28 ms·

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.co

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 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.

encryptluks2 5y ago
Fantastic in that they frequently promote JackPosobiec? Even on their Twitter you can see that they retweeting #PizzaGate supporters. I can't tell you how many times they mocked one of the prosecutors for their weight. I actually do think this is a clear case of self-defense, but if you have to make fun of someone for their weight then you prob don't have a very good point.
NoPie 5y ago
It is strange to see all submissions about Kyle Rittenhouse here disappear very quickly. I just thought that if more or less randomly selected 12 jury members agreed that he was innocent then what most people really think and what the media portraits it to be are very different things.
caeril 5y ago
> 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.
- Natsu 5y ago
  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/290695292964306948/908751355911471154/unknown.png 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 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-grosskreutz/ 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?
poorjohnmacafee 5y ago
"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 5y ago
  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.
  - yuliyp 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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 5y ago
      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.
Miner49er 5y ago
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?
- xhevahir 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - zthrowaway 5y ago
    Spooooky! Run away from the boogeyman.
  - joenot443 5y ago
    It's probably worth doing more than just looking at video titles before you describe a complex topic as being "right-wing."
    - freejazz 5y ago
      Hasn't stopped anyone from assuming the worst about YouTube or "the media'
    - xhevahir 5y ago
      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.
      - joenot443 5y ago
        It's possible for a source to praise someone you disagree with without needing to dismiss that source entirely. Plenty of channels give fulsome praise to controversial figures like Shaun King or Rachel Maddow but that wouldn't stop me from hearing out what they have to say.
  - Karsteski 5y ago
CyberRabbi 5y ago
> 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.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  It isn't unexpected perhaps, but still disappointing. Many want to turn times back to carefully curated content. That isn't even a senseless wish when people of all ages use the internet, but that is a parenting issue and not solvable by censorship.
- foxhop 5y ago
  The world is a happy place, we need to limit the collectives sad and bad times. It's easier said than done. We will rebuild and the freedom of speech will be amplified in the years to come. Truth, Freedom, and Love.
- Fnoord 5y ago
  The world is as happy as you project it to be. Freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to spout anything without repercussion. Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance). I'd like to believe we have more freedom of speech nowadays than 100 years ago when society was more hierarchical. However... every fart you make gets recorded and if zoomed in on, it gets reprimanded to the point where a cardinal Richelieu would be able to get the subject hanging. With regards of multi-culture and tolerance: certain behaviour is not accepted, and if ghat does not get assimilated the main culture become more racist to the subculture. Subcultures are free to maintain a part of their identity, its how certsin customs got into other society after war etc.
  - Jensson 5y ago
    > Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance). Popper said we should tolerate the intolerant as far as possible. His statement mostly related to when the intolerant starts to get physical or other real actions, not people just talking, he wouldn't agree with this modern interpretation of his words: "don't let intolerant people speak, shut them up!". He was very much in favor of conversations, so a platform where tolerant and intolerant people can meet and discuss is exactly what he would have wanted.
etchalon 5y ago
Considering the streams are back up, this seems more like a failure of automation and reporting tools than a grand conspiracy.
- cdolan 5y ago
  For how long will we excuse this kind of activity with "oops automation"?
- tauntz 5y ago
  .. but it's so easy and lazy to just blame "the man" or a big conspiracy.
  - thesuitonym 5y ago
    It's also so easy and lazy to just blame "the algorithm" than fixing your broken system.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  It is always the algorithm to blame, never the people who wrote it, audited it, etc.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    What do you expect? It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube, if it's not an intentional effort then I fail to see what the big deal is.
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      > It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube Well there is; you don't put takedowns in the hands of an algorithm. Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law.
      - 5y ago
hintymad 5y ago
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.
- gnarbarian 5y ago
  people forget very quickly. it's extremely depressing.
SubiculumCode 5y ago
Maybe. Buts its also as likely that this is the result of an automated copyright take-down notice.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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 5y ago
        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".
roenxi 5y ago
> 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.
- usui 5y ago
  Google Search? A knowledge repository? Literally day-by-day it becomes near impossible to find the knowledge you want by a fresh concoction of being flooded by paid-for links, incorrect web scraping/SEO spam, or downright scrubbed from the web.
adminscoffee 5y ago
let's just replace google with a better source. it's bound to happen when you choose profit over freedom
- Fnoord 5y ago
  The latter of which seems to be bound to happen to any publicly owned company. They capitalize on network effect and market share ie. popularity. And the irony is that this very website tries to accelerate such (in the form of a unicorn!)
ignoramous 5y ago
> 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.
- Fnoord 5y ago
  Yes, and Mastodon, and and (I know there's many more). Thing is, it will probably fracture at some point (look at how Mastodon split over (AFAIK?) Hentai), and then the mainstream is still Twitter/Facebook/YouTube etc. The alternative media needs to have enough legal and non-lunatic content. If say 99% of Bitcoin transactions are proven crime related (drugs, murder, etc) that's an argument to make Bitcoin illegal. But nobody's gonna argue to make roads or postal service illegal because these are also used for legal purposes. Massively, if I might add. In this context I remember Freenet, some Java P2P network and predecessor of Tor. One of the problems on it was that certain nefarious (disgusting) content was popular on it, and one of the main devs in an interview suggested that people should popularize other content instead. But therein lies the conundrum: such can be abused to obfuscate the bad actor/content. Its the same reason the US Navy wanted Tor to be used by others than them alone. What use is a piece of anonymity software if its obvious only one government department in the world uses it? None. Meanwhile, if you can roll X out for say a target group you find interesting, perhaps its easier to monitor. If you want to infiltrate say BLM for an information position in closed communities, and BLM is mostly on Mastodon (I don't know; its hypothetical), then at least the protocol is going to be obvious. Media like Twitter/Facebook/YouTube allow one to blend in, and have a large potential group of viewers. My point being, mainstream/status quo nor alternative/exclusive is a panacea. Each has their pros and cons, depending on where your focus/morals lie.
panny 5y ago
>This is exactly the type of thing we dreamed about when we were first creating the internet. Yeah, remember this one? "The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." How far we have come...
- foxhop 5y ago
  Yes I remember this one! Information wants to be free.
formerly_proven 5y ago
Honestly I'm surprised how closely the scenes here match typical movie trials, though I understand that it's unusual for the jury to be removed from the courtroom during closing arguments because the state's attorney makes a mistake. And then get removed again literally 10 seconds later because the state's attorney does the same thing again.
- LogonType10 5y ago
  What were the mistakes?
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    Started to talk about things not in evidence in his rebuttal, then did it again approximately 3.4 parsecs after the jury came back and sat down again so they had to get up and leave again after the judge stopped the prosecutor again. Overall the rebuttal was poorly delivered, very unconvincing and the prosecutor even accidentally managed to argue in favor of the defense a few times. I've seen more logically cohesive talks in fifth grade.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
flenserboy 5y ago
I'd put a dollar on that particular stream being what caused this. They have been savage.

encryptluks2 5y ago

Fantastic in that they frequently promote JackPosobiec? Even on their Twitter you can see that they retweeting #PizzaGate supporters. I can't tell you how many times they mocked one of the prosecutors for their weight. I actually do think this is a clear case of self-defense, but if you have to make fun of someone for their weight then you prob don't have a very good point.

NoPie 5y ago

It is strange to see all submissions about Kyle Rittenhouse here disappear very quickly. I just thought that if more or less randomly selected 12 jury members agreed that he was innocent then what most people really think and what the media portraits it to be are very different things.

caeril 5y ago

> 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.

Natsu 5y ago
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/290695292964306948/908751355911471154/unknown.png 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 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-grosskreutz/ 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?

poorjohnmacafee 5y ago

"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 5y ago
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.
- yuliyp 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
    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.

Miner49er 5y ago

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?

xhevahir 5y ago
[flagged]
- zthrowaway 5y ago
  Spooooky! Run away from the boogeyman.
- joenot443 5y ago
  It's probably worth doing more than just looking at video titles before you describe a complex topic as being "right-wing."
  - freejazz 5y ago
    Hasn't stopped anyone from assuming the worst about YouTube or "the media'
  - xhevahir 5y ago
    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.
    - joenot443 5y ago
      It's possible for a source to praise someone you disagree with without needing to dismiss that source entirely. Plenty of channels give fulsome praise to controversial figures like Shaun King or Rachel Maddow but that wouldn't stop me from hearing out what they have to say.
- Karsteski 5y ago

CyberRabbi 5y ago

> 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.

raxxorrax 5y ago
It isn't unexpected perhaps, but still disappointing. Many want to turn times back to carefully curated content. That isn't even a senseless wish when people of all ages use the internet, but that is a parenting issue and not solvable by censorship.
foxhop 5y ago
The world is a happy place, we need to limit the collectives sad and bad times. It's easier said than done. We will rebuild and the freedom of speech will be amplified in the years to come. Truth, Freedom, and Love.
Fnoord 5y ago
The world is as happy as you project it to be. Freedom of speech is not the same as the freedom to spout anything without repercussion. Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance). I'd like to believe we have more freedom of speech nowadays than 100 years ago when society was more hierarchical. However... every fart you make gets recorded and if zoomed in on, it gets reprimanded to the point where a cardinal Richelieu would be able to get the subject hanging. With regards of multi-culture and tolerance: certain behaviour is not accepted, and if ghat does not get assimilated the main culture become more racist to the subculture. Subcultures are free to maintain a part of their identity, its how certsin customs got into other society after war etc.
- Jensson 5y ago
  > Nor do we have to tolerate the intolerant (reference: Karl Popper, free speech and the paradox of tolerance). Popper said we should tolerate the intolerant as far as possible. His statement mostly related to when the intolerant starts to get physical or other real actions, not people just talking, he wouldn't agree with this modern interpretation of his words: "don't let intolerant people speak, shut them up!". He was very much in favor of conversations, so a platform where tolerant and intolerant people can meet and discuss is exactly what he would have wanted.

etchalon 5y ago

Considering the streams are back up, this seems more like a failure of automation and reporting tools than a grand conspiracy.

cdolan 5y ago
For how long will we excuse this kind of activity with "oops automation"?
tauntz 5y ago
.. but it's so easy and lazy to just blame "the man" or a big conspiracy.
- thesuitonym 5y ago
  It's also so easy and lazy to just blame "the algorithm" than fixing your broken system.
_-david-_ 5y ago
It is always the algorithm to blame, never the people who wrote it, audited it, etc.
- root_axis 5y ago
  What do you expect? It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube, if it's not an intentional effort then I fail to see what the big deal is.
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    > It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube Well there is; you don't put takedowns in the hands of an algorithm. Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law.
    - 5y ago

hintymad 5y ago

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.

gnarbarian 5y ago
people forget very quickly. it's extremely depressing.

SubiculumCode 5y ago

Maybe. Buts its also as likely that this is the result of an automated copyright take-down notice.

remarkEon 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      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".

roenxi 5y ago

> 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.

usui 5y ago
Google Search? A knowledge repository? Literally day-by-day it becomes near impossible to find the knowledge you want by a fresh concoction of being flooded by paid-for links, incorrect web scraping/SEO spam, or downright scrubbed from the web.

adminscoffee 5y ago

let's just replace google with a better source. it's bound to happen when you choose profit over freedom

Fnoord 5y ago
The latter of which seems to be bound to happen to any publicly owned company. They capitalize on network effect and market share ie. popularity. And the irony is that this very website tries to accelerate such (in the form of a unicorn!)

ignoramous 5y ago

> 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.

Fnoord 5y ago
Yes, and Mastodon, and and (I know there's many more). Thing is, it will probably fracture at some point (look at how Mastodon split over (AFAIK?) Hentai), and then the mainstream is still Twitter/Facebook/YouTube etc. The alternative media needs to have enough legal and non-lunatic content. If say 99% of Bitcoin transactions are proven crime related (drugs, murder, etc) that's an argument to make Bitcoin illegal. But nobody's gonna argue to make roads or postal service illegal because these are also used for legal purposes. Massively, if I might add. In this context I remember Freenet, some Java P2P network and predecessor of Tor. One of the problems on it was that certain nefarious (disgusting) content was popular on it, and one of the main devs in an interview suggested that people should popularize other content instead. But therein lies the conundrum: such can be abused to obfuscate the bad actor/content. Its the same reason the US Navy wanted Tor to be used by others than them alone. What use is a piece of anonymity software if its obvious only one government department in the world uses it? None. Meanwhile, if you can roll X out for say a target group you find interesting, perhaps its easier to monitor. If you want to infiltrate say BLM for an information position in closed communities, and BLM is mostly on Mastodon (I don't know; its hypothetical), then at least the protocol is going to be obvious. Media like Twitter/Facebook/YouTube allow one to blend in, and have a large potential group of viewers. My point being, mainstream/status quo nor alternative/exclusive is a panacea. Each has their pros and cons, depending on where your focus/morals lie.

panny 5y ago

>This is exactly the type of thing we dreamed about when we were first creating the internet. Yeah, remember this one? "The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." How far we have come...

foxhop 5y ago
Yes I remember this one! Information wants to be free.

formerly_proven 5y ago

Honestly I'm surprised how closely the scenes here match typical movie trials, though I understand that it's unusual for the jury to be removed from the courtroom during closing arguments because the state's attorney makes a mistake. And then get removed again literally 10 seconds later because the state's attorney does the same thing again.

LogonType10 5y ago
What were the mistakes?
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Started to talk about things not in evidence in his rebuttal, then did it again approximately 3.4 parsecs after the jury came back and sat down again so they had to get up and leave again after the judge stopped the prosecutor again. Overall the rebuttal was poorly delivered, very unconvincing and the prosecutor even accidentally managed to argue in favor of the defense a few times. I've seen more logically cohesive talks in fifth grade.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

flenserboy 5y ago

I'd put a dollar on that particular stream being what caused this. They have been savage.