YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

No, she doesn't use the word stolen, and she conceded; but the article you linked to provides evidence of interference.

> The investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 election “in sweeping and systematic fashion” with the goal of helping Trump and harming Clinton

Many people historically only had a single phone provider available at their home. Last mile internet isn't competitive for most people, I would agree they should be considered a common carrier. This concept of "common carrier" is important in this debate.

A train line that is the sole means of commerce in and out of a town is a common carrier. There's no competitors really possible to enter into that market. For that train line to decide to not run certain cargo outside of safety concerns is to then control all the commerce with no reasonable competitor.

Literally right now I'm watching streaming video content hosted from some service other than YouTube. I probably spend less than an hour a week watching YouTube content. It's hardly the only rail line in town, nor is it the only way I can view video content. Now if the only viable ISP said "you can't connect to YouTube, if you don't like it sell your house and move to the next town over" then yeah that's a common carrier and shouldn't be allowed to do that.

DNS names aren't limited by the US government. There are lots of TLDs which are controlled by other governments. And largely they're pretty much managed by lots of different corporations. Either way, the government directly getting involved in taking over your domain name without any due process just to silence your speech probably does become a first amendment issue at least for US nationals. Either way, they're massively less limited than how many effective TV freqiencies or phone providers are in a given metro area.

the conservatives in Pennsylvania supported the change in the law that allowed for mail-in ballots.

Traditionally, older Pennsylvanians support conservative candidates. And with the state's population skewing older, Republicans in the state realized the thing that could dampen votes for their candidates was that the state's ancient, overly-tight restraints on what constituted a valid excuse for an absentee ballot meant that older Pennsylvanians who were shut in in nursing homes and couldn't find transportation to the polls increasingly wouldn't be able to vote for their candidates.

It was one of those bipartisan pieces of legislation that passed because Democrats believed the more of the population voted, the more would vote for them, and Republicans believed supporting the elderly's right to vote meant more Republican votes. In the end, they were probably both right.

Point is, the state Supreme Court rightfully saw through it when the people who'd supported the law in the first place called foul, but only in the third election the law was used, when their candidate wasn't the one who won.

... well, their candidate for President. An awful lot of their down-ticket candidates won. Which would be a weird thing to happen if the election had been rigged, wouldn't it?

Agreed…the hypocrisy of these decisions grows increasingly outrageous each day. For example, the reasoning behind the banning of Donald Trump from Twitter was that his rhetoric was “dangerous,” in that it may have encouraged/not discouraged the January 6 riot. On Tuesday (March 1), a Russian official threatened actual war over the economic sanctions the world is taking against his country [1]. His account is still active and the tweet is still up.

[1] https://twitter.com/medvedevrussiae/status/14986197503347507...

> There is no districts or gerrymandering at the Presidential level. It’s State wide.

You make it sound like the number of states has always been the same, and cannot change. In reality, Congress gets to decide which states to add (and which potential states to deny), and it does so with deliberate consideration of how the electoral votes would be affected.

One could even argue that states gerrymander their own electoral vote by choosing to give all their electors to the plurality winner within their state, when they could choose to assign electors proportionally instead. They don't literally draw up per-elector districts to produce this skewed result, but the result is the same as a very skilled after-the-fact gerrymander, so I think it's a reasonable comparison.

Anyway, I wasn't just talking about gerrymandering at the Presidential level. The problem exists in the individual state legislatures too (although it's hard to calculate an average across different states), and in Congress. For example, an interesting analysis[0] from 2016 found that:

> In the past four congressional elections, then, Republicans, as the party with the majority in the House, received a “seats bonus,” wherein members of their party secured a larger share of the seats in the chamber than the share of votes won nationwide.

[0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/22/gop-seats-b...