[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)