911–920 of 1001 posts
Well, after reading thru the comments I am clearly not the target audience. It was fun while it lasted. Anyone know how I can delete my account? I need to add it to all the other accounts that I have deleted. Good luck to you all. I thought this was a tech news site but apparently most people here seem to be actively working in the investigation process. I don't know WTF has gotten in to everyone but I don't want any…
Holy shit, this thread is scary. Sure, there are some implications worth discussing based on this news. However, the number of people directly posting doubts on the election results is way more concerning and shows that Youtube might be doing a good thing in this case.
> shows that Youtube might be doing a good thing in this case. All youtube did was fan the flames of political division. Imagine after 2016, youtube decided to ban everyone accusing Trump of cheating. Do you think that would make the democrats "see the light"? Or do you think it would galvanize the democrats? This election is ultimately going to be decided in the supreme court. Not on youtube. Youtube should have jus…
I don't have to imagine the democrats did anything like the republicans are doing now, because it didn't happen.
Edit: here's a link to show you how small the margins were in swing states in 2016:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-electi...
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…
The facts aligning in the Senator's favor does not make the request partisan. Nor are they the only political figures to reference the widely acknowledged facts that there was no spread widespread voter fraud. Prominent Republican politicians in positions of oversight have agreed with this outcome.
This whole fact obsession has gotten completely out of hand. Presiding over disputed matters of fact is pretty much the core purpose of our entire court system. You can’t just call something a fact and be done with it. What you’ve actually described is a collection of opinions, and then declared them settled facts by referencing some of the people that hold them.
I know people get terribly riled up by politics, but they’re just losing sight of any form of reasonableness. Having an unaccountable central authority decide what’s true and what’s not is literally one of the most canonical forms of dystopia that exists.
Holy shit, this thread is scary. Sure, there are some implications worth discussing based on this news. However, the number of people directly posting doubts on the election results is way more concerning and shows that Youtube might be doing a good thing in this case.
Yes, to think that somebody might have doubts that the most ideologically contentious election in modern history, wherein both sides perceived the opposition to be an existential threat to their lives or lifestyles might have on any scale been marred by political actors attempting to fix the results in their favor is a sign that people are too irrational to be exposed to the idea going forward…
I am willing to be "exposed to the idea" as you say. I have to ask which is more likely, a massive undetected fraud across multiple states, or the guy with 40% approval rate losing the election?
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.
YouTube !== Government Your comparison is off.
I'd be fine with videos marked with something like "YouTube believes this video is untrue and spreads dangerous disinformation" put before or even over a video. But taking videos down is quite another matter.
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…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46CAKyyObls&feature=emb_titl...
If we don't have a meaningful signature match, than we don't have a meaningful way to prevent fraud with mail in ballots. Period. Bad ballot Rejection rate of 6% in previous election to now 0.02%, with mail in ballots. Mismatched signatures resulted in a rejection for only 0.02% of all absentee ballots cast. How is that even possible. They counted almost everything. For those of you that think its unfair to reject ba…
> If we don't have a meaningful signature match, than we don't have a meaningful way to prevent fraud with mail in ballots. Period. We can check for duplicate votes. Submitting fraudulent ballots in quantities necessary to change the results while avoiding submitting duplicate ballots (which would be caught, as we saw with the Jill Stokke) would require either: 1. Extremely good data about who had voted and who had n…
This video does not instil confidence that 2 did not happen.
Dominion Voting Machine Flaws -- 2020 Election Coffee County, Georgia Video 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46CAKyyObls&feature=emb_titl...
I think it's interesting that some folks are calling this government censorship. Obviously, companies can decide what they want to spend money/computing resources/ storage/bandwidth on. I'm not sure why that appears to be contentious. As for senators sending "a strongly worded request" that this material be removed, I'm also puzzled by why people would conflate that with actual governmental censorship. From where I'm…
> As for senators sending "a strongly worded request" that this material be removed, I'm also puzzled by why people would conflate that with actual governmental censorship. 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…
In the scenario you've referenced, the shop owner has no recourse and in theory acquiescence could be a rational course of action for survival. However if the shop owner had lucrative infrastructure-nontrivial contracts with the mafia that would be mutually harmful if dissolved, and the resources and information necessary to apply real pressure to the policies and personnel of mafia leadership, then the new picture we've painted barely resembles its original form as you depicted in any meaningful way.