451–460 of 872 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why don't they build their own platform? youtube can do what they want on their website.
Because then Google (YouTube) would force the competing app off the Google (Android) App Store for not meeting Google's (YouTube) own censorship policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sense the goal isn’t to change anyone’s mind from “the election was stolen” to “the election was fair”. Rather, it serves to enforce the notion that believing the former is considered unacceptable.
That's interesting. If they're not trying to persuade (and it doesn't appear so), then is the point of that to flex their power or what?
Soave (co-host of The Hill’s morning show: Rising) wrote an article about it here: https://reason.com/2022/03/03/youtube-rising-the-hill-electi... > YouTube has taken the position that merely acknowledging an utterance of the false claim is the same thing as making the claim yourself unless you correct and disavow it elsewhere in the video. It is also sufficient to post a warning label in the video's description that…
What nonsense from YouTube. Do they really think putting in such disclaimers is actually going to change anyone's mind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most things aren't clear cut, and there have been many times in history where widely held beliefs have been proven largely false. If you'll recall there was a multi year period of mass belief that the president colluded with Russians to steal the election. On the back of very little evidence, other than news heads talking about it and "he said, she said" There was also a multi year investigation that found nothing, a…
I would hate for people to fall out of the practice of critically thinking about what they see in the news. Our whole open society depends on people practicing deciding what they think it's right.
My preference is to leave all content up, but perhaps provide filters to users so they can choose to look at a bubble if they like. Or have an open standard for video data, on which anybody could build a UI layer.
Just saying, there's a clear double standard here. Saying the election was stolen due to collusion with Russians seems to be along awfully similar lines.
I'm happy to allow companies to do whatever they like, but the data needs to be decoupled from the UI then. Otherwise it's a natural monopoly.
I think history will see it that way, though it may take another decade or two.
Quoted post unavailable.
Curious about where you see an institutionalized support on the left for election tampering claims, if you have any sources.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13920444/...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-ele...
If it's nonsense, then why censor it? If it's not nonsense, then why censor it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stacey Abrams still claims she was cheated out of her governorship in Georgia. There are many such examples.
Can you name some more examples? I’m trying to understand…
- Abrams defends lack of concession after 2018 gubernatorial loss (CNN) https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/politics/stacey-abrams-conces...
- Stacey Abrams is running for Georgia governor in 2022 (AJC.com) "Abrams lost to Kemp by less than 1.4 percentage points in 2018, the closest Georgia gubernatorial election in decades, and her refusal to concede defeat because of what she called an “erosion” of voting rights" https://www.ajc.com/politics/politics-blog/breaking-stacey-a...
Her whole platform for her new gubernatorial race is predicated on the "fact" that she was cheated out of her last election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > If it's instructions on drinking bleach, why censor it? >Not comparable. Nor did it ever actually happen. https://www.dailywire.com/news/fact-check-no-trump-did-not-t... https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/11/joe-biden/... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/202... Not anywhere will you find Trump saying to “inject bleach”. That was the media narrative, completely their words.
> And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you’re going to test that too. Sounds interesting. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Seems to me like he is very clearly talking ab…
https://www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom/cedars-sinai-statement...
This was released 3 days prior to his statement: https://irdirect.net/prviewer/release/id/4294930
> Our team has shown that administering a specific spectrum of UV-A light can eradicate viruses in infected human cells (including coronavirus) and bacteria in the area while preserving healthy cells
UV light was mentioned prior in the presser. Trump wasn't specific, but you can't say he said inject bleach, read the transcript for yourself:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-coronaviru...
It's disingenuous to say he was suggesting for people to inject bleach or disinfectant.
Even if he didn't clarify what disinfectant, he sure as hell didn't tell people to do anything, he was talking about research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not at all. Google is a private concern with the right to publish or not any content they see fit. That they can defacto censor opinions they don’t approve of is a failure of the market.
Corporations do not have rights, they are government-defined entities—not people. There's no "Bill of Corporate Rights" or "UN Convention on Corporate Rights." Corporations have locally-defined privileges and exist by, and at, the will of the people where they reside. Governments can change what those privileges are at any moment, for any reason—or no reason at all. If we don't like what Google is doing, we can simpl…
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00100...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should broadcasters be forced to host debates? Broadcasters are forced to do all kinds of stuff. In Canada they have to carry a certain percentage of Canadian content.
Broadcasting uses a highly limited resource, local TV freqiencies. Especially until recently, these were really limited to a dozen or so channels per metro area. There are far more than a dozen websites out there.
Last mile delivery by telephone and cable companies have government right of way monopolies.
YouTube can’t be watched without government grants.
And the Canadian (and other country) content laws apply to non-spectrum using channels.
But all this is silly. The phone company can’t decide to cancel my phone call because of what I’m saying. A law can stop YouTube.