YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG2RkKBHX0M

The accounts of these people sound reasonably trustworthy but they're not alleging massive fraud, just problems at the polling place that led to overcounting.

We also have to acknowledge the context in which this is occurring; the people claiming fraud are also threatening violence against civil servants and their children.

"Georgia officials were similarly reticent until last week, when threats online targeted a young contract worker for Dominion Voting Systems, whose voting machines were used in the state. One post on Twitter included a swinging noose.

That day, Gabriel Sterling, the Republican in charge of the voting machines, walked to a podium visibly angry and demanded that Trump “stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence.”

In an interview with Reuters, Sterling said that he personally had received a message calling him a him “traitor” that included his home address. Someone else wished him a happy birthday in a tweet saying it would be his last."

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-threats/electio...

Just like it's difficult when and what content to censor when it comes to things like the ISIS recruiting pipeline, it's hard to know where the line is with what is basically a far-right ideology which bleeds into domestic terrorism.

Prove that an important function of society is fake truth purging. And define truth. How big are the fake truths, how much damage do they cause, and how expensive is it to disprove them? If a young child claims that the temperature of a hydrogen atom 52 light years away is 0.1K, but in reality it is 0.01K, shall we:

A. censor the child to stop the spread of misinformation B. print 8 billion flyers to correct anyone who may have overheard the child C. put teams of MIT scientists to run experiments to determine the most recent temperature of the atom D. ignore it E. claim it's 0K according to god's will

In a more practical example, most people are probably split between C, D and E. The C people might land on the moon sooner, the E people might be more fulfilled. D is watching their son's soccer game. Who is "right"?

Acquiring the true "truth" has a cost, and that cost may be too high, and until we have a proper document from god detailing the worth of each person, we can't know who should live and who should die. If we don't produce enough food, somebody will starve. Who should starve? Perhaps the person with the highest metabolism, to spare as much food as possible. Perhaps the dumbest, to ensure future generations aren't crippled and the problem gets solved quicker. Perhaps the meanest, to spare future conflict. Or perhaps future conflict is good, to weed out the weak. "Truth" might mean maximizing human potential, which could imply minimizing human "drag". Spray peanut dust in stadiums! Shoot people who wear glasses! Gene edit everyone to be 9 feet tall! Kill everyone and create and feed a world-spanning singular ultra-brain (skynet?), for _IT_ shall determine "truth".

The word "truth" almost has a political bias to it, belonging to the party of science-people. I say that with a straight face as someone familiar and trusting of mathematics. It's great that we can build F-22s and nukes with it, but, maybe we were better off worshipping Zeus. Actually, people are a relatively new thing, and the main spreaders of "lies". Perhaps the universe was "truer" before people came around. Perhaps birthing a child is to "lie".

And what is the endgame? What happens after our perfect system of rationalism solves every known fact and theoretical possibility in the entire universe? Did we win? Is our final score 42?

Truth is a lie.

Because Google is under heavy scrutiny and many Republicans want to push for anti-trust and monopoly investigations: a group of Dem politicians saying that they should strongly consider doing what the Dems want sounds similar to when the mob says a business should strongly consider buying their fire-insurance.