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.
I think this depends on how you consider a "conspiracy" to be organized. If a conspiracy is a bunch of humans making explicit decisions about each of these incidents, it's laughable.
However, if the "conspiracy" is in fact a bunch of automated tools created by a bunch of humans who all have similar biases in the same ideological direction (biases which happen to be ascendant on elite college campuses and/or in the Bay Area), then this is a fairly reasonable belief.
When an incident like this happens, the outcry is great enough that the humans, who are themselves still human and capable of compassion, can reinstate accounts and override the automated system. But how many "failures" such as this occur where the affected parties simply have no recourse because they don't have the privilege of 60k simultaneous streamers watching?
Intent matters. It's not like the secret Bay Area college elite cabal all sat down one day and one of their secret meetings and decided to write
if streamer.is_black() or streamer.is_woman():
streamer.suspend()
into the algorithm. That's an irrational belief. But because of our racist past, present, and future, when mysterious ML models come into play, it's entirely possible for that to happen, and frequently. But unless you believe the above code exists somewhere and was written by a human, it's a bit much to call that a conspiracy. Which is probably why it's written in quotes.
Thus, the problem to raise isn't that parties with no recourse might be silenced. That's absolutely an issue, but clearly the mere argument hasn't gotten YouTube to sufficiently change their ways. That's because that conspiracy doesn't exist. The argument to make is that it degrades YouTube's content as a whole. There are a number of other Internet video hosting platforms, most recently TikTok, and it behooves YouTube to spend more time adjusting their algorithms simply because content creators are going to create a little something with the hope to go viral, then get their content taken down, and then move to another platform, rather than say anything about it to more than a couple of real life friends. TikTok's ascendancy (and Vine before it) proves that YouTube's dominance is not assured. The right winds of change could result in YouTube to be displaced, and YouTube's "algorithm" being incorrect too frequently with takedowns is sure to play a role.
>However, if the "conspiracy" is in fact a bunch of automated tools created by a bunch of humans who all have similar biases in the same ideological direction (biases which happen to be ascendant on elite college campuses and/or in the Bay Area), then this is a fairly reasonable belief.
The conspiracy theorists just don't know about bad automated decisions made in the other direction because it's suppressed in their echo chamber.
While I agree with your guess of "failure of automated tools", the streams being back up is only partially helpful; much of the damage is done, and it will further polarization because more people now feel persecuted.
> While I agree with your guess of "failure of automated tools", the streams being back up is only partially helpful; much of the damage is done, and it will further polarization because more people now feel persecuted.
If people react to a glitch that way, I'd argue that the damage had been done before the glitch.
I think corporations have to deal with the issue that their content control is seen as a conspiracy to be honest. Might not be objective, but it is a problem of their own making.
>a discussion about the grand conspiracy to censor instead of the repeated failure of automated tools
i wonder whether Google/etc have already done A/B testing on how frequently and how visibly they need to have "repeated failure of automated tools" for the populace to get used to that idea instead of censorship.
It's very sad to see how people blame and thrash services like youtube instead of respecting the fact that all of it is provided absolutely free of cost.
>It's very sad to see how people blame and thrash services like youtube instead of respecting the fact that all of it is provided absolutely free of cost.
It is absolutely not free of cost. Google wouldn't be able to sustain if they were not receiving anything in return.
In this exchange, however, you don't know the value you're contributing; there is no clear value exchange: "I'll give you $x.xx for use of such-n-such." Instead you're expected to believe that what they provide you is fair for the value you provide them.
Youtube gets their content free of costs and sometimes they ban that content like these live streams. I think banning something is a pretty decisive form of criticism.
Providing something for free (even if in this case, you do pay in many ways) is not a shield from criticism. You can't compare a free service to no service but instead have to compare it to the possible alternative reality where that particular free service does not exist. This is distinction is especially important for areas where network effects effectively prevent any alternatives from gaining traction.
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.
His funding campaigns were stopped, you cannot find his name on certain social media sites. I don't care if is a grand conspiracy or a group of fools responsible for this. The result is the same and needs to be addressed without you trying to paint this as unreasonable.
That is almost certainly what happened. Google's systems are lazy and automatic, reading into it further is trying to create patterns where none exist. Chances are he got mass reported for whatever dumb thing, valid or not, and Google's system tripped without any human review. This after all is the same company and system that banned influential YouTubers for impersonating themselves, after all.
The fact that there is a faceless algorithm which has seemingly been programmed specifically to remove content which fails to align with a specific political narrative, and that no human is in active control of this, is actually worse.
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?
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.
I have followed them for the last couple of weeks, and there is a good reason for that.
The prosecution has beyond ridiculous arguments time and again over the last 2 weeks. The lawyers all started out really civil, and some of the violations (especially the 5th amendment one that even got the Judge angry) began to make then exasperated.
Combine that with the general silence of the defense, and by now they are all pretty angry at how much of a mess this is.
A lot of ridiculous arguments were brought up by the jury about Rosenbaum, to the point that internal jokes have started emerging surrounding the death of Rosenbaum. Most serve to ridicule the prosecution, rather than Rosenbaum himself.
Lastly, They you are in profession where every time you're in court, some has died. You develop a cruel sense of humor to cope. Very common for victims of abuse or military to have similar coping mechanisms. It seems bizarre from a civilian's POV, but that's just our privilege.
The prosecution kinda rushed to charge the kid before the lions share of the evidence was even collected. Of course a bunch of defense lawyers are gonna root against that.
It seems to be the literal definition of the peanut gallery. They keep shouting "object" like they are in the court room.
You would think the kinda profession that puts "I'm not your lawyer" at the top of their blog post would know better than to run the equivalent of a Twitch react stream. If this is the grand future the grandparent had in mind, I want no part of it.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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!)
> 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.
> “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.
Also compare Grosskreutz's testimony to his statements to various news networks this past week, where he repeatedly contradicted his own sworn testimony.
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.
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.
> 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 simple 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.
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...
> "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced at him with your gun ... that he fired," Chirafisi said.
"Right," Grosskreutz responded.
I always find it funny how 99% of the time when people claim "the mainstream media is too biased to cover this", if you look at the corresponding article it is 100% covered.
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:
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:
>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
You mean Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head. Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them.
Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing "the mainstream media" of lying by omission.
edit: this is obviously a complicated case, but arguing whether his later shooting was in self-defense only serves to obfuscates the fact that this is a young man who brought a semi-automatic rifle to a protest, murdered an unarmed man, and then killed another before the shooting in question took place.
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.
The other frustrating assertion is that this is all perpetuated to drive outrage because supposedly outrage gives rise to more ad sales. That might be strictly true, but that's not the point.
The point is to control the dissemination of and characterization of information. Corporate press is already owned and operated by the ultra-wealthy. This is not how they make their money. This is how they mold society to work in the ways they want.
The more those without look to media for information and answers, the more they can be manipulated and taken advantage of. It is rare to find fact-based reporters and unfortunately many people are too far gone to appreciate it when they do exist.
Kids are often brainwashed from a very early age and many thoughts and opinions are just what they have grown to believe based on the media they consumed and those around them watched and believe.
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.
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.
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...").
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.
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?
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.
"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"
Readit News
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.
However, if the "conspiracy" is in fact a bunch of automated tools created by a bunch of humans who all have similar biases in the same ideological direction (biases which happen to be ascendant on elite college campuses and/or in the Bay Area), then this is a fairly reasonable belief.
When an incident like this happens, the outcry is great enough that the humans, who are themselves still human and capable of compassion, can reinstate accounts and override the automated system. But how many "failures" such as this occur where the affected parties simply have no recourse because they don't have the privilege of 60k simultaneous streamers watching?
Thus, the problem to raise isn't that parties with no recourse might be silenced. That's absolutely an issue, but clearly the mere argument hasn't gotten YouTube to sufficiently change their ways. That's because that conspiracy doesn't exist. The argument to make is that it degrades YouTube's content as a whole. There are a number of other Internet video hosting platforms, most recently TikTok, and it behooves YouTube to spend more time adjusting their algorithms simply because content creators are going to create a little something with the hope to go viral, then get their content taken down, and then move to another platform, rather than say anything about it to more than a couple of real life friends. TikTok's ascendancy (and Vine before it) proves that YouTube's dominance is not assured. The right winds of change could result in YouTube to be displaced, and YouTube's "algorithm" being incorrect too frequently with takedowns is sure to play a role.
The conspiracy theorists just don't know about bad automated decisions made in the other direction because it's suppressed in their echo chamber.
If people react to a glitch that way, I'd argue that the damage had been done before the glitch.
i wonder whether Google/etc have already done A/B testing on how frequently and how visibly they need to have "repeated failure of automated tools" for the populace to get used to that idea instead of censorship.
Dead Comment
It is absolutely not free of cost. Google wouldn't be able to sustain if they were not receiving anything in return.
In this exchange, however, you don't know the value you're contributing; there is no clear value exchange: "I'll give you $x.xx for use of such-n-such." Instead you're expected to believe that what they provide you is fair for the value you provide them.
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.
Or do they just have a dark sense of humor or something?
The prosecution has beyond ridiculous arguments time and again over the last 2 weeks. The lawyers all started out really civil, and some of the violations (especially the 5th amendment one that even got the Judge angry) began to make then exasperated.
Combine that with the general silence of the defense, and by now they are all pretty angry at how much of a mess this is.
A lot of ridiculous arguments were brought up by the jury about Rosenbaum, to the point that internal jokes have started emerging surrounding the death of Rosenbaum. Most serve to ridicule the prosecution, rather than Rosenbaum himself.
Lastly, They you are in profession where every time you're in court, some has died. You develop a cruel sense of humor to cope. Very common for victims of abuse or military to have similar coping mechanisms. It seems bizarre from a civilian's POV, but that's just our privilege.
Dead Comment
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, remember this one? "The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." How far we have come...
Such horrible people maintain a doublespeak even in their own mind.
We’ve lost. We’ve lost.
This is one reason why I think P2P tech like peertube will not only be around longer but even thrive.
Deleted Comment
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.
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.
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.
Just keep people divided? Get more viewers who are "outraged"?
Dystopic
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 simple 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.
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...
> "It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced at him with your gun ... that he fired," Chirafisi said. "Right," Grosskreutz responded.
I always find it funny how 99% of the time when people claim "the mainstream media is too biased to cover this", if you look at the corresponding article it is 100% covered.
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?
You mean Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed directly at Kyle's head. Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them.
Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing "the mainstream media" of lying by omission.
edit: this is obviously a complicated case, but arguing whether his later shooting was in self-defense only serves to obfuscates the fact that this is a young man who brought a semi-automatic rifle to a protest, murdered an unarmed man, and then killed another before the shooting in question took place.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
The point is to control the dissemination of and characterization of information. Corporate press is already owned and operated by the ultra-wealthy. This is not how they make their money. This is how they mold society to work in the ways they want.
Kids are often brainwashed from a very early age and many thoughts and opinions are just what they have grown to believe based on the media they consumed and those around them watched and believe.
Dead Comment
The rules-violating stuff must look very impressive for ad engagement metrics.
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.
[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.
Deleted Comment
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?
One solution: Open, transparent justice and cities enforce laws for rioters instead of letting them throw city burning temper tantrums.
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.
"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"
Now just wait a few days for a wild "whistleblower" to appear claiming Google coulda censored shit _even sooner_.