Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
YouTube takes down independent court livestreams (twitter.com/returnoftheflex)
554 points by crocodiletears 73 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 608 comments



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.


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.


Basically. The vocal right and vocal left are both convinced that big tech is biased against them and in favor of the other, when in reality, they're mostly biased against controversy which would hurt them with advertisers.


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.


> If people react to a glitch that way, I'd argue that the damage had been done before the glitch.

True, a few years ago I had clearly cut them slack and today I feel like a jackass for being so naive about it back then.

It is not irreparable I think, and I don't think of Google as a comic supervillain, on fact in some ways they are way better than everyone else.

I do not however cut them any slack anymore like I used to.


Lacking trust isn't really damage. The "glitch" that can suppress information and live streams that effectively warrants suspicion in my opinion. You simply have to believe Youtube here. Why did it match the content? Certainly because someone fed it with parameters.


I hope you - and every other HN reader - realizes that "normal people" don't realize most of the shit running this whole grand experiment we call the Internet, and especially social media, relies extensively upon automation.

A lot of "normies" think there's someone actively at a computer, doing all this stuff.


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.


> Streams are back up just in time for the closing arguments


The internet is becoming a more paranoid place by the day.


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.


Not from me they don't. If they stopped paying me, I would stop creating content. The same is true for every other successful YouTuber I know who is out there creating high-quality content.


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.


Whenever something is given free of cost to you, you are the product. Not the other way around.


I'm quite sure that I'm actually paying for YouTube.


I wonder what the average family YouTube bill would be if Google charged AWS egress fees...


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.


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


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.


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


yes just like the automation failure that removed his GoFundMe legal defense campaigns.


And the automation failure that doxxed someone who donated to his campaign and got that person fired from their job.


I literally just searched Rittenhouse on Facebook.


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

Still broken for "kyle rittenhouse" however.


More than likely whatever limiter was put in place hasn't been handled cleared yet. Facebook has a bunch of "safety" systems to stop abuse.

Like, say, a bunch of people searching for a single person's name, finding people named that, and harassing them.


It is always the algorithm to blame, never the people who wrote it, audited it, etc.


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


> It's not possible to write an algorithm that will not have misfires at the scale of YouTube

Well there is; you don't put takedowns in the hands of an algorithm. Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law.


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


> Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law.

Why?


It's an adversarial proceeding where both sides get to present their case and a takedown has to be for a violation of a law that complies with the First Amendment.

Notice that this is different than what you promote. Search results are sorted by an algorithm; that's unavoidable and excessively simple algorithms like "alphabetical order" are useless. And then it's a hard problem, to which the best solution is probably multiple independent search engines with different algorithms.

But removing the thing whatsoever? Court order or GTFO.


> It's an adversarial proceeding where both sides get to present their case and a takedown has to be for a violation of a law that complies with the First Amendment.

Why should this be the standard by which YouTube can remove videos? Why shouldn't they be legally allowed to remove content via algorithms even if it creates a bad user experience?


Because they're de facto not just a public space but a vital part of the public discourse. Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people.


> de facto not just a public space

Could you explain what you mean by "public space"?

> vital part of the public discourse

I don't agree. In my view, YouTube is one of the lowest forms of public discourse, its fundamental purpose is to generate ad revenue and the nature of the content hosted there reflects this pernicious incentive. Yes, YouTube does have some great things on it, but it's just one tiny facet of "the public discourse".

> Court-like processes are the appropriate standard for decisions about the use of something that affects so many people.

Can you quantify "affects" and "so many people"? YouTube is mostly an entertainment triviality, even (especially) in the realm of politics, I don't see how videos being removed from the site is important.


> In my view, YouTube is one of the lowest forms of public discourse, its fundamental purpose is to generate ad revenue and the nature of the content hosted there reflects this pernicious incentive.

You could say the same for all media. Television is advertising-driven, radio is advertising-driven, even the most respectable of literary magazines is advertising-driven. Most content is pandering to someone or other.

> Can you quantify "affects" and "so many people"? YouTube is mostly an entertainment triviality, even (especially) in the realm of politics

Again, you could (and many would) say the same for television or what have you. It would still be corrosive to society if a single entity controlled the majority of television, or the majority of radio, or... - and that's much the situation that YouTube is in.


> You could say the same for all media. Television is advertising-driven, radio is advertising-driven, even the most respectable of literary magazines is advertising-driven. Most content is pandering to someone or other.

I don't necessarily disagree, but what's your point?

> It would still be corrosive to society if a single entity controlled the majority of television, or the majority of radio, or... - and that's much the situation that YouTube is in.

This is already the case. Additionally, I don't think you've demonstrated that YouTube's video moderation policy is "corrosive to society"


You can refuse to remove content without a court order even if you're legally allowed to remove it without one. Why should they choose to create a bad user experience by removing content via algorithms? They could just not.


> Why should they choose to create a bad user experience by removing content via algorithms

Removing obscene, explicit, and even illegal content is only practical at YouTube's scale using algorithms, the idea that they should just abandon algorithmic removal of videos entirely is not a realistic suggestion.


Is it only possible using algorithms or is it just more profitable using algorithms?


Both. Yet, even if it were only motivated by profit, YouTube is an ad delivery business, its only purpose is profit.


>> Ideally you put them in the hands of a court of law.

>Why?

So that the Rekieta folks can live stream it, of course!


Why do algorithms get a free pass? We generally don't allow those kinds of copouts in most other areas of life. If a physical tool causes harm it's a pretty weak defense to say the effects were too complicated to understand in detail.


What do you mean? YouTube successfully serves billions of users every month, the users that suffer from the fraction of videos temporarily removed by an overfit model are a rounding error; the results of which are essentially harmless. We regularly accept much higher rates of catastrophic failure for things that are actually harmful e.g. traffic accident rates or medical error rates.


Just because someone hasn't thought through the logical ends of their system doesn't mean they're not responsible for those ends when they occur.


I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Of course the creators of YouTube are responsible for the behavior of YouTube. I'm just confused why a forum for programmers finds it so hard to accept that the program sometimes does things that the creators do not intend.


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.


> without any human review

Therein lies the problem.


Oh yes. Googles capriciousness and utter lack of customer service is a very bad combination. I actually moved off Gmail because I feared getting banned for some bug and not being able to get my email back.


For how long will we excuse this kind of activity with "oops automation"?


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.


>there is a faceless algorithm which has seemingly been programmed specifically to remove content which fails to align with a specific political narrative

Or, without having to put on a tinfoil hat, it's been trained to remove content that discusses shooting and killing people?

Or even more benignly, a lot of people reported the stream because users also have a vested interest in abusing censorship systems for political purposes, and it's not always easy to separate that kind of collective bad actorship from legitimate reports.


> Or, without having to put on a tinfoil hat...

You don't have to attack the legitimacy of someone's position like this. Sure, it is possible that the reasons for it are what you're saying, but this personal dismissive attack is unwarranted, and frankly at this point tired and ineffective.


.. but it's so easy and lazy to just blame "the man" or a big conspiracy.


It's also so easy and lazy to just blame "the algorithm" than fixing your broken system.


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.


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'.


>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.


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.


It wasn't an assault rifle, and it is legal for 17 year olds to open carry rifles and shotguns under Wisconsin law.

Open carrying is not provocation, otherwise open carrying itself would be inherently illegal, nor sure what your reasoning is there.

Edit: Also, what the hell does him crossing state lines have to do with anything? He lives like 5 minutes from the Wisconsin border and lives closer to Kenosha than his three assailants


>assailants

You mean victims.


There is currently a court case trying to decide if they are victims or not. We'll hopefully get to know what the jury think after considering all the evidence.


Too bad the victims are not around to defend their actions and give the jury the full picture.


>Too bad the victims are not around to defend their actions and give the jury the full picture.

With all the witnesses, video recordings, FBI heat imaging video, etc. what makes you suspect the jury is not getting the full picture? If Kyle is convicted on all charges, will you protest the conviction because of this?


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


You seem to be privy to some evidence that the court is not. Care to share it with us?


> 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.

That charge was dropped because Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle.

However, ADA Binger did take Kyle's rifle, pointed it at the jury without checking it (saying his assistant had), and had his finger on the trigger while doing so.

Thankfully he didn't go full Baldwin, because there was no clip and no round in the chamber and the judge made them check it afterwards, but you can watch the stream if you want to see how it went down.


All I can say is what a fucking idiot if I was on the jury I would have lost my shit on him. Even if you clear a gun I still pretend a magic bullet fell from the sky and some how chambered itself. Never point a gun a someone unless you are defending yourself or plan to shoot them. That is how hundreds of people had died. I can believe it that is so crazy. Obviously he was trying to provoke an emotional response by pointing a gun at them. This clearly tells me they evidence is not on his side he needs tactics to provoke the jury.


That proves his point that pointing a rifle at someone makes them mad


The crowd was complaining that a laser pointer (thought to be a gun sight) was pointed at them. Kyle's weapon has no such sight, making that impossible.

There's a disputed drone video footage where some think they see Kyle raising his gun in his left hand, but if you look at the video, the pixels they're pointing at exist before Kyle even reaches that point, meaning it can't be a gun. It may be a mirror or some other part of the car.

This is a major dispute because the prosecution gave the defense a low-quality, strange resolution rip of the video while having a higher-quality version for themselves. They admitted that "our version is better" in open court, before backing off to claim it's "just playing weird."

Kraus, who said he would have a much better job if he knew this encoding stuff, was seen with Handbrake installed on his laptop. The program was installed shortly after Kyle plead guilty according to the dates on the file.


> Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles

It was perfectly legal for Rittenhouse to carry rifle at the time. The weapon charge has been dropped.


> It might also be the result of provocation by someone open carrying around an assault rifle in public

First off, there's no such thing as an "assault" rifle, there's just a "rifle". Stop using idiotic terms made up morons who don't know shit about weapons.

Second, provoking someone who's openly carrying a firearm... yeah, that sounds like a good idea.


What is an assault rifle?


To answer your lower question since I can't respond directly, the legal difference between a rifle and pistol is pretty much only barrel length. Overall length also matters, and whether or not the AR "started out" (at manufacture) as a rifle or pistol determine if it becomes a "short barreled rifle" after certain modifications, but that's getting into the inane and nonsensical world of ATF regulations.

As far as what an assault rifle is, it's basically a rifle capable of burst fire or automatic fire (it's a bit more complicated than that but that's the basic idea). Rittenhouse's AR (and virtually all civilian owned firearms for that matter) are not capable of burst or automatic fire and are not assault rifles.


> To answer your lower question since I can't respond directly, the legal difference between a rifle and pistol is pretty much only barrel length.

This is only half-true. The difference between a pistol and a rifle is whether it has a stock. The difference between a normal rifle and a short-barreled rifle is whether the barrel is 16" or not.

I'm not saying it makes more sense, but that is the classification the ATF uses. Never put a stock on any weapon with less than a 16" barrel, unless you're really, really, really sure you fall under some kind of exemption (i.e. that might not apply to black powder weapons).


It’s a really big rifle. Next question.


It's not.

Most hunting rifles for e.g. deer rifles fire larger caliber rounds than the rifle in question in the case. Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but "big" does not necessarily mean "more deadly", nor does "big" actually apply to this rifle.


Thank you for the reply! While I have the chance, allow me one last question: When it comes to AR15 platform, what differentiates a pistol from a rifle?


Disclaimer: I own a few guns and am an Army vet, but this is just my current understanding. I recommend consulting the ATF guidelines yourself and/or your local sheriff's office since rules tend to vary by state and jurisdiction.

The ATF makes these rules, and currently (my understanding, haven't looked in a while to see if anything changed with the new administration) an AR pistol is something that's less than 26" overall with a barrel of less than 16". There's also rules about how you can't put an actual buttstock on it (but you can put a "brace" ... the definition of which can be confusing). Anything shorter than that and does have an actual stuck is an SBR (short-barrel rifle) and you need an ATF tax stamp for that.


I appreciate your time to explain that, thanks. I'm now off on a journey to find the exact line between what is a brace and what is a stock! Take care, my friend.


Thank you for the explanation (genuinely). I wasn't exactly being sarcastic, though - my interest is in the messaging that this gun carries when wielding it in a urban environment during a riot.


> the messaging that this gun carries when wielding it in a urban environment during a riot.

The "messaging"??

The only thing wrong with the "messaging" was that every single citizen of Kenosha didn't show up with AR-15s to ensure all of the out-of-towners weren't able to burn down anything, or try to assault anyone.

If you can spend time to riot, you can spend time filling out resumes for a job. I don't have time to fucking riot... I'm too busy working. These people should have been too. You wanna make the world better for people? Tell them to stop committing sexual assault and stealing people's SUVs. If Jacob Blake hadn't been doing those things, he wouldn't have had a warrant out for his arrest, he wouldn't have been shot for trying to go for his knife, Kenosha wouldn't have had rioting, Joseph Kiddiediddler and Dumbshit Skaterboi would still be alive, the prosecution's star witness would still have his bicep, and Kyle Rittenhouse wouldn't be in this mess.

Amazing how two people had to die, and two others had their lives ruined, and we had hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage, all because a black man in Kenosha thinks he doesn't have to obey the law, only to find out very dramatically that he will in fact obey the law.

It's almost like obeying society's law results in a harmonious society!


> my interest is in the messaging that this gun carries when wielding it in a urban environment during a riot.

Yeah, exactly. ""Assault"" rifles are defined entirely by your emotional response to seeing it. It's a concept invented by the media.


I wouldn't say the concept was "invented" by the media, but it does have a swirling personality around it that feels that way. Obviously I am biased, but "assault" to me always meant the rifle has ergonomic enhancements that make it safer to employ since you can better control recoil, among other things. That's ... not exactly something you'll hear on CNN.


That isn't relevant to the case, but I understand what you're getting at.


If "provocation" is a defense for someone to follow, ambush and assault someone, wouldn't what Kyle did also be defensible?

You don't have to answer that, you can if you want, but I just felt the need to point out how ridiculous this "provocation" point actually is.


Sure, prosecute those people too, if they haven't been shot dead.

The difference is


I suggest not ever using the phrase “assault rifle” because you’ll just get responses where people say “it’s not an assault rifle” and they’ll think they actually won an argument.


As opposed to falsely claiming he had an assault rifle and thinking that somehow strengthens the emotional/moral impact of an argument?


You are either being intentionally disingenuous or you are so deep in this that you don’t understand how other people think. To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. And saying “actually it’s technically not an assault rifle” makes absolutely no difference. It’s not always a false claim; rather it’s a minor, irrelevant detail. Swatting it down doesn’t matter, except to the person swatting it down.


>To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle.

Yes, exactly my point. It's cosmetically scary and calling it an assault rifle makes the minds of many of those hearing it jump to a fear-based response. When in reality an AR-15 is no more or less deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle in the same caliber. Slapping black plastic on a gun may make it look "scarier" to the uninformed, but it doesn't change the threat that Kyle did or did not pose by being there armed.


Hey, that's my point, too! In this particular event, everyone aside from him was uninformed.

Walking through the streets of a riot (I won't say "brandishing" but...) carrying what LOOKS to be a big scary gun is sending a very strong message to other people around him. A lot of people equate that gun with "active shooter" and "paramilitary."


Then they should learn to change their emotional response to it, or seek to repeal the 2nd Amendment that allows people to open carry. Their emotional response is on them.


I disagree given that it’s impossible to know the intentions of the gun wielder, and there is lots of precedent for people who look just like that (white man carrying an AR15) being a mass shooter. If I was marching around (legally) carrying a big ass knife, I’d think I’d also possess enough awareness to realize that some folks might be uncertain of my intentions.


"Machine gun? Not a machine gun? What's the difference?"

You may not appreciate it, but there is a substantial difference, not just practically but legally. If you're ignorant of that difference, that's fine. Everybody is mistaken or ignorant some of the time. We're all human after all. But if you know the difference and choose to use the wrong terminology anyway, then you are being deliberately deceptive. Either way, it warrants a correction.


Where's the legal definition of "assault rifle" == "machine gun" from?


the phrase comes from the unique German WW2 weapon "Sturmgewehr 44" (literally Assault Rifle 44).

It was the first example of the Assault Rifle weapon type with the defining characteristics being an intermediate cartridge (between pistol round and rifle round) that allows controllable automatic fire at engagement ranges further than submachine guns.

Most AR15s cannot be considered 'Assault Rifles' as although they are chambered in an intermediate cartridge, they are for the most part semi-automatic and not capable of automatic fire.

Note that 'Assault Rifle' does not seem to be a ATF defined term, they always use the term Machine Gun for automatic weapons. The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word


> The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word

Every game I've played where it is relevant uses the "Assault Rifle" term, and way more young people are familiar with game definitions than anything else. Here is roughly how weapons are defined in games:

Submachine gun - Automatic pistol with large clip.

Rifle - Single shot long barrel higher calibre weapon

Battle Rifle - Burst fire rifle with large clip

Assault Rifle - Automatic fire rifle with large clip

Machine gun - Belt fed automatic fire rifle

Edit: Nothing legal about the above, of course, just noting what the general population would associate with each term. And you can understand why people would be worried about automatic fire high calibre weapons. They aren't useful for anything other than to kill lots of people.


I don't think general population cares about the full-automatic distinction of "assault rifle" because you don't actually need full-auto for the kind of attacks people are potentially worried about.

And afaik the usual distinction for a battle rifle is that it's larger caliber (e.g. as many cold-war standard-issue rifles were)


Just to be pedantic, as we're already in the weeds here, all but "rifle" in your list probably do not use a "clip", they use a magazine. The M1 garand is a rifle that uses a clip, the mini-14 would be a rifle that uses a magazine. Generally.

I understand the point you were making. I do have to ask people, if there's any difference between the Mossberg 464 lever action and the Mossberg 464 ZMB rifle - I mean purely from how scary it is, or whatever.


right, parent commenter seemed to claim that it's a legally clear definition. Which people do all the time, and then don't back up if asked, but still feel the need to make sure to let everyone that doesn't use their definition know that they are wrong. While "assault weapons" at least has been used legally to also include semi-automatics, which muddles the water for general usage quite a bit.


>>>To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. >>>It’s not always a false claim;

Words have meaning and details matter, especially when discussing legalities. It absolutely is always a false claim.

To a lot of people, any big Navy ship that is not an aircraft carrier is "a battleship". To a lot of people, anybody banging away on a keyboard from the command line = "hacking". That doesn't make either claim true. Specificity and clarity are important. To mutually work through a problem set we need commonly-understood definitions, and the lexicon thankfully isn't limited to the simplistic understanding of the uninformed masses.


The word "assault rifle" has a definition, and when you call something that isn't an assault rifle an assault rifle as pertinent to your point and someone points out that it is not an assault rifle and therefore your point is invalid, they have in fact actually won an argument.


I'm sorry you feel that way.


Some leftists literally threw parties to celebrate the fact that Rush Limbaugh died from lung cancer. Where was the outrage then? People who think someone is worthless will celebrate their death regardless of their criminal record.


Idk but I wouldn't be surprised. Yet if a Livestream of people celebrating Limbaugh's death was also flagged/ brought down I wouldn't be outraged either.


>Some leftists literally threw parties to celebrate the fact that Rush Limbaugh died from lung cancer.

Source?

>Where was the outrage then?

You seemed to have been pretty outraged.

The title says independent live stream while this thread makes it clear it's right wingers.


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.


Why does everything have to be a coping mechanism. Why can't they just be desensitized because they deal with it so much?


I didn't even know who the guy was until today. So, I guess this is what I'm missing by not having television?


it sounds like you avoid a lot of twitter too. good job! way healthier for you.


If you haven’t watched the entire stream for the past 2 weeks you may be missing context here. Dark humor explains most of this.


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.


they're yelling that in criticism of the defense lawyer richards, actually, not 'as if they were his lawyer'. This is the last day of this trial and criticism of his lack of objections has been a big part of their coverage over the last week+. It's allowed the prosecutor to enter a lot of evidence without anyone to qualify it or attest to it because the defense just didn't object, which matters in jury decision and would matter on an appeal. There are points of argument about the type of bullet (hollow point vs metal jacket), and edited video that should never have been considered given the person who made it showed they didn't understand the underlying change or ever compared it to the original video, etc.


I’ve learned a lot about the court system and how this entire process works. I feel like I know way more about the lawyer profession as well. They’ve provided a lot more than a simple peanut gallery. This is a great future. You get an inside peek into thoughts of lawyers in real time as a trial unfolds rather than getting it condensed down from a newspaper that may not give the real story. Pretty awesome.


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.


people forget very quickly. it's extremely depressing.


> 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.


> 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.


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.


> 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.


> 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).

It’s interesting that you’re regurgitating this fairly standard talking point in response to my comment even though it refutes a point my comment never made. It’s as if you grepped the term “freedom of speech” in my comment and that mechanically triggered this cookie cutter response. As long as you’re not thinking critically about the content you are reading, you’ll never have an original thought that actually may be intolerable to those in power.


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.


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.


>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...


Yes I remember this one! Information wants to be free.


"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.

We’ve lost. We’ve lost.


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.


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.


Thanks for your story, I try not to use "generations" anymore. People are too complicated for that chaotically broken system created by media companies. I never fit any generational trope and I really don't know anyone who has.

I don't think we lost, I think some people have cognative bias and feminism has been hijacked in recent years by "Social Marxists" and mutated the original cause. When a person build's their cognition on a false premise a dysfunctional cognitive bias is formed. The individual will need to grow out of it themself, but it's hard to do because it requires breaking a bit of ones ego and facing ones shadow.

If you want to talk more hit me up, links in profile.


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.


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.


The founders also were aware that the only freedom of speech that you have is from the gov't restricting your speech.


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.


I don't actually think it's more nuanced than that because the constitution is pretty explicit about "free speech" and the founders certainly weren't advocating that publishers have to publish things they didn't want to publish so maybe you can do us all a favor and explain where you think the nuance is as opposed to just suggesting it has to be more complicated than that.


Lets say we have a company that pays politicians to do what they want, this is what you call free speech. This company also has the power to silence peoples voices on the public forum of that day, this is what you call free speech. Do you think this is what the founders intended by "free speech"? I do not, these two together means that the line between government and big corporation gets blurred, and that now effectively the people who decides what gets legislated are also the people who are free to censor people.


The founders didn't intend anything for "free speech" save for what they enshrined in the constitution. I'm not sure how that could be more clear. Facebook is not a public forum. Back in the founders time, the only public square was the actual public square. There were even fewer publishers with even fewer opportunities for people to have their ideas amplified and disseminated, and even back then they did not think that xyz printing press had any obligation to publish anything anyone wanted to.


They didn't account for a corporatocracy.


Is this an argument? Do you think more people had more access to publishing in their time compared to today? I'm really struggling to understand why you think you are making a slam-dunk argument and that you haven't actually said anything of substance isn't helping me get there.


> 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.


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.


What were the mistakes?


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.


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


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)


I've been following Rekieta's stream for about a week, it was ok until today. I doubt that it was automated, probably reported by someone.


Hadn't thought of that. I've been listening intermitently, and the fact that only today - and during Jury instructions no less - does the channel go down make me think that yeah, someone reported it, and the automation probably kicked in after that. Simplest explanation I think.


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.


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.


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".


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.


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.


Pretty sure YouTube employees have already classified all government channels and public access channels as such. There's a notice below those videos that indicates it. And if not, it should be done anyway.


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?


Yawn. Just a conclusion looking for its argument. I'm not sure why this kind of talk is tolerated here on these kinds of topics but other topics its widely downvoted for being the baseless and specious nonsense that it is.


You don't have to make the algorithm do it, is what I'm saying.


It might not be an issue of the difficulty. All of these will inherently be error prone, so why automate something that isn't going to significantly going to reduce your workload in the end, while also simultaneously annoying the advertisers that actually pay YouTube.


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


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.


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


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.


> 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.


Would be interesting to see the percentage people who only saw the first headline: https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/202...

“Gaige Grosskreutz says he feared for his life before Kyle Rittenhouse shot him during Kenosha unrest”

“Gaige Grosskreutz says he feared for his life, pointed gun at Kyle Rittenhouse before getting shot”


>>> 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...

> Would be interesting to see the percentage people who only saw the first headline: https://archive.vn/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/202...

What does a Washington Post headline have to do with a New York Times article?


Archive is removed?


> Archive is removed?

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

I suppose you can, but your comment needed a better transition to make it clear what you were doing. The original comment brought CNN's coverage of a topic (in an unverifiable way) to make a general claim that "mainstream media lies, constantly and blatantly." Someone responded that the NYT article is a counterexample to that claim, and you quoted that link but started randomly talking about a Washington Post headline without even mentioning the publication's name, which made it seem like you were talking about the NYT's headline.

> In this example the WP reported it in the least effective way possible - as an edit to an existing article that most people would never revisit.

What else would you have them do? I see this kind of criticism often, but when I actually think about what would satisfy the critic vs. the other users of the product, it seems like a situation where one users wants the product tailored to their unusual wants in a way that would degrade user experience for the bulk of other users or would require an investment that would be hard to justify, e.g.:

1. Headlining errata on the front page: that would be annoying and take space away from what 99.999% of users are actually looking for (today's news as of now).

2. Featuring errata prominently in the actual article: again, it's annoying because 99.999% of users want to read today's news as of now, not errata.

3. Article version control accessible to the users: relatively expensive, and 99.999% of users don't care and would never use it. Even if they have some internal version, my guess there's all kinds of unpublishable or unpolished stuff in the history that they're now going to have to edit for publication.

4. Issuing corrected articles, keeping the erroneous ones online: now you have different links flying around for more-or-less the same stuff, but the most popular ones are likely the early ones with errors. Even if you put a link to the correction, most people want to read the best version, and the links aren't taking them there.

5. Etc.

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

That's obviously false, since the claim is incoherent when applied to your example. If it were true, why would they have bothered to correct the headline? If they had a "blatant and willful intent to misrepresent the facts" wouldn't they have kept the initial headline because it "misrepresented the facts"? In reality, the corrected the headline, which is evidence that they don't indent to "misrepresent the facts."


> What else would you have them do?

The video was public well before Grosskreutz admitted to drawing his weapon at Rittenhouse as he approached him, the Facebook post after the incident was known about. They should’ve informed their audience of these facts more so than they were informed of Grosskreutz’s fear of his life, however the latter was the most broadly disseminated piece of info by being a headline item. “Video shows Kenosha shooting victim drawing gun as he was shot” was not a headline, “Kenosha shooting victim testifies” was not the headline and would’ve been a less blatantly biased choice.

It’s very simple. A WP reader is more likely to find out from being their audience that Grosskreutz feared for his life than the other facts that I’ve mention that are much more interesting and critical to the case, and it’s by design

> and you quoted that link but started randomly talking about a Washington Post headline without even mentioning the publication's name

I did not quote the NYT link. The name of the WP is in the url that I posted. Sorry I didn’t make clear the context

> That's obviously false, since the claim is incoherent when applied to your example. If it were true, why would they have bothered to correct the headline?

It would’ve been worse had they been completely silent of that part of the testimony, I agree. It would’ve been harder for me to verify though, that a publication mentioned it not even once, so I choose this example to save time. But no, your response completely missed my main point, they don’t have to not update it, dissemination of a certain piece of information in terms of its reach can be diminished without it reaching zero. Statements can be used push a false narrative without being outright untrue. There are more tactful ways to mislead than simply lying, obviously. Edit: To answer your question, to enable the defense that you’ve just made


> The video was public well before Grosskreutz admitted to drawing his weapon at Rittenhouse as he approached him, the Facebook post after the incident was known about. They should’ve informed their audience of these facts more so than they were informed of Grosskreutz’s fear of his life, however the latter was the most broadly disseminated piece of info by being a headline item.

> It’s very simple. A WP reader is more likely to find out from being their audience that Grosskreutz feared for his life than the other facts that I’ve mention that are much more interesting and critical to the case, and it’s by design.

I'm obviously not following this story as closely as you. However, I think the issue here may be that you wished you read a different story than the Washington Post was actually writing. What it looks like they were writing was an account of this Grosskreutz's testimony, and his accounting of his mental state at the time may have been the most newsworthy part of that. It seems like you want something more like a Wikipedia article offering a definitive account of the event based all known sources (e.g. "the video", "the Facebook post"), which is not what the article you linked actually was. If I want a hammer, but have a screwdriver, it's not the screwdriver's fault for not being a hammer.

Furthermore, you're almost exclusively focused on a headline, which can never tell the full story. Usually there are multiple legitimate possibilities for a headline, and there's no perfect one that will satisfy everyone.

>> That's obviously false, since the claim is incoherent when applied to your example. If it were true, why would they have bothered to correct the headline?

> But no, your response completely missed my main point, they don’t have to not update it, dissemination of a certain piece of information in terms of its reach can be diminished without it reaching zero. Statements can be used push a false narrative without being outright untrue. There are more tactful ways to mislead than simply lying, obviously. Edit: To answer your question, to enable the defense that you’ve just made

That's getting into paranoid conspiracy territory. It's pretty unbelievable that the Washington Post would be trying to mislead, but then fix it to "enable the defense that [I've] just made." The actual evidence here is pointing to a different theory that better fits the evidence than that one (i.e. the Washington Post headline writer is trying to get it right, but it's an iterative process).

Now, don't get me wrong. It's totally believable that they have good intentions to report the truth, but, being human, also have biases and other constraints that subvert those intentions to a degree (and may be particularly irksome to those with different biases), but it's going way too far to attribute malicious intent to them.


It's also worth noting that the statement you quoted from GP is objectively incorrect without the qualifier that Rittenhouse did not fire at Gaige until Gaige's Glock 17 was pointed at Kyle's head, because Rittenhouse had just opened fire on two unarmed men, killing one of them.

Keep that in mind while we're talking about omitting information to manipulate the narrative.


How is it objectively incorrect, if he pretty much quoted a direct speech verbatim? At least one of them hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard, so he was armed.


If you're calling a skateboard a weapon I'm going to take everything you say with a mountain of salt.


Not me, but courts. Not just a weapon, but a deadly weapon.


Courts aren't automatically reasonable. You're endorsing the classification.

Fists can do just as much damage as a skateboard.


Yeah, and a knife can kill just as well as a gun. Except it can’t. A medium build woman can break one’s skull with 2-3 swings of a skateboard, especially if it lands on the edge or on a sticking metal part. To achieve the same damage with fists, it would take years of training and would also cause a significant damage to one’s hands.


If hitting with just the right angle on a hard bit is good enough to count then half the things on my desk are deadly weapons. I can't get behind that definition.


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


Is that the bar? Anything more effective than fists, even if just by preventing the attacker from being hurt, is a deadly weapon?

My normal desktop items could break skulls too, I'm pretty sure. And the pens, oof...


If you started using your desk items as a weapon and swung them at a person in a manner that could reliably kill them then the court would consider you to have a deadly weapon as well.

If you use an item in a manner that can reliably kill people then you use a deadly weapon even if it wasn't intended to be a deadly weapon. Is a pair of scissors a deadly weapon? Yes. Is a heavy hard blunt object (like a statue) a deadly weapon? Yes.


Well, noted I guess. I probably dismissed the idea in the wrong way then. Next time I'll just say "'deadly weapon' is a very low bar and doesn't mean much".

It's not productive to argue about definitions, even if they don't make sense to me. My intent wasn't a semantics argument.


The requirement is that you be in fear for your life or the life of another in your vicinity. Let's say you grabbed a Bic pen, and went for someone's neck with it: in this situation the courts would favor the persons right to self defense given the credible threat to their life. The same counts for something that is a risk to incapacitate them, because courts have historically favored the argument that what happens after you are disarmed or incapacitated could result in death.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just offering my observations of precedent.


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

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

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

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


You must be joking or have not done many things where people swing things at you. 100% of the time in a random “get hit in the head taste test” I would choose a fist.

Aluminum bats don’t weigh much either but I’m not going to go out of my way to have my head in the path of one.


You've heard of levers, I'm sure. One classic 'simple machines'. Skateboards have more leverage than fists.


They're not that big compared to arms. Moderately more leverage, but a significant reduction in weight.


They're about as long medieval maces, with a similarly heavy bit of metal on the end. And when either is held in the hand and swung, they have substantially more leverage than the hand itself. Unless you think he was swinging a skateboard from his armpit?

This conversation is getting ridiculous.


> And when either is held in the hand and swung, they have substantially more leverage than the hand itself. Unless you think he was swinging a skateboard from his armpit?

A skateboard held in your hand can't use much of the mass of your arm to help, it's mostly impacting with its own weight. Your hand can impact with a lot more weight behind it even though the swing radius won't be as big.


People die if you hit them with in the head with a fist sized rock, that is what is required for something to be a deadly weapon. A metal rimmed skateboard can deal more damage than a rock so it is a deadly weapon.


I can understand that, and see my other response https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29236031, but even so...

How many people, if you asked "Do you have any weapons in your backyard?", would say "Yes, several rocks."


But if someone charged at you holding a rock ready to swing it high, would you fear for your life? Almost surely, yes, you should fear for your life in that situation.

This isn't about possession but about a confrontation. A person with a rock wont get caught by police and taken to court over owning a weapon. But a person swinging the rock around and charging at people will get charged for attacking people with a deadly weapon. And in this situation the question is "Was it reasonable to fear for your life?", then the second definition is used.


If it's about confrontation, I'd fear for my life if someone came at me hard enough even if they were empty-handed or holding something tiny.

And I'll point out that the original post I responded to was saying that they were armed. To me that implies the object needs to be a weapon in a vacuum.


Yeah, I agree that the person wasn't armed. Armed typically means weapons made to kill like firearms, I just object to the deadly weapons discussion since that is a much more lax term.


If you are just going to call the entire court system rigged, or whatever, then it is corrospondingly difficult to take what you are saying seriously.

As a general rule, I think that the legal experts know more about this than you do.


No, not rigged.

But sometimes things get interpreted in ways that really stretch the meanings of words. I think anyone that has looked at legal history can agree with that.

And sometimes legal definitions are dumb, which isn't even a court thing.

Also even if it's correct inside its realm, if enough objects count as deadly weapons then "he had a deadly weapon" loses most of its impact and gets misleading. I'm reminded that technically a bare receiver is a gun...


But as a general rule, if we think about all this in aggregate, we should agree that the literal legal experts are way way more likely to get this stuff correct than you are.

If we were evaluating how valuable someone's opinion is on all this stuff, your opinion would be way down the list, compared to legal experts.

And if we compared a random ununiformed opinion, such as from you, and compared it to the opinions of the legal system, it is way more likely that you don't really know how any of this works, as opposed to the actual legal experts.


I think you’re being hung up on the literal meaning of the words a little bit. It seems reasonable to have more severe consequences for someone attacking someone else with a rock compared to somebody just using their fists. We decided to call the former “assault with a deadly weapon”. This doesn’t mean that a rock is a “deadly weapon” under all circumstances. You can’t get charged with “possession of a deadly weapon” for simply walking around with a rock without intent of hurting anyone.


A skateboard, when used as a weapon, is a deadly weapon.

weapon, n: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

Does a skateboard have other innocent purposes, to which it is generally put to use? Of course — that’s generally why skateboards are brought to riots.

It provides plausible deniability during the times when you’re not using it to hit people in the head with a deadly weapon.


If we go with that definition, and nothing else, then imagine "one of them threw an ice cube at someone, so he was armed". It's a thing used to inflict bodily harm in that context, but calling it "a weapon" seems crazy to me.


If you have large enough ice cube — or any other object — that is capable of inflicting serious bodily harm, and you use it to physically attack someone, you’ve committed assault with a deadly weapon.

Why is this crazy to you? This is why someone can be charged for assault with a deadly weapon while trying to run someone over with their car.

Do you think that’s crazy just because cars are usually meant to be used for driving?


I'm talking about normal ice cubes. They can inflict bodily harm. With 'serious', does that mean you're suggesting a different definition from the one you quoted?

> This is why someone can be charged for assault with a deadly weapon while trying to run someone over with their car.

A car is at least in a medium category where it's not a generally safe object.

Remember that my original objection was saying someone was "armed". If we used the definition you gave to figure that out, I think almost everyone is armed. Or they transform from unarmed to armed when they smack someone??


> I'm talking about normal ice cubes. They can inflict bodily harm.

If you used it as a weapon, it's a weapon. There aren't generally enhanced criminal charges for non-deadly weapons, however — that's usually just charged as assault.

> With 'serious', does that mean you're suggesting a different definition from the one you quoted?

No, I'm tying this question back to the actual law.

> Remember that my original objection was saying someone was "armed". If we used the definition you gave to figure that out, I think almost everyone is armed.

You're treating the law like it's some sort of extremely idiotic expert system that implodes anytime someone grabs their child's baseball bat with the intent of murdering someone — or actually does so.

Google "mens rea". You're not going to beat a charge with the argument of "It was a little league baseball bat!".

If this still isn't clear, maybe it'd help to see how Colorado defines a "deadly weapon":

> (I) A firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; or (II) A knife, bludgeon, or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.

If you can figure out how to use your ice cube as a deadly weapon, then congratulations, at the moment you picked up an ice cube with the intent to use it as a deadly weapon, you armed yourself with a deadly weapon.

> Or they transform from unarmed to armed when they smack someone??

They transform from unarmed to armed when they arm themselves with an object they intend to use as a weapon.

You know you could just google this stuff, right? This is very simple, well-established law.


> They transform from unarmed to armed when they arm themselves with an object they intend to use as a weapon.

That makes sense if they intended to use it as a weapon.

What if they didn't?

> This is very simple, well-established law.

Mens rea makes sense for certain crimes.

I would not say someone is 'armed' or 'not armed' based on intent.

> Google "mens rea". You're not going to beat a charge with the argument of "It was a little league baseball bat!".

> (II) A knife, bludgeon, or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.

A baseball bat at least is pretty dangerous when used as intended. So is a car. A skateboard isn't, and an ice cube isn't.

> You're treating the law like it's some sort of extremely idiotic expert system that implodes anytime someone grabs their child's baseball bat with the intent of murdering someone — or actually does so.

The legal system wouldn't implode if it was just 'assault'.


> A baseball bat at least is pretty dangerous when used as intended. So is a car. A skateboard isn't, and an ice cube isn't.

If you claim to not see the similarity between a skateboard and a baseball bat in terms of the potential for serious bodily harm, you're either lying to us to keep this tepid, boring argument on life-support, or just lying to yourself.

> The legal system wouldn't implode if it was just 'assault'.

You don't think assault with a deadly weapon is a more serious crime than simple assault?

So you'd charge and punish a shove identically to hitting someone with a skateboard?

Fascinating. I don't believe you.


> If you claim to not see the similarity between a skateboard and a baseball bat in terms of the potential for serious bodily harm, you're either lying to us to keep this tepid, boring argument on life-support, or just lying to yourself.

It says "intended to be used" right there in the law.

> So you'd charge and punish a shove identically to hitting someone with a skateboard?

Would you charge a shove exactly the same as stomping on someone's face?

Same crime category doesn't mean same punishment. I would charge a big skateboard swing as worse than a shove, and I would also charge a solid punch as worse than a shove.

You're extrapolating from my posts in an extremely uncharitable way.


> It says "intended to be used" right there in the law.

It also says "in the manner it is used or intended to be used".

> Would you charge a shove exactly the same as stomping on someone's face?

In Colorado, a simple shove would be third-degree assault, while stomping on someone's face would be first-degree assault.

> Same crime category doesn't mean same punishment. I would charge a big skateboard swing as worse than a shove, and I would also charge a solid punch as worse than a shove.

Guess what? Both a fist and a skateboard can be classified as assault with a deadly weapon!

> You're extrapolating from my posts in an extremely uncharitable way.

You don't need a law degree to wrap your head around any of this. Even the most basic googling would suffice, but you're clearly not even doing that. What you are doing is ignorantly pontificating about something you clearly know nothing about, while making not even a modicum effort to learn.


> It also says "in the manner it is used or intended to be used".

Yeah but I'm worried about the part before any misuse.

> Guess what? Both a fist and a skateboard can be classified as assault with a deadly weapon!

Cool, then saying someone was 'armed' is extremely meaningless.

Which is what I really cared about here. I commented specifically because I didn't like the description of 'armed'.

I don't care about what label is put on a criminal charge. That's why the things you want me to google aren't helpful to me.


> Cool, then saying someone was 'armed' is extremely meaningless.

‘Armed’ means they were carrying a weapon. That’s not meaningless. How have we come full circle here?

You’re welcome to disagree with the dictionary, the law, and the rest of the world, but there’s absolutely zero point in us debating your unique, novel, pedantic, and most likely disingenuous position further.


If fists count as a deadly weapon, which makes someone armed, then calling someone armed is misleading and meaningless because 99% of people are armed.

Pointing that out is not disingenuous!

And it's not disingenuous for me to earnestly use the definition of weapon I'm being told to use, right? Nobody seems to like my definition of weapon.

I swear I'm arguing in good faith.


How big of an Ice cube? As big as a brick? Yes, can be just as deadly and a coble stone.


> that’s generally why skateboards are brought to riots.

A skateboard can certainly be a weapon but I believe this is conjecture.


This is well-documented, though I don’t know for certain when it became the norm.

If you go back to the 1999 Seattle WTO protests, you mostly see people using short, concealable weapons, such as wooden clubs.

At some point, the gear of choice evolved towards the plausibly deniable, including skateboards, umbrellas, etc.

2020 example:

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheGunzShow/status/12668514068222...


There was a notorious incident in San Francisco in 2019 where a skater nearly killed a security guard by hitting him in the head with a skateboard.

https://skatenewswire.com/jesse-vieira-black-rock-security-g...


CNN also had an article with the same information: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-mon...


The target audience that is fooled does not read more than headlines especially not thous who already saw the TV coverage of the topic.


The target audience for the "MSM is evil and brainwashing you" line also is fooled because they do not read more than headlines, based on the dialogue right here.


Congratulations, you have independently discovered the fact that no side has a monopoly on being a complete fucking idiot.


'...there was Yossarian with the question that had no answer: "Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?"'


Why would you read from someone you verifiably know they are not reporting the news accurate and unbiased?

Are you telling me people are fooled to miss on the correct reporting? Or whats you train of thought?


The NYT still provides quality reporting. But most of their readers stop after the sensational first couple paragraphs and never make it to paragraph 23 where they actually say what really happened.

It’s a clever example of what Mark Rosewater calls lenticular design. The low information crowd gets their emotional fix from the headlines and early text and quits there while the Times’ more thoughtful readers get the full picture. Given the paper’s financial success in the Internet age I think we can say they’ve found a good business model.


Is that an ethical approach?


> The testimony underscores the prosecutors’ challenge in disproving a self-defense claim.

In medium font just below the headline.


This is weird to me, 'challenge to disprove self defense' - since the accused was retreating towards law enforcement, and in general you have a duty to retreat if possible, I don't quite get the leap necessary that the pistol wielder was scared for their life. I can, however, believe that post-incident introspection would color the encounter this way, to the person with the pistol.

If there's an active shooter the general thing to do is hide, not go after anyone that is carrying a weapon.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance that any verdict will be accepted as is, though. I know most of my acquaintances have already made up their minds, trial outcome be damned.


It may be weird to you, but that's the law in Wisconsin and, as I understand it, every state other than Virginia[1]. The defendant gets the presumption that he acted in self-defense and the prosecution has to prove otherwise.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/16/rittenhous...


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


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.


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.


> 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.

People did look into this with an unbiased lens (did dozens of medical studies, many still ongoing) and so far there is no good evidence that it has any beneficial effect whatsoever. On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption (there have been thousands of calls to poison control centers about Ivermectin in the past few months, and some have died).

From what I have seen everyone pushing Ivermectin is a grossly misinformed and non-credible amateur. Some of these snake-oil salespeople may have direct financial interest, while others just want to promote their own questionable agendas, e.g. trying to undermine/disparage some extremely effective vaccines.

This is a horrible example of something “worth looking into”.

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...


I did a quick google search for articles about ivermectin overdose but all I found was there's been an uptick but it seems overexaggerated. This[0] one shows there were 21 people who called in about ivermectin, it's only one state but still doesn't seem like a big deal. There was another story about a Mississippi hospital[1] where 70% calls were about ivermectin but then it turned out they meant 70% of calls about ivermectin (not total calls) were about the animal version. This article [2] includes Minnesota which saw <100 calls and people having overdose symptoms but no one dying.

Treating covid with ivermectin does seem like a bad idea, but it also doesn't really seem that dangerous overall. I'm sure there are deaths out there from people overdosing on it but they seem like a really rare event.

[0] - https://forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2021/10/20/calls-about-ive...

[1] - https://msdh.ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/15400.pdf

[2] - https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...


> People did look into this with an unbiased lens

Not really.

> On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption (there have been thousands of calls to poison control centers about Ivermectin in the past few months, and some have died).

You're falling for sensationalized propaganda. If you read the CDC advisory, there was only a five fold increase over the pre-pandemic baseline [1]. The pre-pandemic baseline for ivermectin poisoning is absurdly low.

> Some of these snake-oil salespeople may have direct financial interest

You mean like the financial interests of pharma companies who would prefer a treatment that wasn't off patent? If we're going to use financial incentives to infer credibility, pharma loses on this question hands down every time.

The truth is that the pharmacokinetics of ivermectin closely match Pfizer's new anti-COVID drug [2] (3CL protease inhibition).

[1] https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00449.asp

[2] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp0296...


That study is publishing risk ratios like 0.60 for mortality [0] vs standard care, with very low confidence. If my mother caught COVID, in the absence of anything better, that study adds to my opinion that I'd quite like her to take some Ivermectin. It might help, it doesn't seem to harm. It'll make her feel better for having done something.

It certainly could turn out to be nothing. But on the other hand, why not get a doctors prescription until a couple of high quality studies have decided the issue? As you point out, the only real problem seems to be people taking it in unsafe dosages or through unreliable channels like a vet.

[0] Which is broadly consistent with the studies I've seen over at https://ivmmeta.com/ - not sure by how much, but it does seem to assist.


It could harm though. Drugs have side effects, and you are talking about giving someone who is already very ill drugs where you have no idea if they work or not, that could weaken them even more. You could use that logic to justify taking any drug you want as a treatment.

There isn't strong evidence, and you can't just eyeball studies and assume you understand them with no training.

I have cystic fibrosis, and I have tried to do things like this before by looking at studies on unverified treatments. It doesn't work. You just end up with snake oil. I have a masters in biomedical engineering, and I couldn't do it.

Interpreting studies is hard. Interpreting meta analysis accurately is super hard. Tons of studies are fake, or have bias, or have poor methodology. That website is total bullshit and is just throwing all the studies in to their statistical soup and mixing them together to come up with nonsensical results.

"There is evidence of a negative publication bias, and the probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 65 studies is estimated to be 1 in 403 billion."

Lol, wtf?


> There isn't strong evidence, and you can't just eyeball studies and assume you understand them with no training.

I'm no medical anything but I do have extensive academic and statistical training. There is enough in these studies for someone to take Ivermectin as an "eh, why not?" gambit. There is evidence it is helpful, although the evidence isn't conclusive (or even especially strong). Some doctors are already prescribing it, quite reasonably.


If that is true then why are you sourcing a website that is making wildly ludicrous statistical claims?


> On the other hand now a bunch of people have overdosed from taking veterinary doses not intended for human consumption

Maybe the solution to this is to allow OTC sales of human grade Ivermectin. The drug is one of the safest in the world. No reasonable reason to deny the drug if someone wants it.


> The drug is one of the safest in the world.

This is not true at all. Ivermectin has some nasty neurological effects (vertigo, seizures, blindness) at high doses.


Water can also cause death at high doses (hyponatremia). Literally everything can. The difference between medicine and poison is in the dosage, so saying ivermectin is not safe because it causes health issues at high doses isn't really saying anything.


The dose makes the poison. At the usual dosages that Ivermectin is given at, it is considered to have no toxic effects (with the exception of those that have a severe Loa Loa infection).


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 :(


TYT may be smaller than Comcast, but it's not small. They received millions in VC funding, much of it partisan and political. That's about as far from independent as possible.

An independent news source should be primarily funded by either non-patisans for good will or by viewers. I'll take Stephen Crowder over TYT any day.

But either way, Stephen Crowder has much of an agenda to gain viewers as TYT - if your viewers support you, then more viewers is more support.

If your viewers don't support you money-wise, then those interests are more indirect, such as a desire for implicit campaigning by donars, like TYT, or for corporate funding, like NBC/Fox.


There is a clear level of influence and responsibility that separates CNN from TYT, despite TYT being VC funded. That said I wouldn't trust anyone who gets their news from solely TYT (which has a progressive stance) and Stephen Crowder (who has a a right slant). Despite having more funding, I wouldn't be surprised if Crowder was competitive in revenue to TYT.

If your goal is news then getting as close to the primary source is as important as possible, and unfortunately YouTube is making this even more difficult today. If your goal is interpretation you need to listen to a wide variety of experts to form an informed opinion that you can actually defend.

Ultimately, every news outlet is beholden to someone and most have made editorial choices to more palatable to the demographic they have acquired over the years.


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 really think every country where covid isn't as politicized, like India, Brazil (both of who have extensive experience using ivermectin and HCQ for other users), 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...


> Ivermectin has failed to show benefit, the Pfizer drug has.

Ivermectin has failed to be seriously studied, while the patentable drug got a good study out of the gate. I wonder why.


Because the Trump admin didn't match Pfizer's level of funding? I wonder why.


What makes you think European and Canadian are less politicized over Covid?

Canada usually waits for fda approval and data before it approves most things.


Europe and Canada approved AstraZeneca's vaccine while the FDA didn't (not debating whether it was a "good" decision, just that it did). Canada also approved of vaccine dose mixing (out of necessity, but nonetheless it was clearly not following the FDA). Plus, by and large Europe and Canada's leaders did not actively harm Covid treatment and vaccine efforts (many policy missteps, but nobody was actively politicizing the virus itself).


They might be politicized internally, but they don't give a crap about Trump vs Biden, or red vs. blue.

UK, Brazil and India have right wing govts, do you really think they would suppress real cures and destroy their economy and popularity of their leaders and parties due to lockdowns, hospitalizations, and the dead filling up burial grounds. If HCQ or IVR actually worked, a leader would have mandated it and would have become hugely popular for saving their country from a pandemic that other countries are getting roiled by. Imagine how much more popular Boris or Modi would become, it would literally seal their next election win.

Or maybe IVR or HCQ aren't good drugs against covid and are hyped up for political reasons by some and then pushed by others who aren't capable of properly reading or understanding scientific studies.

This conspiracy only makes sense to people who cannot think broadly, skeptically and logically.


Bolsanaro in Brazil definitely tried to do that with HCQ - but it didn’t actually work, so at some point he just stopped and pretended he never did it.


Brazil as less politicized around Covid? Really?! Bolsanaro hyper-politicized it even more than Trump, even accusing the governors of using it to try to make him look bad.


Ivermectin has long fallen out of patent protection and generics can be manufactured. Anyone is free to make it and apply to the FDA for authorization to use it as Covid treatment - just bring the data. Obviously, that hasn't happened. No one has made an attempt.

But you are here to disparage a company that has developed a novel antiviral treatment and has applied for the authorization.


I don't think you need the "do what their money masters want" part.

CNN has a liberal audience. If they ran multiple headlines on this (whether automated or just articles written by different editors) I'm sure the one that paints Rittenhouse as without any justification will get more clicks. And therefore its more likely those writers will be promoted internally based on performance + those who are covering the story will continue to cover the story instead of moving to something else.

Look at a site like Reddit. It takes user submitted headlines for news stories. And depending on the subreddit the headliens will always skew one way politically without the need for money dictating things.


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.


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.


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?


> 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.

If your viewers demand malice and being malicious is the only way to keep your viewers, that doesn't mean you're not being malicious; it means you're being malicious for money.


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.


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.


> 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.


> 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.

We're finding out that this is a case of eating your seed corn.

If you give people two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true, they're going to prefer the one that flatters their ego. So the ego flattering is short-term profitable.

But eventually there is a story people are interested in enough to actually watch the trial, or read the source documents. Or someone else does that and points them right to the place where the media narrative disintegrates.

Then it's not two contradictory narratives where it's not obvious which one is true. The one the media outlet is giving them is demonstrably false. Which makes them more skeptical next time, and when they look, it's false again. And again.

The result is a loss of trust.

What happens then? Have a look at their ratings.


> I don't get why it's not reported in more neutral terms

I do - more neutral, emotionally cooler headlines like this will get fewer clicks and therefore generate less ad revenue


Personally, I haven’t followed this story or the trial closely at all. But what you describe would be woefully inadequate coverage of an event. The details are important, and to me the important details (that allow me to form an opinion) are “guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.” Nuff said. My opinion is the same as it would have been 20 years ago based on those details.


It wasn't "waaay out of his way" though, and he was also there helping provide first aid. It's also mindblowing that you think that him being threatened and chased by a convicted child rapist (the first person he shot), then running away and only shooting again when people were trying to kill him when he fell on the ground, aren't important details.


Like I said, I haven’t followed this, so I do not know what your last sentence is about (and thus your mind is unjustifiably blown). That said, I can respond solely to the details you provided: you seem to be implying that Kyle was at risk of being raped by this guy if caught. That is certainly scary!

Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment? Would there have more or less danger to himself as a response worker free of weapons vs one with a huge weapon?

The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it.


"The wanting to shoot shoplifters statement still feels very relevant to me, despite you ignoring it."

It is going to sound like a very radical position, but burning a city to the ground does not sound like mere shoplifting to me.

That a kid may have said something stupid is a possibility, but you can throw a rock in this crowd and find examples of speech that is not exactly bolstering their cause. In fact, if you do end up going through court records, you will find defense quoting one of the 'victims' saying some of those stupid things. There are no good guys here.

BUT.

There is a clear case of self-defense. And that is all that matters. If I can't defend myself from a mob going at me, something is wrong with current society.


Thanks. Yeah, I hear you. For the sake of the court case (which I wasn't trying to argue about it), the particular events that lead up to it are what matters. I have a lot of trouble accepting why he was there in the first place, though. I'm not saying that _has_ to impact the case (unless there can be a clear connection between expressing a desire to shoot shoplifters and his actions of the night, which - from a 10k ft view - there is), but just... showing up there with a rifle is sending a loud message, and shit is going to get ugly. Seems like he's very lucky to be alive.

I have a friend here in LA whose business was smashed in during the riots last year (I learned about it when I saw a picture of him standing in front of his business in the LA Times). I felt so bad, and I was outraged! When I checked in with him, he just shrugged and was like, "eh, I have insurance." It took me a minute to understand. But, I mean, it's super complicated, because protests can easily be co-opted by kids who want to opportunistically rage/profit. And, as an All Gas No Brakes episode taught me, it's cathartic and feels like the only thing that some of them can do that has any impact.


> Like I said, I haven’t followed this

You obviously, by your posts, don't know the facts of this case, so why are you weighing in the first place?

> Do you think Kyle was unaware of the dangerous situation he created simply by virtue of carrying that weapon in that environment?

The situation was already dangerous - people were looting and setting shit on fire. Rittenhouse had already put out one of those fires. And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one? In fact, if the third guy had not brought a gun, he'd still have most of his bicep.

> one with a huge weapon

Stop calling it a "huge weapon". You sound ridiculous. It's a fucking AR-15. It's not a Howitzer.


Ah, I see where you're confused. I'm not weighing in about the case. This particular thread is about the neutrality of a reporter's initial story:

> 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.

I don't disagree with a level of neutrality (though it depends on the context - for example, the media has a tendency to go overly-neutral when describing "cars colliding with pedestrians"), but I was saying that further detail is valuable and attainable on-site. In this case, whether the shooter is, say, a business owner defending their business (such as the Korean shopowners perched on the roofs during the Rodney King riots), or a guy from out of town walking through the streets carrying - yes - a super visible weapon (aka a huge gun). Some commenters in this thread are also throwing things at me about the criminal past of the other people involved, which sounds to me like they're also having trouble following the thread (which again, is about the neutrality of initial reporting).

> And if it's dangerous to bring weapons to these """""""protests""""""", then why did the third guy that Rittenhouse shoot have one?

I don't understand your logic. Are you pretending that I'm defending this third guy or something?


Very odd how you think a voice that may or may not have been Kyle's saying he wanted to shoot shoplifters is "very relevant" but the criminal conviction for Rosenbaum raping a child or his history of violent behavior is irrelevant.


My word. Well I never. I do believe you are trolling. I haven't expressed any opinion about this Rosenbaum person who, I should stress, I just learned about in this thread.

Not everyone needs to take a side in cases like this. My opinion - uninformed or super informed - has no impact on the case (neither does yours), and I am not a stakeholder in this case. I have some trust in the justice system (and mostly, I'm pretty busy at the moment).

But like I said, guy driving in from out of town with a gun to defend the property of strangers is asking for trouble. And just to ward off more weird replies like this one, I'm aware that he's not the only active party in this incident.


I believe it's against the hackernews rules to accuse people of trolling. I'm not trolling either way though.

Perhaps if, as you say, you don't know anything about the case, you should stop sharing your opinion on it. You are misstating matters of fact and being misleading. To me, when you say you don't know anything about the case and then share the tiny detail you do know, it comes across as someone selectively presenting an argument while giving themselves license to mislead - because you "don't know" about any contrary evidence.

You say that Rittenhouse traveled "waaay out of his way" and "in from out of town". In fact, Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha, his father lived there, and Kyle lived nearby, twenty minutes away, with his mother. This isn't "out of town" or out of his way, it's his local community.

You wrote that Rittenhouse has a "history of wanting to shoot shoplifters". Actually, there was a single video where only a voice was heard saying this (Rittenhouse was not on screen) and the prosecution said the voice belonged to Rittenhouse. The prosecutor was not able to explain where the video came from. The anonymous video without the defendant on it and no reason to believe the prosecutor's hunch that the voice was Rittenhouse's wasn't allowed at trial. You can understand, perhaps, why "I'm not following the case" comes across to me more as a rhetorical trick than the truth when one of the random factoids you do know is a denied prosecutor's motion to add evidence at trial. Oh, but because you "aren't following the case" you didn't know it wasn't sourced, no evidence it's Rittenhouse on the tape, and it wasn't admissable at trial.


That all sounds reasonable. Thanks for taking the time to explain these details. And sorry for thinking you were trolling. I definitely regret chiming in. I don't like arguing on the internet, I genuinely haven't followed the case, and I was getting hit by more replies than I expected (that were leveling weird things against me based on the few words I said).

My entire opinion on this event (not the court case), is essentially, "fuck this guy, and I'm not at all surprised that bad shit went down." I am from Los Angeles, and when I was a kid the Rodney King riots featured massive amounts of violence and destruction, and shopowners were defending their livelihoods with guns. If a white dude from Lancaster - who had a job "in the county" - decided to visit South Central and walk down the street prominently carrying a rifle, then I would have had the same opinion I just shared. That's it! That's all I was trying to share. He escalated an already bad situation.

But yeah, if that "shooting shoplifters" video is that sketchy, I accept that. All I had heard was a headline with the judge saying it was irrelevant. And then immediately after that I saw another headline where the judge agreed with the defense that zooming in on a picture can create digital demons (did I get that right? :D).


Not getting into the rest of it, but the reason the "pinch to zoom" discussion is important is that the piece of video they are attempting to zoom in on is the one the prosecution's final gambit hinges on. As the self-defense evidence has stacked up, the prosecution has attempted to make the case that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum's attack by pointing his gun at him. Despite the pile of video evidence available of the evening, no other evidence or testimony corroborates this claim, and in the (allegedly critical) video evidence they want to zoom in on, Rittenhouse is about 15 pixels tall. In that scenario, the specifics of how zooming will affect the video are pretty critical.

There's another discussion to be had about wether the provocation element was introduced in good faith, or as an attempt to allow the jury to introduce their own opinions on wether his presence or his open carry were inherently "provocation", as well, which is thought to be the reason the defense has fought so strongly against the video being permitted (As the video is the only way the prosecution was allowed to introduce the concept of provocation into the jury instructions at all).


Someone's life is on the line. I don't think it's appropriate to hear a few random things about the case and then assert your conclusions.

Even more important than an individual's life is the public's faith in the systems that make up our country. The Justice system and the media largely work because people believe in them. If you think the Justice system is unjust, you don't trust police or prosecutors or judges - that results in places where people settle things for themselves or for their tribe rather than relying on the courts. It results, in other words, in internecine violence.

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

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

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

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

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


Again, I wasn't commenting on _the case_, but on the topic of this particular thread, which was about news coverage of _the event_ (not the continuing news coverage, but the initial "here are the immediate facts we know"). And that the information I received from that lead me to reach some opinions on Kyle's overall wisdom and that a bad outcome of some sort is not surprising (which has nothing to do with "guilt"). And I still think you're conflating the "claims" I've made with claims/opinions about the court case. It's not impossible to separate the two, but I think this isn't the medium for it.

I know that my opinion of the actual case does not matter, but for the sake of clarification I'll say that I have a decent amount of trust in the system and I hope/expect a fair outcome based on the evidence. And I also trust you, as someone who has followed the case and taken the time to respond to me in a clear manner.

I agree with everything you said about the media.


Kyle is also a child who illegally obtained the assault rifle he should not have possessed?


That's not true. Wisconsin law permits 16 and 17 year olds to carry rifles. Just today the judge dismissed the weapons charge for this reason. Kyle had the weapon lawfully - that point has already been adjudicated in a court of law.


I don't think the convicted child rapist thing is that important. The defendant would not have known this information and it would not have factored into his decision to fire his weapon. The other things you mentioned feel more important.


I don't think hackernews is an appropriate place to discuss the nuances of the case - it veers too close to politics. I will note though that you seem to select one or two details of the case that seem compelling to you and ignore the rest. It seems strange to base an opinion on what happened on what the defendant said before the event rather than the video and testimony of the event itself.

My understanding of the law is that self-defense is determined by the actions of the people involved and what they were thinking - not what they may have said on other occasions or the distance from the event they live. The fact that Kyle lives twenty minutes away from Kenosha or has previously said he wanted to shoot shop lifters seems irrelevant to me and would have twenty years ago too.


I hear you. Just to clarify, I wasn't forming an opinion on what happened, nor did I state an opinion on what happened. Those two selected details were basically all I absorbed. What's important to me is "why was this person there in the first place" (and I feel like I got the gist!). Not "what happened after this person showed up and how would I defend/prosecute this case if I pretended I was a lawyer." I only have so much bandwidth in my life. Sad event all around.


You absolutely did form an opinion. You wrote "'guy traveled waaay out of his way with a giant gun in order to ‘protect’ strangers’ property; guy has history of saying he would shoot shoplifters.' Nuff said."

I understand having limited bandwidth in your life. It's good to recognize when you don't aren't informed on a subject. However, when you aren't informed on a subject the thing to do is not share your strong opinions on that subject.


But your details are false. Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha and lived only a few miles away. The rifle is not large one in any way, neither in overall size nor in caliber. It doesn't bother you that your opinion is based on falsehoods?


It bothers me a little that you think you just corrected me. This is an honest question: do you not understand what "opinion" means? For example, do you understand that I can say, "large gun" and that it doesn't mean the same thing you think when you say, "large gun"? When you say, "the rifle is not large," I'm still correct when I say, "yes it is." We're both stating our opinions!

I see pictures of Kyle posing with a gun that appears to be about half the length of his body; when he is out on the streets during the riots, you can tell he is holding a gun from very far away. The messaging I get from this is not "response worker there to provide medical aid and put out fires." Do you truly not have any clue why his presence negatively contributed to the situation?

Obviously my point about him defending strangers' property was to note that he did not have a direct interest in defending his own property. The length of his drive is far from the point. But that's super true: he worked in the same county, and it was only like a 30 minute drive. I just looked it up! Amazing. Really makes me think.

Correcting details that are beside the point != winning an argument.


This is the Nick Sandmann saga all over again. A couple of years later we will hear of these outlets quietly settling various lawsuits with Rittenhouse. But hey at that point the outrage machine has moved on to something else, they have made their bucks. Small price to pay.


> 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.


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.


The other two attacked him because he just shoot and killed an unarmed person. Justified or not, it's reasonable that others would get upset and try to stop him.


He is a child and was not legally allowed to purchase and pisses that weapon?


False. He did not purchase the rifle (a friend of his who lives in Wisconsin did), and it wasn't illegal for him to possess it in Wisconsin, which is why the charge of possession was dropped.


> attempting to cause social unrest

This seems the likely result, but I’m not quite convinced it’s their motivation.

It seems just as likely to me that they’re reporting based on analysis from people who are ideologically motivated, consciously or not.


Violence sells.


It's more than that. Violence destabilizes and diminishes power in those fighting. Thus granting the illusion of increased power to those pulling the strings. Evil stuff.


Yeah, it's easy to drop an innuendo laiden “long” headline and then the readers won't read what actually happened in the text of the article and sway public opinion a lot.


They sell controversy. It's not really that hard to understand and all of these other "motives" are just ridiculous.


Sells more soap.


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.


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.


I'm not excusing anyone stateside. You guys are pretty deflective of this topic on HN, but I get it.


Foreign state interference is the story the media has decided to go with. It shields corporate powers and provides a scapegoat. Having an external entity seen as causing this threat plays into our fears.

The truth is corporate interests have over taken and reshaped the news and media properties they vertically own.

Does it worry you that your news promotes a culture filtered through corporate interests? Do you remember the last news story on corporate interests altering the news? You won't get that news story.. because no one wants you to think that is an issue.

They want you to be scared of foreign entities but ignore the killer sitting beside you.


Foreign interference generally does flow in from US based corporations... I'm not excusing anyone stateside.


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.


Also compare Grosskreutz's testimony to his statements to various news networks this past week, where he repeatedly contradicted his own sworn testimony.


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...


He lied to the media but told the truth under oath? I'm surprised.


There was video evidence of everything he testified to under oath. If he had lied, it would have been obvious perjury.


Thanks for the context.


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.


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.


Do you say it's almost like super normal stimulation?

https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/supernormal-stimuli/#pa...

I would say this is what it's like.


It does seem like a pretty good metaphor for what it is like. Thank you for sharing, I've never seen this comic before and I think it does a great job at communicating the message the author was trying to get across.


> 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...


All of those are media created issues as well.


You're asking me to believe that the income/wealth gap and climate change are media-created?


Media shaped and presented in a false light yes. And you are told what is acceptable to feel about it.


Ah, alright. Thanks for being so upfront, saves me wasting my time x)


Please tell us more about your theories on this.


Many of the issues you believe are important are only important because the media told you they were and provided a neat story.

Great recent example: Afghanistan.. do you know what happened to those people who fled? What about the ones that never made it out on time. The media changed the topic and people stopped caring.

What do you think would happen if wealth gap stops being talked about? People stop caring because people only care about their pay and buying power. Global warming same. It takes planting 1,000 new trees to offset a flight from Austria to Scotland. If global warming was taken seriously these people would meet virtually and society would be changed to tax companies with offices. That's not what the media is talking about.


Don't feed...


CNN directly includes this fact: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-mon...

> "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.


People don't base this opinion on a single article but on the coverage of the situation holistically as it evolves. Most of the 'bombshell' revelations in this trial have been available on the internet since the week of the shooting. The number of videos and images that show that it wasn't until Grosskreutz pointed his gun at Rittenhouse and advanced on him aiming at his head that he was shot is overwhelming and yet it seemed to catch the prosecutors and journalists completely by surprise.

If you watch the videos of the event in sequence you realise that this is one of the most blatant and well documented cases of self-defence in history, yet people who have only consumed media coverage of the shooting have been surprised by the difficulty that the prosecution have had proving it was murder. Clearly there is something broken in the transmission of information there.


One thing that was the primary influence of whether this was actually self defense or not was what happened between the interview where he explained how and why he was there, to the start of the video in front of the store where he first fires. I'm not sure (I haven't been following the trial) - but have seen a few people mention that someone else "shot into the sky" while a fire was being put out, and words were exchanged, which led to the accused leaving the area, going to a better lit area, which is when the infamous video started.

It really puts a different perspective on the entire thing, especially if you notice at the end of the video he was moving toward law enforcement the whole time.


Yes, Ziminski shot a pistol into the air. Is charged with arson (but, oddly, not with shooting that gun) and was not called to the stand, there was a fight over that in closing arguments (both for defense, then for prosecution, then going to the judge to settle the dispute).

Rosenbaum is the one that threatened Kyle previously. It's not clear how they're related, but Rosenbaum and Ziminski were together in photos where a lot of the stuff was going down, this was referenced by the defense a lot in their closing arguments.


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?


If I'm not mistaken Lachowski testified that when attending Grosskreutz after being shot he found the glock on the ground and cleared it. There was one in the chamber.

The unspent ammo from the glock comes from Lachowski clearing it. Grosskreutz didn't rerack the gun, but he did have one in the chamber ready to shoot, meaning that he meant to take out Rittenhouse when he advanced before having his bicep blown off.


I don't think I saw that person's testimony, so I'll have to find and review it. Thank you for that. If this is correct, then I would correct my wording from re-racking to racking. You're right that it casts doubt on whether he was not prepared to shoot anyone. After all, why'd he prepare his gun to fire if he wasn't willing to do so?


> If this is correct, then I would correct my wording

You should want to correct it regardless of the outcome of that "if".

The fact is, (a) you are carelessly speculating about details when we are right in the middle of a mess that was caused by rampant speculation—the fact that contradictory testimony and video happens to exist is not what made the claim unkosher—and (b) even if you weren't wrong and were recounting pure facts, you are derailing the discussion.


I'm not sure if he racked it or not, but it is common to carry with a round in the chamber.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yy5e30ynJn4


GG is a interesting person. He was already convicted of home invasion and is therefore prohibited from carrying/owning/purchasing a gun.

He had DUIs after this event but was let off

There has been some suggestion that his ability to avoid prosecution suggests that he is a likely FBI informant in Antifa.

GG isn't from Kenosha but no one makes any issue about him illegally traveling there to riot with a weapon


The reason that no one makes an issue of it is because he did not kill anyone and is therefore not the one on trial. If he had killed someone it is perfectly reasonable to bring this up. (Also as far as I know he did not illegally travel there or am I misunderstanding? )


He lied to the cops, had an expired CCL and was seen carrying on camera. There are quite a few crimes that could have been charged based on what is known.


*seen brandishing

At the very least. Not just carrying.


An excellent point.


> * 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.]


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.


> a year ago when you formed this opinion

This is a nonsense sentence. It's not even clear what you're even trying to say here, but it's certain that whatever it is you are making even more bad assumptions about things that you don't actually know to be true.

> please show it [...] I was not able to locate any other claims for where the unspent round came from

It's like you ignored the entire message and homed in on the sweet temptation to muse further about the events of the night of the shooting itself, as if this were exactly the sort of trial-by-Reddit thread that I said I would not take part in here.

After the response you just received, do you really expect that the person who wrote it would meet your challenge, which would require an about-face, throwing everything just said out the window, and willingly contributing to derailing the discussion from the topic at hand?

In other words: no, and furthermore, since you're all over this thread trying to turn it into exactly what it shouldn't be: please stop.


Well, if you don't want to engage in that, don't. Don't claim to have video evidence in your back pocket and then not show it to anyone because you want to shut down other people's discussions. Don't seize on part of my comment and then come back like it's unfair when it happens to you.

This isn't trial by Reddit, this is discussion of the evidence that has been investigated by professional investigators and presented as evidence in open court. The only thing I mentioned that wasn't raised and cross-examined in a court of law was the statement on ABC, by the same person who had said something different under oath just before.

You're the one alluding to some mystery video you won't describe.


> this is discussion of the evidence

You (and by now, others, too) are derailing the thread from the topic at hand by trying to make it one, but no, that's not what this is.

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

There is no shortage of places to discuss the night of the Kenosha shooting. This is not one of 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.


I agree with you: let us not leave anything important out.

Many young men were following Rittenhouse, yelling things like "Get him" and "Beat him up". I sensed a lot of dangerous emotions in the videos, in the sound of the voices and the movements of the bodies. Some say that those yelling "get him" merely wanted to makes sure than Rittenhouse did not escape legal accountability (for Rittenhouse's shooting minutes earlier of Joseph Rosenbaum). But consider that Rittenhouse was walking down the middle of a wide street towards a line of cops. What need was there to detain Rittenhouse rather than simply to follow him at a distance to make sure he keeps walking toward the police line?

Then someone hit Rittenhouse on the head, Rittenhouse kept walking quickly, but fell down after a few seconds. During questioning in court, he says he fell because he got dizzy because of the blow to his head. While sitting on his ass in the middle of the street, someone ran up to him, hit him on the shoulder with a skateboard and (almost in the same motion if I recall correctly) grabbed Rittenhouse's gun and tried to pull it away from him. This someone was making the kind of dramatic-but-somewhat-clumsy movements of their whole body that people tend to make when they are in the throes of an intense emotion and trying hard to achieve some physical outcome.

Then Rittenhouse shot that someone (Anthony Huber), which very sadly killed him.

Did I leave anything important out?

EDIT. I changed "hit him on the head" (with a skateboard) to "hit him on the shoulder".


>Since Rittenhouse was walking down the middle of a wide brightly-lit street towards a line of cops, it is probably not the case that those yelling "stop him" merely wanted to make sure that Rittenhouse did not escape legal accountability (for Rittenhouse's shooting minutes earlier of Rosenbaum).

Considering that these were protest against the police, it's not reasonable to assume that the people present had any faith in the police force, no.

>someone hit him on the head with a skateboard and grabbed his gun

Hit him on the shoulder. And after watching the video about ten times, it's looks like he stumbled and landed on Rittenhouse with the board, rather than actually swinging it. Unfortunately, we only have a few frames blurry video and Rittenhouse's word on the matter, since Rittenhouse shot and killed the man immediately.

edit: It looks like you edited your comment after I opened it to respond to make it more factual. Most of what I said above still applies, but I will point out the fact that, by your own admission, Hubor was attempting to disarm Rittenhouse "in the same motion" he made contact with his skateboard, but you insist he was at the same time swinging for the head show just how much opportunity there is to twist the facts of the case to suit whatever narrative you want to spin.


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


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


That applies to the protestors maybe. Not the people Rittenhouse was dealing with.


>it's looks like he stumbled and landed on Rittenhouse with the board, rather than actually swinging it.

That is the second time in 7 seconds that Huber's skateboard gets very close to Rittenhouse's head. Here is the first time:

https://youtu.be/1i7xSigmrfw?t=27114

-- after which Huber retrieves his skateboard from the ground, which action is inconsistent with your hypothesis that Huber's goal was to grab Rittenhouse's gun in the second interaction and the skateboard was just inconveniently in his hand.


The lack of a toxicology report on everyone involved is what I want to know about. How many of them (Rittenhouse included) were high, or a little buzzed, at the very least?

Or am I so naive and that a mob-like situation truly brings out the animals in all of us. Cooler heads did not prevail on either side.

Whatever happens, everyone involved should never be allowed to own a gun again. They could have all gone to a bar and had a fist fight and be done with it.

And the mother even drove the kid down there armed. The chaos of Mania makes me wonder if this is the last of this behavior we’ll see from everyone before this decade calms down.


When you say unarmed men, surely you don't intend to omit the fact that they ambushed him and were chasing him and attempting to grievously assault him while he was trying to get away?

This omission game goes both ways. You're leaving pertinent information out to support your narrative also.


Continuing to clarify the facts of the situation.

He had already committed murder at this point. It's not unusual (though it is unwise) to attempt to prevent a murderer from running away. Furthermore, saying that anyone was "attempting to grievously assault him" is speculation, since he shot and killed the first person to reach him after he tripped, and then shot the next person who was trying to disarm him.


3 men ganged up on him and took him to the ground, one attempted to crack his skull open with a skateboard. If "attempting grievous bodily harm" is speculative to you you either haven't seen the video of the incident, you're emotionally invested in your position on this beyond reason or you're agitating.


The fact is murder has a specific definition "unlawful premeditated killing"

If self defense, not unlawful, which facts lead you to premeditated?


> He had already committed murder at this point

Had he?


Binger? Is that you?


kind of like how you fail to admit that one of the two 'unarmed' men was armed with a skateboard that he was trying to beat kyle to death with.

Kind of a major omission to make when you're accusing your fellow commentators of lying by omission


>that he was trying to beat kyle to death with.

So, let's continue to clarify the facts. I went and found the video of the incident, and you're stretching the truth to the point of being disingenuous.

Here's the video (obvious warning, it has footage of Rittenhouse shooting his victims) https://files.catbox.moe/ayaw6u.mp4

Considering he never even swings it at Rittenhouse, and merely has it in his hand when he tries to stop him running away, that's a real stretch to say he's "trying to beat him to death". I won't argue that trying to stop an armed person by jumping them is a bad idea, but that's not what you said.


??

you can clearly see him hitting kyle with the skateboard at around 15 seconds here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQSpxSlrg


That's the same video I linked. He makes contact with the board, yes, but he basically just lands on Rittenhouse. It's not like the After going frame by frame, on the youtube version, though, Hubor does pull his arm back slightly, so I'm no longer as confident that there's absolutely no wind-up.


there is a picture about halfway down this page that makes it look like he is really nailing kyle with the board. it looks brutal, right on his neck. -- but when I watch the video it goes so fast that it could also just be him basically running into him. So.. idk

https://heavy.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-video-photo...

I guess it just goes to show how hard it is to pull facts out of a couple seconds of grainy video


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: