Live data from Hacker News

YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

blog.youtube

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#821

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…

He wrote that nearly 100 years ago. With an additional century's experience, I think it's clearer that teaching media literacy just isn't enough. One reason is the bullshit asymmetry principal: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." Another is that liars get a lot more practice in selling their lie than people do in analyzing and refuting a particular lie.…

Respectfully disagree.

> media literacy just isn't enough

How would we know? It's not really taught. As you pointed out later, it's not just "media literacy," it's "thinking for yourself," "critical thinking," "skepticism," "reasoning."

Very little of that is taught because the educational institutions who would be responsible for teaching it have curriculums that cannot withstand it.

Hand-waving to students that "u shuld do critical thinking" is not sufficient to actually teach critical thinking.

Also our educational institutions totally ignore the distribution of intelligence in the population. The curriculum is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator which does an incredible disservice to high (or even average) intelligence individuals.

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

This is true, to an extent. But, that's what journalism is supposed to solve. Instead of spending 1000 hours researching some issue as an individual, have 100 journalists spend 10 hours researching it and collaborate on the reporting. Sadly, we have very little actual journalism anymore, which I'll explain next..

> people who live on their lies usually have a much stronger incentive

This, I totally agree with.

Journalism has failed because it was bought out by corporate interests who have a vested interest in a particular narrative. If not through advertising, but by buying the media companies directly. Further, if you give a "journalist" a choice between working for 10 hours to tell the truth or working for 1 hour to tell a lie, getting paid the same amount either way, the outcome is obvious.

Moreover, declining educational standards, and especially lack of critical thinking skills, has led to a deadening of the public palette. The market is not incentivizing actual journalism because objectivity is hard, opposes too many special interests, and the public (at large) doesn't have a taste for it.

The only takeaway from this ought to be obvious. We can't rely on the institutions and corporations who created this problem to solve it. Clearly they're leading us to "thought police" and censorship. I think, however, the lights should be turned on and the public at large should get a crash course in critical thinking.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#822

https://www.engadget.com/youtube-election-misinformation-dem... So, i'm kind of curious how it's reasonable a political party can ask for partisan censorship. >YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki received a letter on Tuesday from four Democratic senators expressing “deep concern” over the spread of election misinformation on Google’s video platform. In the letter, senators Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii…

This isn't a company deciding, this is censorship urged by the government. I thought that kind of thing was illegal down there. Not saying anything either way about the politics of the election, but isn't this blatant government censorship? If you think it is, then why are you asking? If you're not sure, why are you asserting it (and suggesting that a party is equivalent to a government because some of its members ar…

>If you think it is, then why are you asking?

hartator answered this pretty well.

>If you're not sure, why are you asserting it (and suggesting that a party is equivalent to a government because some of its members are part of the government)?

Yes, active senators are in fact part of the government. The partisanship system does affect even active member's of the US government and this does seem to be a partisan issue driven solely by politics.

>Perhaps you should extend your inquiry, and ask how it is that much of one party and its leader are demanding that an election be overturned or declared invalid, using a variety of extremely tenuous arguments.

Then the other party should counter those arguments and wait for things to resolve as they will. This will happen whatever the average person believes. The election will be decided by the electoral college, or possibly the courts if any of those lawsuits end up having substance. People posting videos about anything won't change this.

>Please consider that these demands originate with people who have also demanded tech companies be stripped of legal immunity for content publication and regularly expresses a wish to sue media outlets out of existence, topics which seem to have earned little discussion on HN.

The section 230 issue seems like a separate issue being spun as a response to this issue in ways that make no logical sense. But are being pushed as a response to actions like these. I don't support the repeal of this, but I do think this kind of obvious, government urged censorship is good either.

I didn't like when trump went on about fake news and I don't like when the other side of the government goes on about misinformation. I don't believe the government, either side, should be the arbiters of what is real news or real information.

When this happens, all the average person is left with is state sponsored propaganda.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#823
post #814

I'm glad that the HN consensus is against government censorship. I also really wish we collectively put more effort into solving the underlying problem of mass disinformation in the internet age. It's a real problem, and while ham-fisted censorship isn't the right solution, clearly _some_ solution is necessary. Working on how to solve the problem without censorship is more likely to lead to a successful outcome, and…

Some solution is a slippery slope... justifying censorship or some form of it due to “unique circumstances” is so dangerous because there will always be a unique circumstance. The internet was built on the idea that information should be open and ever since then we’ve been coming up with new ways to suppress that defining characteristic.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#824

This is a gross violation of the right to free speech. Youtube is no longer just a private company. They're more of a public square where masses of people from all over the world communicate ideas. Now Youtube is stating that many of those ideas are not allowed. This is a fascist action by nature. Big Tech needs to be regulated if they are going to be so blatantly political and partisan.

> Youtube is stating that many of those ideas are not allowed

Not really, no. People can post all the ideas they want, you just can't make claims without evidence to back them up. Personally, I'd love to see this extended.

Forget politics, we could extend this to obvious nonsense like homeopathy, creationism, holocaust denial or Nickelback fans.

> Big Tech needs to be regulated if they are going to be so blatantly political and partisan.

So your solution to politics and partisanship is regulation by partisan politicians?

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#825
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…

> Its also deeply hypocritical to claim that this is "in line with [Google's] approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. Indeed. I was told by all the right people that Russia hacked the 2016 election for 4 years. To this day, Stacy Abrams acts like she's governor of Georgia and claims the election was stolen. All of that content will not be taken down. But yes, given the fact that 1) "safe harbor" mean…

There's a difference.

There is evidence[1, 2, 3] of Russian interference in the 2016 election. There is evidence[4, 5, 6, 7] of interference by Republicans in the 2018 gubernatorial race in Georgia. That content will not be taken down because it is true.

There is no evidence[8] of fraud in the 2020 election. Trump's own lawyers have admitted[9, 10, 11] that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.

[1]https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/714810702/muellers-report-sho...

[2]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-report-russian-interfere...

[3]https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

[4]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/10/georgia-elec...

[5]https://apnews.com/article/fb011f39af3b40518b572c8cce6e906c

[6]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/6/18068492/g...

[7]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/30/18118264/...

[8]https://apnews.com/article/barr-no-widespread-election-fraud...

[9]https://time.com/5914377/donald-trump-no-evidence-fraud/

[10]https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/11/trump-lawyers-no-ele...

[11]https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/20/us/politics/trump-electio...

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#826
post #809

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.

[deleted]

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#827

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.

I would say yes... but these companies have Section 230 protection. At what point can the public have a say in their business? Specifically when these protections were originally given to protect companies from lawsuits due to what people were posting on their platforms?

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#828

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.

This thread starts out with the assumption that this was the result of a partisan request for censorship.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#829

https://www.engadget.com/youtube-election-misinformation-dem... So, i'm kind of curious how it's reasonable a political party can ask for partisan censorship. >YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki received a letter on Tuesday from four Democratic senators expressing “deep concern” over the spread of election misinformation on Google’s video platform. In the letter, senators Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii…

This is roughly the equivalent of the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater problem. A lot of these videos are saying things that cannot reasonably be classified as anything other than misinformation. For example, they typically refer to things like mail-in voting as "fraud" to begin with. They also make up vague but scary claims about large numbers of illegal immigrants having voted, etc. All of this has a chilling ef…

>they typically refer to things like mail-in voting as "fraud" to begin with

Not "fraud." Illegal votes. In fact, there is a case brought to the Supreme Court by Texas and 17 other states (36% of the United States) alleging this exact thing: that many mail-in votes were illegal, due to unconstitutional rule changes which allowed them to take place[1]. That's not ok to talk about on YouTube?

[1]If you don't know what I'm talking about, just say so and I'll point you to a non-partisan, levelheaded explanation of the argument.

Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

#830

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…

You can downvote me, but first indulge me... Imagine, for a second, that you saw something concerning. For argument’s sake, say you saw your boss doing something you perceived to be illegal. Imagine, then, that you were told that asking about those things was dangerous, because it would cause everyone to lose faith in who they work for. Now imagine that HR or a PR firm comes, only after trying hard to convince you th…

> say you saw your boss doing something you perceived to be illegal.

Keyword being "perceived".

But let's examine the premise. Do I have any evidence of this act? Do I have sufficent expertise to determine if what I saw was actually illegal? Where are my biases? Can I argue my case in a coherent and believable manner?

and most importantly in this particular case, are there literally thousands of other people who contradict my position?

Post reply on HN