Live data from Hacker News

YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

blog.youtube

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#301

We are very fortunate to have the algorithms, employees & management of Youtube/Google watching out for us. We're not intelligent enough to view a video and decide for ourselves what is fact v. propaganda v. entertainment. Hopefully some day we will have the same protections the CCP gives its people with even more content moderation. Thank you Google - you're the nanny the American people and the world always hoped f…

While the sarcasm is dripping, it's also true. There clearly are people that can view a video and realize that it's is 100% BS. Yet, at the same time, there are other people that will watch it and 100% believe it. If it wasn't effective, it wouldn't be used.

This is correct.

> The Australian white supremacist who killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand was radicalized by YouTube, according to a 792-page report on the March 2019 shooting.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/8/22162779/christchurch-sho...

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#302

"YouTube said Wednesday it will start removing any content uploaded to its platform that contains allegations of widespread fraud or errors" So the US election was 100% error free? Got it, YouTube. I still have friends whose votes weren't counted according to their state's Secretary of State website. I'm not even sure what's the point: Supressing misleading info prior to the election is one thing, but the election is…

> So the US election was 100% error free? I think you're willfully misreading in order to score some rhetorical point, but just in case: Read that as "widespread (fraud or errors)". No one is alleging that the election was error-free, only that it was free from widespread error.

Define widespread.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#303
A lot of short, knee-jerk reactions on this thread, not to mention snark and downright flame. Seeing as this is at the top of HN right now, can we try to elevate the level of discourse a little bit? A few questions to consider:

1. Is content moderation necessary in online platforms?

I think the answer to this question is self-evident, but others may disagree and so I think it's worth posing. FWIW, HN has moderation, both official (e.g., dang) and unofficial (anyone with enough karma to flag/downvote). There's also built-in protections against flamewars (i.e., algorithmic moderation). I don't think HN would be the same place without these elements. Feel free to disagree.

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how should content moderation happen?

This is a tough problem, and it's a lot to easier to find fault than to propose workable solutions. I definitely would prefer a more democratic moderation scheme for these mega-platforms that dominate online media today. But in some sense, every form of online moderation (HN included) has been top-down. And as we've seen in the US and elsewhere, democracy itself is prone to fracturing.

It's almost like we need a constitution for online governance. But could we ever agree on such a constitution in the first place? Does it need to be legislated (and if so, how do we get global consensus)? Can it be bootstrapped from the bottom up?

3. Setting aside the question of who gets to decide, should moderation be based on tone, factuality, importance of the topic, ...? How does one determine factuality? Is there something special about political matters that makes it off-limits for moderation? What if politics intersects with other matters (which probably is the case more often than not) - as in the case of COVID?

And of course, it's probably impossible to separate these questions from the question of "who gets to decide". That lies at the heart of all of these "what about X" complaints elsewhere in the thread. Truth often matters less than trust, and trust is in short supply these days.

Again, it's easy to criticize, but these are difficult questions. There are few easy choices. And unfortunately for the people who work on these platforms, inaction is also a choice, as I'm sure they're well aware.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#304

Is there any article or video out there that outlines a compelling case of how massive election fraud could have even occurred ? I do believe some election fraud happened, how could it not with 150MM voters in this past election. But I have yet to read a single article that could outline any explanation for how democrats stole 8MM votes so Trump lost, but did not change down-ballot votes so that they also lost house…

Can I assume that I am being downvoted because I suggested that "some" fraud occurred?

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#305
There wouldn't be a problem if there were three or four competitors on each social media platform. Instead we have near monopolies on status sharing (facebook), opinion sharing (twitter), video sharing (youtube), photo sharing (instagram), resumee sharing (linkedin), etc. If these platforms would decouple from their brands and allow competition, nobody would ask for censorship.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#307

We are very fortunate to have the algorithms, employees & management of Youtube/Google watching out for us. We're not intelligent enough to view a video and decide for ourselves what is fact v. propaganda v. entertainment. Hopefully some day we will have the same protections the CCP gives its people with even more content moderation. Thank you Google - you're the nanny the American people and the world always hoped f…

I think Google would be more than happy to take a hands off approach. The issue is that the PR hit for being alleged to "radicalize" people or promote fringe views had becomes smaller than the PR hit of censorship.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#308

We are very fortunate to have the algorithms, employees & management of Youtube/Google watching out for us. We're not intelligent enough to view a video and decide for ourselves what is fact v. propaganda v. entertainment. Hopefully some day we will have the same protections the CCP gives its people with even more content moderation. Thank you Google - you're the nanny the American people and the world always hoped f…

We’re not. Propaganda works.

We’ll probably end up with almost a million Americans dead from COVID, largely because “the big lie” is effective.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#309

We are very fortunate to have the algorithms, employees & management of Youtube/Google watching out for us. We're not intelligent enough to view a video and decide for ourselves what is fact v. propaganda v. entertainment. Hopefully some day we will have the same protections the CCP gives its people with even more content moderation. Thank you Google - you're the nanny the American people and the world always hoped f…

Once again a thread about censorship invites comments that ignore the nuance of the situation. Having companies dictate what information is widely accessible is dangerous for democracy. Having the sitting president make completely baseless claims in an effort to delegitimize the results of an election because it didn’t go his way is also dangerous for democracy. That’s what we call a tricky situation. We don’t have a…

How is it [the president making baseless claims] dangerous for democracy? What if the opposite is true? What if censoring thoughts is the real danger for democracy?

I am not saying I have proof for any of this. But I guess, that's true for your claim, too. I think it would be wise to rephrase it so that it doesn't sound like a fact.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#310

>Connecting people to authoritative information Top channels from picture. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com ABC: Left of Center NBC: Left of Center USA today: Left of Center CNN: Left CBS: Left of Center The "Authoritative Sources" are all Left-wing news agencies. So in other words they have done like Wikipedia. They have determined that Left of Center is authoritative and have limited the reach of alternative viewpoin…

Or alternatively, the center in the US is so far right that media naturally falls to the left of that.

>Or alternatively, the center in the US is so far right that media naturally falls to the left of that.

I provided the website which indicates the bias. You can use the same site to find right of center or right biased news.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

The point I am making. Youtube clearly have a Left of Center bias and have indicated they are restricting other viewpoints.

This is intentional and you get to decide if you like them doing this.

Post reply on HN