YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#801

Post by BurningFrog » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 1:58 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #51

rayiner wrote: post #23

This is an enormous overreach. > Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to…

These claims are being slaughtered in ongoing court cases, and many of them are objectively batshit, like the guy who filed an affidavit about being prevented from observing vote counts because he drove to the wrong location, or the woman, central to the Texas suit against PA and MI, who claims the Obamas "funded the Wuhan lab where coronavirus was made". It is not the case that Google has to provide space for a clai…

The nasty question becomes:

How do you know the more non batshit accounts haven't already been taken down?

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#802

Post by nickysielicki » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 1:58 AM UTC

syndacks wrote: post #771

For as smart as many of the people on this site are, I'm shocked how many don't understand the fundamental principal that YouTube is a private company and can do whatever they please with speech. This isn't the government, this isn't first amendment.

You're mischaracterizing the outrage. Virtually everyone is making a normative argument against this censorship, not a technical one. Google is perfectly within their rights to host what they want, everyone can agree with that. Whether they should engage in censorship (beyond what is required by law) is what everyone is debating.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#803

Post by rantwasp » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 1:59 AM UTC

kiawe_fire wrote: post #509

In a free and fair society, it is not dangerous to ask questions. It is very dangerous to be told that you are not allowed to ask questions. In a marketplace of ideas, with free sharing of information, bogus claims will eventually (usually quickly) collapse on themselves, and true claims will bear themselves out. Attempting to silence ideas, even potentially false and harmful ideas, is the greatest way to build a soc…

Have you heard about the bullshit asymmetry principle?

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/01/28/bullshit-a...

I personally don't buy this "free speech" speech, since free speech applies to the government, not to a public entity.

Youtube is free to make any rules they want and to enforce them however they want. They don't owe you anything and you can stop using it at any point in time (which I actually encourage you to do - but for a completely different set of reasons). You watch content, they show you ads and get money for the ads. That's it. You don't like the content or the lack of content you are free to, again, move to another site/platform/social network/etc.

It's amazing to me how much people are willing to entertain this charade that was started after the elections. It's also amazing to see the mental gymnastics involved to explain some of the things that were done and/or said. This is not 4D chess.

Youtube should get to do what they want as long as they operate withing the laws of the countries they are running their service within. I still have not seen the law that was broken here.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#804

Post by convery » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 2:01 AM UTC

syndacks wrote: post #764

anonytrary wrote: post #757

I just don't get this. Why does Google have to be the censorship police here? Just let people post what they want (minus graphic and illegal content) and make their own mistakes and their own learnings. Google is going down a rabbit hole full of worms. Posting conspiracy theories about election fraud is just people exercising their free speech. Google is a private platform, so they can censor whatever they want, but…

You're conflating free speech (government) with a business's decision to monitor their platform (private). These two things are very different. >What's the goal here? To make their platform not full of bullshit. YouTube isn't the government, there is no such thing as the 1st amendment to them, so they cull that which is bad for business.

The concept of 'free speech' is not limited to the first amendment. Whether or not the government is involved (which could be argued given that it was requested by politicians while anti-trust issues with Google is a hot topic); is less relevant.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#805

Post by confidantlake » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 2:03 AM UTC

its_simple wrote: post #619

GordonS wrote: post #400

I don't like what YouTube is doing. But... What is going on in the US just now is unprecedented in modern Western democracies - we've reached "peak fake news" in the USA. Mainstream news networks like Fox have talking heads spouting venomous lies that are demonstrably and trivially proven as such. The POTUS is lying on an hourly basis (many of those lies just brazenly , ridiculously false), and has millions of people…

I don't need Youtube to tell me what I should and shouldn't watch. It's not any more complicated than that. If you need someone to tell you what you should or shouldn't be watching, then that's your problem, and they should make a product specifically for you rather than forcing it on everyone that participated in building their product and participating in their business and making them money. This is a total slap i…

As far as I know, youtube doesn't let me watch or upload porn on their site despite it being legal. Should they be forced to allow it?

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#806

Post by cacarr » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 2:05 AM UTC

endymi0n wrote: post #630

singlow wrote: post #330

If there is to be toleration in the world, one of the things taught in schools must be the habit of weighing evidence, and the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true. For example, the art of reading the newspapers should be taught. The schoolmaster should select some incident which happened a good many years ago, and roused political passions in its day. He should…

"False balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been cited as a major cause of spreading misinformation…

Yes, balancing an interview with an astronomer by bringing in an astrologer -- or a alchemist with a chemist.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#807

Post by free_rms » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 2:05 AM UTC

endymi0n wrote: post #630

singlow wrote: post #330

If there is to be toleration in the world, one of the things taught in schools must be the habit of weighing evidence, and the practice of not giving full assent to propositions which there is no reason to believe true. For example, the art of reading the newspapers should be taught. The schoolmaster should select some incident which happened a good many years ago, and roused political passions in its day. He should…

"False balance, also bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports. Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless. False balance has been cited as a major cause of spreading misinformation…

Singlow isn't talking about blind both-sidism, though, they're talking about skeptical reading of both (or many!) sides to zero in on the truth.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#808

Post by JamisonM » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 2:05 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #23

This is an enormous overreach. > Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to…

LOL, ongoing court cases!

The fact that politicians and private actors choose to beclown themselves in front of state and federal judges shouldn't prevent businesses from being able to see the plain truth that is staring them in the face. This is farcical.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#809

Post by tootie » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 2:07 AM UTC

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #386

Unpopular opinion: it is much better to have a leader hated by the media and who's every move is scrutinized by the press than to have a leader cowtowed by the press and given a free pass on anything. How do I know? I'm from Russia. Authoritatism begins with tight control of news sources.

There's a difference between silencing dissent and silencing disinformation.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#810

Post by rantwasp » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 2:08 AM UTC

sxyuan wrote: post #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,…

1) an online platform should be moderated (and it is moderated by humans and machine - anybody that tells you otherwise is delusional).

2) the content moderation is up to the owner of the platform. they do whatever they want as long as they operate within the laws of the country/state where they are running their business. an online platform is not a democracy. the owner decides.

3) see 2) moderation is up to the owner. You don't get to come into my house and tell me what kind of dishwasher I should have. If the owner of the platform does a bad job, he will go out of business. If its interests are not aligned with something that happen on the platform I think its reasonable to ban that activity.

side comment: in what world do we live where a freaking pandemic is politicized? This alone should make a lot of people scratch their heads and wonder what is wrong with our society.