues are | private. | arminiusreturns wrote: | This is why everyone should read RMS's _Right to Read_ story. | Its not just about censoring the output, they want to censor | our inputs too! While the RMS parable is less about censorship | and more about drm its still relevant. [1] | | Unfortunately there are a lot of people who are so bought into | the tribalistic dialectic that, in the more recent version, | they heard about all the censoring, they saw the people being | censored were "those evil others" and said "yeah thats ok with | me!", failing to understand the lack of principle would/will | come for them next. | | The beauty of it all is that I think the oligarchs are | overplaying their hand to the point they are going to force a | pendulum swing back the other way at some point. The counter- | point to that is that with techno-tyranny at some point the | oligarchs are going to be able to stop the pendulum swing. | | 1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.en.html | | bonus: Hitchens on freedom of speech, | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY&t=0 | baryphonic wrote: | Never forget that Susan Wojcicki won a free speech award | sponsored by YouTube. [0] | | Never forget it. | | [0] https://www.newsweek.com/youtube-ceo-susan-wojcicki-gets- | fre... | blumomo wrote: | YouTube also just deleted the accounts of the German independent | investigatory committee www.corona-ausschuss.de who are an | important information source for many German citizen. | rat87 wrote: | > German independent investigatory committee | | Sounds like an official body or a body set up by prominent | scientists | | > www.corona-ausschuss.de | | Seems to be a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists. I didn't | 3ven have to look far for a description. | | So good I'm glad YouTube is moderating their platform | | https://m-tagesspiegel-de.translate.goog/luegen-und-hetze-im... | martneumann wrote: | You are being _very_ generous by calling them an | "investigatory committee". They routinely compare the anti | Covid measures by the German government to the Holocaust [1]. | On the same site, you can also see that they touted the weird | conspiracy theory of becoming magnetic after being vaccinated. | | They violated Youtube's ToS with their conspiracy theories and | got kicked out, it seems. | | [1] https://www.psiram.com/de/index.php/Stiftung_Corona- | Ausschus... | trhway wrote: | >They violated Youtube's ToS with their conspiracy theories | and got kicked out, it seems. | | great sign of progress. Just mere 400 years ago they would | have been tortured and burned at stake as heretics. Though | who knows, the way things been moving lately ... | rat87 wrote: | Yes I see it as progress that YouTube kicks off antivax | conspiracies. It would be nice if Facebook did the same | ravenstine wrote: | Yeah, because surely governments and medical institutions | have never lied to, hurt, or killed anyone. They say they | want to help us and no one should be allowed to say | otherwise. And I'm sure YouTube's only motivation is to | protect us. | trhway wrote: | From USSR times I'm very sceptical about supposed truths | which can't stand on their merits alone and require | active administrative suppression of the doubt to | maintain the perception of truthiness. | Karsteski wrote: | Out of curiosity, why did people downvote this comment? I | find that it states a very valid concern in our digital | age where information can be very effectively suppressed | from the majority of people, regardless if I agree or | disagree with the message of said information. | 1cvmask wrote: | Everything is a conspiracy theory till proven otherwise. | | Tuskegee Syphillis "Study" (exposed by leak in 1972 after | more than 4 decades), Iraqi WMDs, Syrian chemical attacks, | Russiagate, Gulf of Tonkin, the Surveillance state (exposed | by Edward Snowden), war crimes (exposed by Julian Assange), | USS Maine alleged bombing, Mossadegh accused of being a | communist sympathizer by US press, Evo Morales overthrown by | military to "restore" alleged stolen election | (retracted/corrected months later by NY Times) and so many | many more | martneumann wrote: | None of these things relate to what the "Corona-Ausschuss" | has been doing in any way. Just because the government does | shady things, doesn't mean the quack theories by some | people on the internet are suddenly correct. Especially | when they do not believe Covid exists, or if it does that | it's a bioweapon, which is apparently harmless for some | reason, but masks don't work and vaccines don't work, | either... | | They also receive lots of support and attention from | Russians state media. It is to be assumed that the Russian | state has an interest in fanning the flames here and to sow | doubt in the German government. Isn't it ironic that the | Russian media in Germany pushes any negative vaccine story | they can find to foster hesitancy, but urges its own | population to get vaccinated ASAP in domestic media? | | I will leave it at that. | shadowgovt wrote: | Are you sure you meant to toss the Maine in there? | | Because history strongly suggests that was a maintenance | failure / expected consequence of the volatile coal used at | the time. If anything, the story of the Maine proves the | rule; it reminds us that sometimes conspiracies _aren 't_. | 1cvmask wrote: | Yes. They spread a whole bunch of conspiracies to justify | the war. Those conspiracies were later proven to be | bogus. The USS Maine was not blown up by the Spanish as | the US media asserted. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish- | Amer... | throwawaygh wrote: | _> > the weird conspiracy theory of becoming magnetic after | being vaccinated._ | | _> Everything is a conspiracy theory till proven | otherwise._ | | Please tell me this comment is ironic. | rat87 wrote: | Nice pun. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | Yep... even with covid, "it's just 14 days, to flatten the | curve", "covid passports are just a conspiracy theory", | "all vaccines are safe", "...except astrazeneca" ... | "...except J&J" .... "...except moderna",.... add inflation | denials, and yeah... | | Basically the difference between conspiracy theories and | reality was ~6 months. | ViViDboarder wrote: | 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. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | Well of course, but the society at large, including the | media, and most people on here and other social networks | act as if the current situation is the actual final | truth. I remember the start of covid, when we were | talking about single digit total cases in european | countries, and a few people ("conspiracy theorists") wore | ffp3 masks, respirators, etc. to stores, and they were | made fun as "stupid idiots", "conspiracy nutjobs", and | that we should believe(!) science, and wash our hands.... | then bam, almost overnight, mandatory masks everywhere. | | > "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the | wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential | benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the | opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or | fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director | of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media | briefing in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday. | | https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who- | mas... | | Same with vaccines... all four approved vaccines here | were perfectly safe, until they weren't. The mandates | basically forced you to pay for testing unless you get | vaccinated, and while all other vaccines need two doses, | J&J needs only one, so a lot of people got vaccinated by | that, because paying 12eur for tests every 48h to be able | to ride a bus to work was expensive... and a 20yo girl | died due to the vaccine (blood clots), bringing the death | toll for girls under 25 to "1" because of the vaccine and | "0" due to covid (with around half of ~2mil population | getting infected). And what did people say? "why didn't | she take the mRNA vaccine?" Why... because the science, | our ministers, doctors and the government said that J&J | is perfectly safe... a few days after, vector vaccines | only for 50yo+ and those who explicitly request them. | | And also... a lot of masks actually dont help at all: | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4420971/ | | > Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% | and medical masks 44%. | | For a year now, people were wearing masks, which let | through 97% of (influenza-like) viruses, and that was | "perfectly ok" (except in few countries, that mandated | ffp masks). | | TLDR: If we remove every skeptic (eg. people who wear | masks, even though WHO says that there's no evidence | masks help, and might even even be worse, if you handle | them incorrectly), and then science "changes", and we ban | all those, who say masks don't help... who's left? | HideousKojima wrote: | While I don't believe the COVID vaccines make you magnetic, | the default of trusting governments and major corporations | despite their long (and well-documented) histories of | atrocities and deceits is just naive. We're talking about | things like: | | Intentionally feeding radioactive oatmeal to mentally | handicapped children https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs- | xpm-1997-12-31-19973650... | | Kidnapping homeless people and force feeding them LSD: | https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/758989641/the-cias-secret- | que... | | In the case of the German government specifically, knowingly | and intentionally housing orphans with pedophiles: | https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/07/26/the-german- | exp... | | And specifically relevant to COVID vaccines, Pfizer | subcontractors falsifying test data: | https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 | soco wrote: | As your examples correctly point out, the sites documenting | government abuses were _not_ censored. Only the tinfoil | wackos were taken down, so I believe in this particular | case it works as expected. (later clarification: anyway I | definitely don 't like the way YouTube goes and I'd post my | stuff also on other sites) | thriftwy wrote: | These abuses are also historical. They ought to have a | different censorship dynamic from current events. | nawgz wrote: | What does this piece of misdirection have to do with the | fact that this channel promoted - falsely - anti-vaccine | myths and in doing so made TOS-violating statements? | | It is clear that government and corporation are both | largely morally devoid institutions in the modern age, but | this doesn't even rely on any traditional sense of trust. | The data is published and we can see what it does and | doesn't do, and if you want to discard that you mightaswell | just take the kid gloves off and type something really | offensive next | HideousKojima wrote: | >The data is published and we can see what it does and | doesn't do | | See my last link | crocodiletears wrote: | Note: the streams in the screenshot have since been restored. | shadowgovt wrote: | It's entirely possible they were taken down in the first place | because so many parallel streams of coverage on the same data | tripped either a spam detector or an honest-to-God bug in the | YouTube backend ("Hm... lots of parallel channels running the | exact same bytes. I bet we can consolidate this if we just tee | the stream sinks against a source that _oops that 's a | hotspot_..."). | GenerocUsername wrote: | doubt. | | Over the last 6 years there have been toooooo many | coincidences which go in 1 direction politically instead of | equally in both directions. | | You only need to flip a coin 5-6 times before you suspect it | might be rigged... and after 100's of tosses there is no | longer any question. | r00fus wrote: | You are comparing YouTube policing their platform to a a | coin flip? | | YT isn't a public service. | Natsu wrote: | 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 being honest and doing | history wrong, then some of his mistakes should've gone | either way, but the fact that his mistakes are | substantially in one direction shows evidence of bias. | | Denial is a great film, I recommend it. | r00fus wrote: | Thanks for the background. Fascinating analogy that | YouTube is allegedly equivalent to a holocaust denier by | removing streams in a biased manner. | Natsu wrote: | 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. | shuntress wrote: | This is a false equivalency and willful ignorance of the | Overton window. | | "Reality has a well known liberal bias" | | If heads & tails are left & right and the edge is far right | extremism, it's not a "coincidence" that these "coin | tosses" go in "1 direction politically instead of equally | in both directions" when "1 direction" is _left or right_ | and the other "direction" is _far right extremism_ | yuliyp wrote: | There have been many things which go into many directions. | However, your social circle provides a biased sample of | that to you. I don't actually know which political | direction you're arguing is being victimized. But a biased | sample will lead people on both sides to feel like they're | the victims since that's what they see more of. | shadowgovt wrote: | I'm not sure what the directions are as relates to dropping | signal on the Rittenhouse trial. | rossdavidh wrote: | Significant point, I hope it will get upvoted to nearer the | top. | [deleted] | rayiner wrote: | Wow. We slid down that slippery slope pretty quick. | im3w1l wrote: | Hopefully this is a big enough misstep that something comes off | it. Can't say I'm holding my breath though. | kyleblarson wrote: | It doesn't fit the narrative that they and the entire mainstream | media are so desperate to perpetuate. Allowing the plebs to see | unbiased content and judge for themselves terrifies them. Same | thing with removing the downvote count. They can't stand to see | ratio of down to up votes on content about the current US | administration, COVID, etc. | rat87 wrote: | "unbiased content" | merpnderp wrote: | I think they mean unbiased by the giant advertising agencies | through which all major media's takes are filtered through. | If you're watching CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc, you're watching what | their advertisers approve of. And usually that approval is | "The hottest take that, causes the most angry tweets, that | gets the most views, of our dish soap." But also sometimes | corporate politics bleeds through. Like you the WaPo ignoring | or soft-pedaling Amazon stories. | dang wrote: | You've unfortunately been using HN primarily for ideological | and political battle. That's the line at which we ban | accounts, regardless of their ideology or politics, because | doing that destroys what HN is supposed to be for. Would you | please review the site guidelines | (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and stop | this? I don't want to ban you, but if you keep this up, we're | going to end up having to. | | You've also been posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait | and/or snarky comments too. That's also against the site | guidelines, so if you'd please stop that as well, we'd | appreciate it. | GenerocUsername wrote: | "Raw feeds of court proceedings" | jfax wrote: | I'd like to think a court would be the definition of | unbiased. | shuntress wrote: | Is it possible for us to put aside the edgelord screeching over | censorship and instead talk rationally about content distribution | regulations, required public APIs, and using the Post Office for | things like email/videos/blogs/PGP keys/etc? | etchalon wrote: | 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. | __s wrote: | > Streams are back up just in time for the closing arguments | bjt2n3904 wrote: | Once is an accident. | | Twice is coincidence. | | Three times is enemy action. | president wrote: | It's not even just that. Earlier this year, the White House | admitted it had a line to Facebook and presumably other | social media companies so that it could tell it which stories | to censor. | estaseuropano wrote: | Thats not fact, just drivel. | | If it were true YouTube would long be an enemy of pretty much | everyone. | bequanna wrote: | Not an enemy of everyone, just the ~50% of the US that | doesn't share YT's politics. | h2odragon wrote: | > YouTube would long be an enemy of pretty much everyone. | | and Twitter, and facebook, and etc, yes. The ones shaping | the discourse "for the good of society" are, in fact bad | for society, even when the power was inherent and not used. | | Now one has to work to deny the negatives. | thepasswordis wrote: | I think at this point we can just expect this stuff. | | The ridiculousness of it, though. The rekieta law stream (which | is _fantastic_ , btw: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7YXd2M5E-8) has anywhere from | 4-12 active lawyers giving commentary and context to everything | that is happening. | | This is exactly the type of thing we dreamed about when we were | first creating the internet. | | However: often times these smaller independent journalists and | commenters go against the reality that media companies want you | to believe you live in. Thus: they get censored. Rekieta lost | almost 40,000 people who _were_ getting live commentary from a | diverse (idealogically) set of lawyers, and now must to places | where these companies can assert more narrative control. | | It's sad. | caeril wrote: | > 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 lies, constantly and blatantly, not by | minor omissions or bad research, but by gross, egregious | violations of truth that can only be explained by extreme | malice and contempt for their viewers. | 908B64B197 wrote: | > The mainstream media lies, constantly and blatantly, not by | minor omissions or bad research, but by gross, egregious | violations of truth that can only be explained by extreme | malice and contempt for their viewers. | | At least, here in America we decided that justice should be | public and cameras freely admitted into courtrooms. It's sad | to see that YouTube is trying to work against these ideals of | transparency, openness and universal access. | | It is not, however, a universal freedom. In many foreign | countries (even in Canada) it's simply impossible to get a | simply video and audio feed outside of the courtroom. | | Only people with the means of queuing up and spending the | whole day in court can get the privilege of seeing and | hearing justice with their very own eyes and ears. The rest | have to rely on what these people will decide to write in | either the state backed medias or billionaire owned news | outlets. | short12 wrote: | Too bad he didn't pull the trigger considering he had already | gunned down people. Isn't that the narrative? If some starts | shooting people some one with a gun will stop him | noxer wrote: | You can't just "stop" someone with deadly forth because he | appears to have "gunned down" someone before. You dont know | the whole story and you are not in the position to declare | who is the victim and who is the "bad guy". Its not self- | defense if you chase someone. A fleeing suspect even if you | would have witnessed an execution style murder is not legal | to just shot. It must be reasonable to believe that you or | someone else is in imminent danger of harm. Like a | terrorist who just randomly shoots at anyone. Commonly | referred to as "an active shorter". In this case there was | no doubt he was fleeing from the mob. | roody15 wrote: | 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 | drc37 wrote: | Violence sells. | infamouscow wrote: | The fact is most people don't want to know about things | that conflict with their world view. I don't think what the | media is doing is intentionally malicious, they just need | to perpetuate a specific world view to keep their viewers. | rabuse wrote: | This is a naive view of it, IMO. Political ideologies run | rampant at large corporations nowadays, and then it | trickles into the actual product/service due to | management. | blacksmith_tb wrote: | It's possible that some large corporations have decided | that appearing to publicly support one ideology or | another will be good for business. If that alienates you, | you are likely not the audience they're targeting. If | they're doing a bad job of that and alienating people who | should be their customers, well, the market will take of | that, won't it? | akudha wrote: | 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. | S_A_P wrote: | 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. <cut to | Pfizer commercial> Return from Pfizer commercial. Pfizer | has announced a new Covid antiviral drug that combines | mRNA therapy with a low dose HIV drug and has proven | (some high 80s/90s number). Pfizer is asking for an | emergency approval for treatment with Covid 19. | | Look, I don't know if Ivermectin is effective for Covid | or not. From what I have heard it seems like looking into | it with an unbiased lens may be worth it. 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. | | I'm not even that scared about the anti viral that Pfizer | is pushing. HIV drugs have been around long enough to | establish a safety profile and weigh the risk vs reward. | I do think, that despite reports ivermectin has a pretty | solid safety record. However safe HIV drugs are, the | commercials for them list significant side effects. Again | I hesitate to post this as someone thinks I'm pushing | ivermectin as a legitimate therapy. I truly do not | know... | | To me the sequence of the story commercial and the | counter story made me feel a bit queasy. | akudha wrote: | _Manufacturing Consent_ by Chomsky describes in detail | how the media lies, manipulates, twists the facts /truth | to fit a particular narrative. He gives example after | example after example. They also _selectively_ ignore | certain stories while simultaneously amplifying certain | other stories. | | This has been going on for decades, this is nothing new. | What is new is the medium and the cost. TV is still | expensive even today, while internet is cheap, its reach | is much larger and it has permanent memory. | | This is why we should support smaller independent outlets | like TYT. We may or may not like their style, but they | don't rely on corporate sponsors and that deserves | respect. I am also happy about independent newsletter | publishers (on substack, for example) - these are a drop | in the ocean, but still a start. | | I can't name a single large publication (left, right, | center, liberal, conservative... whatever) that I trust | or respect :( | belltaco wrote: | 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 think every country where covid isn't as | politicized, like India, 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... | B1FF_PSUVM wrote: | Sells more soap. | freejazz wrote: | They sell controversy. It's not really that hard to | understand and all of these other "motives" are just | ridiculous. | Apofis wrote: | 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. | forgotmyoldname wrote: | Always resorting to blaming a foreign boogeyman is | dangerous thinking. Sometimes you need to accept that | there are bad actors within your own country. | | For a lot of news programs, the credits are publicly | visible and verifiably citizens. The people talking are | citizens of your own country. They could care about their | country instead of money. They just don't. | spoonjim wrote: | 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. | sneak wrote: | They're playing to the crowd. Many people already have | opinions formed when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due | to the ongoing US culture war, and media outlets don't | generally like to alienate their audience. | ALittleLight wrote: | I think people only have opinions because of what they | have heard from the media. I don't get why it's not | reported in more neutral terms - "Incident at protest | leaves two dead, one wounded. 'Self-defense' says | shooter." Then describe the circumstances as they are on | video or given by eye witnesses. | | Instead, media outlets seem to obfuscate and | sensationalize the story and imply wrongdoing or bias by | the criminal justice system. | Eelongate wrote: | > _I think people only have opinions because of what they | have heard from the media._ | | While I think there is doubtlessly some truth to that, I | think it misses the bigger picture which is: People | weren't blank slates going into this story. Most people | who care about the trial one way or the other already had | opinions about subjects relating to the trial before they | ever heard of this particular incident. People already | had opinions about gun control, self defense, protesting, | etc. | | Media companies, knowing there are _already_ a bunch of | people inclined to feel one way or the other, find it | convenient to pander to people with these preformed | opinions or biases. | metamet wrote: | > when they hear the word "Rittenhouse" due to the | ongoing US culture war | | I think that's an oversimplification. Rittenhouse's | decision to show up there armed was due to the partisan | division and demonization. | | Rittenhouse showing up armed and killing two people is a | product of the stoked polarization. | robbedpeter wrote: | Rittenhouse showing up was a result of unrest in a town | where he had friends and family. He gave aid to rioters | and protesters as well as counter protesters. He showed | up to protect and help people, and if he hadn't been | armed, he could have been shot and killed or beaten to | death, because he told people he was there to help the | police. It wasn't until he'd been shot at, attacked with | a skateboard, and had a gun aimed at him by an asshole | who threatened to kill him earlier that Rittenhouse used | his weapon. | | I think being armed was probably responsible and it's | fairly clear given the evidence from the trial that it | was used in a responsible way that exemplifies the use of | lethal force in self defense. | | The media stoked narratives that caused the riots are to | blame. Sensationalism of topics like police on black | violence manipulates people into believing things that | aren't true, and they react in ways that might very well | be reasonable if the narratives _were_ true. I think | Rittenhouse is going to sue the ever loving shit out of a | lot of legacy media corporations, and maybe that will | make them a little more cautious when hyping the tabloid | bullshit. | HideousKojima wrote: | Also compare Grosskreutz's testimony to his statements to | various news networks this past week, where he repeatedly | contradicted his own sworn testimony. | marcusverus wrote: | Anderson Cooper 'confronted' Grosskreutz about | contradicting his sworn testimony, but the guy (clumsily) | dodged the question, and apparently Cooper wasn't | interested in following up on it. | | Cooper: On Good Morning America today you said that you | were absolutely not pointing your gun at Rittenhouse. Can | you clarify there? | | Grosskreutz: Yes, absolutely. Um. First and foremost, [the | cross examination] was a very tense situation. Something | that I've never been in before. Just like never being shot | before. I think it's important to note though, specifically | during cross that, if there's skilled attorney, they're | able to present questions to help support their narrative. | That's their job. And with one of the exhibits that | Attorney Sharrad(?) had introduced, there's a photo of me | with my gun pointed towards the defendant. Either just | after or right during he had shot me in my right arm. I | think it's important to note though that the physiology of | my wound would be inconsistent with someone being shot with | their arm in.. we'll say the traditional way that you would | point your gun at somebody or something. The only way that | I could have sustained the injury that I have is if I had | been shot with my arms up. | | Cooper (looking perplexed): So... so you're say--did you | ever point your gun at him? | | [someone speaks to Grosskreutz off camera, he looks at | them, turns back] Grosskreutz: I think that in the still | photos it certainly looks like it. But never intentionally. | You have to understand that, following that gunshot, I was | --I had no use of my arm. I wasn't able to move anything. I | --and--in my right arm, or in my right arm. | | https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/11/12/gaige- | grosskreutz-i... | LogonType10 wrote: | He lied to the media but told the truth under oath? I'm | surprised. | remarkEon wrote: | What should be surprising here is that, when interviewed | on these major networks after his court testimony, no | journalist asked him that very obvious and clear follow- | up question. | mannerheim wrote: | There was video evidence of everything he testified to | under oath. If he had lied, it would have been obvious | perjury. | LogonType10 wrote: | Thanks for the context. | Natsu wrote: | 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? | | Gaige Grosskreutz: Yes. | | CC: Okay. And once your firearm is pointed at Mr. | Rittenhouse, that's when he fires his gun. Yes? | | GG: No. | | CC: Sir, look, I don't want to - does this look like right | now your arm is being shot? | | GG: That looks like my bicep being vaporized, yes. | | CC: Okay. And it's being vaporized as you're pointing your | gun directly at him. Yes? | | GG: Yes. | | CC: Okay. So when you were standing 3-5 feet from him with | your arms up in the air, he never fired. Right? | | GG: Correct. | | CC: It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on | him with your gun -- now your hands down -- pointed at him | that he fired. Right? | | GG: Correct. | | Now compare that to what Grosskreutz said to ABC: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oocNVvTHP5M | | ABC: "So here you're allowed to say whatever you feel like | you need to say. So you're saying you weren't pointing your | gun at him? Is that what you're saying?" | | Grosskreutz: "That's absolutely what I'm saying, yes. | | Problems with this: | | * Grosskreutz has a $10M lawsuit against the city over this. | | * Grosskreutz' phone was not searched, despite a signed | search warrant for the same, due to the DA's personal | intervention. Nor was his and only his police interview | recorded. | | * Grosskreutz has an expired CCL, so was not legally | carrying. | | * As a side note, the illegal gun charge against Kyle, | meanwhile, was dropped. Kyle was not carrying a short- | barreled rifle, so Kyle's possession was ruled to be legal | under WI's poorly-written laws. | | * Grosskreutz lied to the police both about having a gun at | all, then later changed his story to dropping it, but was | caught on camera in possession of it the entire time. | | * The police testified that this is the one and only time | they have _ever_ done things that way. | | * Grosskreutz testified that he chose to attack because Kyle | re-racked his gun. However, this does not happen anywhere in | the video of the exchange and no unspent ammo from Kyle's gun | was found. | | * What was found is an unspent round matching Grosskreutz' | glock. | | * This implies that Grosskreutz re-racked his gun at some | point--something he claims is a threat to kill. | | * While that was not seen on camera, this must have happened | while he still had two arms. | | * Grosskreutz' roommate posted on social media that | Grosskreutz regretted not killing Kyle. He later claimed to | have been lying when brought to the stand. | | In short, ABC put on someone who has changed their story | multiple times when confronted with new evidence, who | provably lied to the cops that were investigating a murder, | and who has $10 million reasons to lie about everything. | | This particular exchange has even been fact-checked, so ABC | has little excuse for platforming someone they know or should | have known to be lying without challenging them: | | https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kyle-rittenhouse-gaige- | gro... | | One wonders if this coverage will ever show up with a | "disputed by fact checkers" label on social media? | pwdisswordfish8 wrote: | > * 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 leaping to conclusions--many | of which turned out to be wrong--and repeating them ad | nauseum over the last year _also_ thought _their_ | assumptions about Rittenhouse were reasonable, and (b) as | it turns out, the source of the ejected round is knowable | /known since it was also caught on video (and it wasn't | Grosskreutz doing as you said). | | [I'm not going to actually delve into the details on that, | since as far as I'm concerned 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 and not | straying into the details of the case, which provides us a | vehicle for the discussion but other than that is really | just a tangential third rail.] | Natsu wrote: | 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. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | > Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted on the stand that | Rittenhouse did not fire until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed | directly at Kyle's head | | I've more or less read that fact on NYT though. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse- | gaige... | | > "So when you were standing three to five feet from him with | your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?" Corey | Chirafisi, a defense lawyer, asked. | | > "Correct," Mr. Grosskreutz answered. | | > "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on | him with your gun -- now your hands down, pointed at him -- | that he fired, right?" Mr. Chirafisi said. | | > "Correct," he said. | graton wrote: | CNN also had an article with the same information: | https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial- | mon... | noxer wrote: | The target audience that is fooled does not read more | than headlines especially not thous who already saw the | TV coverage of the topic. | andrepd wrote: | 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... | shiohime wrote: | We live in a society whose narrative is completely and | utterly controlled by megacorporations who create truths that | are convenient for them, or their overall agendas, regardless | of the _actual_ truth. It 's a disgusting world and it's only | going to get worse. We're all pawns to these companies that | are performing social engineering on scales we cannot even | fully comprehend. | nope35467 wrote: | 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 into a killer. | superflit2 wrote: | Well he did the Kenosha Hat trick Shot a wifebeater, a | pedo, and a burglar. | etchalon wrote: | Considering the streams are back up, this seems more like a | failure of automation and reporting tools than a grand | conspiracy. | tauntz wrote: | .. but it's so easy and lazy to just blame "the man" or a big | conspiracy. | thesuitonym wrote: | It's also so easy and lazy to just blame "the algorithm" | than fixing your broken system. | perihelions wrote: | This is inverted moderation: they're penalizing anodyne, | wonkish lawyers' podcasts, while leaving up most of the | nonfactual, inflammatory ragebait. This is the exact opposite | of how every platform professes to moderate. | | The rules-violating stuff must look very impressive for ad | engagement metrics. | thriftwy wrote: | I'm yet to see any moderation system that used content | quality as a criteria. | narrator wrote: | The political power of youtube is way more valuable than any | ad stream. | freejazz wrote: | Pretty sure it was just automatic and based upon the fact | that they are using the same feed, but let's not let reason | get in the way of finding our conclusions when they can just | confirm how we want to feel. | ignoramous wrote: | > _This is exactly the type of thing we dreamed about when we | were first creating the internet_ | | This is one reason why I think P2P tech like peertube will not | only be around longer but even thrive. | poorjohnmacafee wrote: | "Freedom of speech is overrated, I don't agree with it as a | general principle"... It's a minority but the people who | actually say this are just promoting increased government | control of citizenry. Either they are naive or that's what they | want. | laurent92 wrote: | They are delusional. I confronted my father about not being | in favor of basic democratic principles (67, I'm 40), he | maintained he wanted freedom of speech until, after a few | targetted questions from myself, he admitted to having limits | to it. Same for the right to vote, which he defends fiercely, | except for the people who are under influence, foreign or | otherwise. | | Such horrible people maintain a doublespeak even in their own | mind. | | We've lost. We've lost. | poorjohnmacafee wrote: | Well every family member and person I've ever gotten to | know well enough where we talk politics, believe that the | state naturally seeks to increase its power over time, so | that people should be skeptical of the state. As cliche as | it is to bring up, this is what the American founding | fathers talked extensively about. Freedom of speech is the | fundamental way that people can push back when governments | do this, inevitably as they try to, as every state in every | historical period has tried to. | | Again, they're either naive or that's what they want and | should be honest about it. | freejazz wrote: | The founders also were aware that the only freedom of | speech that you have is from the gov't restricting your | speech. | remarkEon wrote: | This is absolutely not at clear cut as you are describing | it. They were well aware that public opinion _generally | understood_ is what is supposed to bound government | action. I don 't have all the Federalist references handy | atm, but it is not the case that they would have said | "meh if a private corporation does it it's okay". As will | all things with those folks it's considerably more | nuanced than that. | yuliyp wrote: | Do you really think your father is a horrible person | because some of the ideas in his head might be wrong, or | come from a different set of values than you? Are all of | your own views self-consistent? Have you ever come to a | conclusion, and later changed your views after thinking | further or getting new evidence, or from discussing them | further? | | I also find myself disagreeing with my father's politics | often. I do compartmentalize it into a judgment of his | political views, not my view on him as a person. | golemotron wrote: | Good practice. It's also good to make note of the | differences you and your father have politically and then | compare then to those of your children (or that age | cohort if you don't have children) when you are your | father's age. What we consider important, and why, change | a lot over our lifetimes. | laurent92 wrote: | Yes, of course. He constantly lies to hide his real | political opinions: He obviously fights for women to | succeed, he favors my sisters every time he can, he's a | staunch feminist, but he doesn't want to lose his son. He | puts a visible fat thumb on the balance in favor of | women, and he's surprised that I point out his fat thumb | resting on the balance. | | It's sad, I'm sad, he's sad, but he keeps doing it, and | doesn't want to discuss it. | | To answer your question, I have often changed my mind in | my life. Precisely because I've always engaged with | opponents, had animated debates, and sometimes | encompassed their point of view. I don't understand how | one can stay stuck _on a demonstrably false information_ | , and be so mean about it that you wouldn't want it | undemonstrated. But I feel like 10-20% of the Gen Z | generation has the same problem dealing with their | parents consuming fake news. | SubiculumCode wrote: | Maybe. Buts its also as likely that this is the result of an | automated copyright take-down notice. | remarkEon wrote: | If I'm re-streaming a public access channel, say PBS, that is | live-streaming a trial and I'm doing commentary on it how | exactly does that trigger an automated copyright take-down | notice? Am I missing something on how public events are | covered under copyright law? (IANAL) | freejazz wrote: | You are missing the fact that automated copyright take-down | systems aren't perfect and are likely designed to learn | towards taking fair things down, and not living infringing | things up. | remarkEon wrote: | I'm not missing anything. If this is automated, you're | telling me they can't put in a rule that says "if public | access, then take-down not apply"? Maybe you're making a | different claim that a network stream (from CBS or | another) is not eligible for re-stream? That I find more | compelling, but then again it also shouldn't be hard to | add another layer to that rule. | randallsquared wrote: | Is all the metadata really in place such that CBS' and | other networks' streams are able to be labeled as sourced | from public access? I don't know, but my assumption is | that it isn't, and that large media companies wouldn't | bother to use it even if it's technically feasible. | | Given the lack of such metadata on the streams which | typically have protected content, the system taking these | down probably just looks at similarity of content to | streams which are proprietary and silences them "to be | safe". | remarkEon wrote: | I think the conclusion I'm drifting toward is thus | "YouTube could make it possible for wonkish commentary on | live public access topics by creators on the platform, | but they don't care enough to do it", which makes sense. | jjk166 wrote: | How exactly would they know that it's public access? | Their algorithms don't understand what content is, it | just recognizes patterns in data, and that one snippet of | video is sufficiently similar to another as to be | considered the same snippet. Putting in a rule to deal | with an edge case is non-trivial, and there are an | infinite number of edge cases. | skinkestek wrote: | They are pretty smart, I guess they could reuse the same | technology they use to not to take down videos with | "correct" views that they agree with? | remarkEon wrote: | You don't have to make the algorithm do it, is what I'm | saying. | adminscoffee wrote: | let's just replace google with a better source. it's bound to | happen when you choose profit over freedom | hintymad wrote: | I wonder how lying for the so-called narratives could possibly | benefit these media in the long run? They don't learn history? | A country that does not care about facts will eventually hurt | everyone, including those righteous journalists. | Miner49er wrote: | So I tuned in out of curiosity. I'm assuming these guys are | biased in favor of the defense? They were just laughing at the | fact that Rosenbaum is dead. | | Or do they just have a dark sense of humor or something? | HideousKojima wrote: | Rosenbaum was literally a convicted child rapist, multiple | witnesses testified that he threatened to kill Kyle if he | caught him alone, and he's on video shouting "SHOOT ME N***A" | repeatedly. So most people aren't feeling much sympathy for | the fact that he died. | belltaco wrote: | 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'. | HideousKojima wrote: | >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 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. | belltaco wrote: | 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. | | It might also be the result of provocation by someone | open carrying around an assault rifle in public, after | traveling from out of state in order to specifically do | that. | afpx wrote: | I didn't even know who the guy was until today. So, I guess | this is what I'm missing by not having television? | xhevahir wrote: | Just looking at the video titles, I'm getting a strong right- | wing vibe. Particularly the ones mentioning Project Veritas. | joenot443 wrote: | It's probably worth doing more than just looking at video | titles before you describe a complex topic as being "right- | wing." | xhevahir wrote: | The topic may be complex, but there's no guarantee that | any given channel on YouTube will do that topic justice. | This channel's fulsome praise for James O'Keefe suggests | to me that they will not. | freejazz wrote: | Hasn't stopped anyone from assuming the worst about | YouTube or "the media' | Karsteski wrote: | And what if they video streams are right wing? What then? | CyberRabbi wrote: | > It's sad. | | In reality, there has never been much tolerance for free | speech. This has been the norm for all of human history. It has | also been the norm that people with non-controversial thoughts | have believed they had freedom of speech. It's only once you | finally happen to have a thought that isn't tolerable by those | in power that you realize there was never any freedom from the | beginning. Is that sad? It's an increase in awareness. The | world is not a happy place. | roenxi wrote: | > I think at this point we can just expect this stuff. | | It'd be interesting to have a poll of the people defending | YouTube back when they started taking a political stance and | see if they think that a line has been crossed somewhere | between there and here, or if this is still the sort of | behaviour they expect from YouTube. | | It seems that YouTube has taken a firm stance against being a | knowledge repository a la Wikipedia or Google Search. | | Although I do want to protest politics by Tweet. There is | nothing here to really discuss; we don't know why, or even if, | YouTube is suppressing commentary of the Rittenhouse trial or | what Rekieta thinks about it. Tweets are too shallow. | judge2020 wrote: | This might be happening because the same feed is available on | YouTube TV, so similar content might be hit by the Content ID | system meant to stop people from restreaming TV on YouTube. | SubiculumCode wrote: | Actually, this HN post was a honey trap to identify its | conspiratorial user-base. lol | [deleted] | _-david-_ wrote: | Is it just me or does it seem like these "accidents" impact | smaller and perhaps less politically authoritative channels than | the big channels? I am not just talking about this incident but | others as well. | rossdavidh wrote: | Well, this is somewhat similar to how it is rare for a large | email provider such as Yahoo, Gmail, etc. to mistakenly label | all content from one of the others as spam, but not uncommon | for them to make that mistake about small email providers. It | doesn't even need to be a conspiracy for that to happen, just a | greater concern for larger providers. | shadowgovt wrote: | I have no direct knowledge of YouTube's configuration, but my | more general knowledge of how Alphabet does business suggests | that high-business-value customers have company-internal | guardians (in sales, advertising, or biz-dev) who are actually | tasked with making sure nothing breaks on their services. I | assume they do the same for high-biz-value channels, so I'd | expect fewer accidents on bigger channels with more opportunity | to make a mess for YT than smaller ones. | oopsyDoodl wrote: | They own all IP, why would they be subject to automated scans? | fault1 wrote: | There is many good reasons to "scan" _all_ content. How about | spam, illegal content, or anything that violates their TOU? | These days if you do not have a litany of algorithms | performing these tasks, the worst case is that you'll end up | like Facebook where genocide occured (in Myanmar) because the | content was not in unicode and the detection systems couldn't | "read" it. | | Like any other site, accounts with less "trust" are probably | going to be flagged by automatic mechanisms. I've been on a | few teams with various companies that have done things like | fraud detection and it almost always works this way. | sometimes there is of course, legitimate false positives. | oopsyDoodl wrote: | That's a good point. scanAll() and | applyAutomatedTakedownAI() would not be applied equally | because of course big corp never pirates | politician wrote: | Dry run for when the verdict is announced. | laurent92 wrote: | I couldn't imagine witnessing this in my life, not for | something so obvious and in plain sight. | | But is it better than 30 years ago or worse? When I hear the | suicides committed upon whistleblowers in France 30 years ago, | or the Ustica crash, or the Greenpeace boat bombed in NZ, are | we committing more today? | rossdavidh wrote: | 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. | bequanna wrote: | 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. | dkdk8283 wrote: | Sad but I think your conjecture is spot on. Platforms such as | YT abuse their power regularly without batting an eye. | sergiotapia wrote: | Can't have people talking freely | 1cvmask wrote: | YouTube is the great digital video censorship platform. My all | time favorite was when they censored an academic conference on | censorship. The HN discussion on it: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26008217 | inChargeOfIT wrote: | How about censoring Dislikes? This is in progress now | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxOuG8jMIgI&t=1s | BitwiseFool wrote: | I _really_ hope this comes back to bite them. I already find | myself not watching as many videos simply because I can 't | gauge the like/dislike ratio on them. In the short term I | expect an explosion in clickbait and low quality videos | because people won't be able to immediately see that the | video is bogus from dislike counts. I suspect people will | tend to retreat into watching the channels they already like | and cut down on consuming recommendations. | | I'm already trying to gauge likes vs watch count as a sloppy | proxy for video quality but it's just not the same. | jturpin wrote: | Yeah it occurred to me that I glance down to see the likes | and dislikes to see how credible some of the how-to videos | I watch are. A lot of them are garbage or dangerous and | that's reflected in the dislike count. Fortunately you can | scrub through maybe the top 30 comments to see if there's | anything off. | systemvoltage wrote: | YouTube is such an awesome thing. The executives want to | destroy it. The content creators and users are pissed off. | | This whole dislike thing fundamentally breaks YT for me. | Completely. I will not waste time watching videos if | they're not worth watching. | | There is a reason why IMDB is a thing. If they remove | ratings, it becomes useless. Ratings are the foundational | aspect of IMDB. | | Google needs a lesson or two and I hope the community | responds in the strongest form of protest. | InitialLastName wrote: | > There is a reason why IMDB is a thing. If they remove | ratings, it becomes useless. Ratings are the foundational | aspect of IMDB. | | Are the ratings why people go to IMDB? I use IMDB as a | database on the internet for movies and TV cast/crew | credits. I almost never look at the ratings for the | things I look up. | thriftwy wrote: | IMDB ratings are solid and often the main reason why | people go to IMDB at all. | | 8: a masterpiece | | 7: enjoyable | | 6: watchable if you like that specific thing | | 5 and lower: oddball | | There are some exceptions for niche movies (may have very | low or very high rating) and for recently aired, | otherwise it's pretty reliable. | nefitty wrote: | I always thought crowd sourced ratings was one of the | killer apps of the internet. That's what makes Airbnb | possible, what made darknet markets successful, what | makes Amazon powerful... | | Throwing away ratings is like going into the woods to | live and throwing away your book on native plant life. I | guess just nibble at whatever looks good, even if it | might be void of nutritional value or poisonous at worst. | gknoy wrote: | I find what you said really interesting, mainly because I | don't think I've _ever_ used likes or dislikes (or their | ratio) as a metric for choosing what to watch. The most | I've interacted with dislikes is when seeing some helpful | low-production-value video, or some artist's music stream, | I've wondered why 1-3% of the viewers disliked it. I mean, | even when I've found _better_ or _more informative_ videos, | I've never been tempted to dislike the previous ones I'd | watched that weren't as good. | oriki wrote: | This. I find that the vast majority of cases where I'd | pay any attention to the dislike bar are just cases where | people are getting dogpiled for whatever reason (whether | they deserve it or not, or if anyone deserves to be | treated like that on the internet, is another matter | entirely) but I've heard reasonable arguments from people | talking about tutorials and other informative videos that | the like:dislike ratio is a convenient sniff test for if | the video is worth watching. | jjoonathan wrote: | Clickbait is bad enough _without_ removing one of the | last few tools left in the arsenal to fight it. | oriki wrote: | I feel like we have different definitions as to what | clickbait is - when I see a clickbait video, I can simply | identify it by it's title and thumbnail, I've never | needed to look at the like:dislike ratio to confirm that | it's clickbait. What kind of videos do you find as | clickbait? | BitwiseFool wrote: | I have a great example that illustrates my use of | likes/dislikes as a filter. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRCSX-u01eM | | The video is titled: _" Boeing C-17 Globemaster Jet Crash | All Hell breaks loose"_. It has 2,302,640 views and I | took a screenshot of the like/dislike metrics before the | change took place. 1.6K Upvoted, 21K Downvoted. | | The spoiler is that the plane taking off never actually | crashes. It just looks like it will because of the camera | angle. The uploader wrote "I made this video to start a | conversation and it has certainly started a conversation | ..." but has disabled comments. The video is a complete | and total lie and the ratio reflected that. Without | comments, you have nothing else to warn you about the | video. From now on, you will have to rely on the fact | that a video viewed two million times only has one and a | half thousand likes as a proxy. | | Granted, I know some videos are prone to have bad-looking | ratios because they are discussing contentious topics. I | give those a wide berth and don't immediately dismiss | them because they have a 60-40 like dislike ratio. | jjoonathan wrote: | Dislikes indicate politics, clickbait, or unhelpfulness. | Politics is obvious, but clickbait and unhelpfulness can | waste a lot of your time before becoming obvious. | Dislikes help combat this. | klyrs wrote: | That's _their_ data that they 're choosing not to disclose. | That is _not_ censorship. Analogously, if somebody asks for | your name and you don 't mention your middle name, that is | also not censorship. | | HN only shows max(upvotes-downvotes, -4) to the original | commenter. Censorship? | Trumpi wrote: | > That's their data that they're choosing not to disclose. | | And newspapers own the copyright on everything they print, | even falsehoods. | | What's important is the reason why they are doing it, not | whether they have the right, because we all agree that they | have the right to do it, but we are not all happy. | shiohime wrote: | imo it's censorship to the degree that seeing a ratio does | explicitly or implicitly set a specific context to a video. | For example, say we have a government published video for | an initiative that is incredibly unpopular. However, by | masking the actual dissent, all you see is one side of the | equation, not allowing you as a citizen to easily see how | contentious / controversial something that could directly | affect your life really is. It's all about controlling | dissent imo, there's no real reason to hide this otherwise. | | As such, yeah HN does only show up/downvote ratios like you | are claiming. However, the scale is completely different | between here and YT, which is a primary source of | information for many people nowadays. | | Edit - To further elaborate, with the same example, imagine | that not only is the dislike ratio masking the actual | dissent, but other companies and platforms are | collaborating on a truth, and discussion to the contrary | cannot be discussed on their platform. This is what is | literally happening, you have to be blind to not see it at | this point. Government published videos are having their | ratios hidden, anything that is counter to the decided | narrative is being automatically flagged by AIs on | FB/Twitter to throw "warnings" up. This is the nature of | the current web right now and you really should acknowledge | the tightening of the grip that these companies are doing | over the years. | irae wrote: | It could be argued as censorship only if they have it | enabled on the whole platform and on the hypothetical | video you mentioned it decides to turn off for whatever | reason. Censorship is against an individual or a target | group. | | Since they analyzed the platform as a whole and decided | there are more harm than good in dislikes, and they are | applying globally (allowing for a transition period), it | is just how they decided the feature set to behave. You | can't call it censorship if it applies to 100% of people | and content without exception. | klyrs wrote: | I mean, that's definitely your opinion, but this doesn't | match any definition of censorship I'm aware of -- it | sounds like you want _compelled disclosure_. It 's a | single statistic that YT collects per video. YT also has | location data for the dissenters. Is it censorship that | they aren't showing a country-by-country breakdown of | where the dislikes are coming from? Is it censorship that | they aren't showing a town-by-town breakdown of where the | dislikes are coming from? Is it censorship that they | aren't showing the IP address of each dissenter? | | Clearly, that got ridiculous. But, what I'm curious about | is if there's an underlying principal in your mind here. | Because what you appear to be suggesting is a regulation | compelling not only disclosure of internal statistics, | but specifically how fine-grain those internal statistics | are allowed to be? And, for example, what about twitter? | They don't have a dislike button -- do you think they | should be compelled to implement one? Since your focus | seems to be on where people are getting their news, do | you think that news sites (above a certain popularity?) | should be compelled to implement dislikes on their own | content, or only user-submitted comments? | shiohime wrote: | I guess, the underlying principal in my mind is around | the intent of why they are removing such a feature, when | it has very valid uses even as a consumer of content. I | understand some of the issues with the upvote/downvote | concept in terms of targetted ratio campaigns, however, I | think it is censorship if they are removing this | information for the intent of social engineering, which I | think that they are. I know I'm mostly speaking on gut | here, and I could be wrong as to the motivators behind | this change. | | It's just that it is a very unique situation. We're at a | stage where YT is one of the most important platforms on | the current web, it's incredibly centralized, and at the | end of the day it is up to the whims of Alphabet execs on | how they want information published on their platform. | | So maybe it's not exactly "censorship" in the standard | definition. However, there is functionality that exists | and has existed in the product since inception (when it | was a rating system instead of voting). You have _always_ | been able to see how unpopular a video really is. Taking | this away is an alarm to me, especially in today 's | environment. | | I apologize if it's a bit hard for me to explain my | reasoning here, but it just truly unsettles me. | serverholic wrote: | This is why decentralization is so important. Peertube, IPFS, | cryptocurrency, bittorrent, etc. and really web3 in general are | trying to move us in that direction. | | Part of the problem is that people have been told that there is | such a thing as a free lunch. Yet YouTube censorship is a great | example of where that leads us. | nefitty wrote: | In this context, web3 looks more attractive. Too bad its | formative moments are being steered by scammers selling jpegs | of stick figure drawings. | 28uwedj wrote: | Nothing is stopping them from just making a live commentary of | them with no video, you just load it in the background. | skinkestek wrote: | It is pretty amazing isn't it? | | Fun to work at Google these days? Get to manipulate the crowds | big time? | | Edit: at least you have now gotten me to watch it. Seriously | interesting. Good thing the kid has gotten a good lawyer. | furgooswft13 wrote: | Remember when Google employees made a big stink about Project | Dragonfly (censored search for China) and got it "cancelled"? | Pepperidge Farm does. | | Now just wait a few days for a wild "whistleblower" to appear | claiming Google coulda censored shit _even sooner_. | GenerocUsername wrote: | "Manipulating crowds at scale is what we do" | | "I wouldn't even know how to manipulate just 1 person... unless | I am manipulating thousands of people, its just not worth my | time as a engineer at Google." | | "Its not evil if it encourages people to think correctly about | issues" | rPlayer6554 wrote: | I don't think Google could manipulate only one person. They | can't count that low! | foxhop wrote: | This is why we must reject big tech's monopoly on moderation. | | I wrote this essay here which you should read next: | | https://www.remarkbox.com/remarkbox-is-now-pay-what-you-can.... | butmuh wrote: | just in time for the removal of dislikes too.. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-15 23:00 UTC)