YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud

Post by blhack » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 5:08 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #876

blhack wrote: post #818

To highlight to you how absolutely insane this move is by google: When the Hunter Biden story broke, it seemed as though every social media company, nearly in tandem, worked to censor it in the name of "stopping the spread of misinformation". Today: it was announced that there is a federal criminal investigation into Hunter Biden's business dealings in China. ( https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics/hunter-biden-tax…

> When the Hunter Biden story broke, it seemed as though every social media company, nearly in tandem, worked to censor it in the name of "stopping the spread of misinformation". That (fake) story was the Hunter Biden got Joe Biden to intervene in a Ukrainian commercial deal. This is a completely different story, and no one had censored the lead up to it. Here's a fact check on it from October with plenty of links: h…

Post by colordrops » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 5:09 AM UTC

ryaan_anthony wrote: post #75

So who decides what is true/accurate? Is this action just related to the current election or will this extend to other "fake news" and elections in other countries? Covid news comes to mind.

Post by oceanplexian » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 5:15 AM UTC

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #702

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…

Today I had a frightening interaction on Facebook with a friend of my wife's cousin. He claimed "the new COVID-19 virus had never been tested on humans, only animals" and when I called him on his misinformation and pointed out that the phase 3 trial for the Pfizer vaccine included 43,000 people he shrugged and told me he was entitled to his opinions, and he just had different sources. This is somehow terrifying.

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 5:20 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #895

YouTube's justification here is actually kind of fascinating. They note that since there is no longer a legal path to modifying the results of the election, they're taking the outcome of the US legal structure as a factual indicator of the status of the election results and justifying the takedowns on the basis that they lie about the historical outcome of the election. In essence, they are saying that the federal go…

Post by sib301 » Thu, Dec 10, 2020, 5:29 AM UTC

colordrops wrote: post #893

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'd think we were in China considering how many people here think that our internet overlords know better about what we should and shouldn't see. Censorship in China is mostly through private platforms as well. And regardless of that, mostly people there buy the story that a particular bit of censored information is a threat to the nation and worthy of censorship. Why is censorship suddenly a required response to e…