This is ridiculous, both sides should be left up so people can make up their own minds - even if one side happens to be total bullshit.
YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud
941–950 of 1001 posts
Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud
#942[deleted]
Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud
#943Unpopular 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.
How is that an unpopular opinion though? Even the right-wingers keep hammering about fake news, which implies they care about fair, neutral and 'true' news.
I mean it's one of those doublespeak terms that they themselves don't fully understand (apparently), but still.
Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud
#944I for one am not comfortable with Youtube and the likes of people like that controlling what is allowed to spread on the internet. I also seriously doubt any competitor will ever outdo them, due to the nature of their monopoly.
I did not vote for the people at Youtube to control anyones election. Even if what they are doing now is good, this kind of control over media and information will be used for catastrophic consquences in the future.
When the political climate swings from it's current position to another, the people in control at Youtube are going to have a very hard case to make in court at what they are doing right now.
Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud
#945If 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…
What needs to be emphasized, because most people misunderstand it (evidence: all the comments around here): The problematic thing is _false_ balance, that is, making a show of representing both sides while actually doing a crappy job for one side. _Real_ balance is something to strive for. False balance might be equally bad or worse than just representing one side. But a properly balanced article is far preferrable to both. And the right approach to fixing false balance is not to remove one viewpoint, but to add arguments, evidence and (if nothing else is available) trustworthy opinions.
Also, balance doesn't mean that a reader will go away with a feeling of "this issue is 50-50, might as well throw a coin to decide". Balance in this case should mean that the writer has put a similar amount of effort into understanding and representing both sides. And if the writer happens to lean towards one side and naturally know more about it, that means making up for that inherent bias.
Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud
#946If 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…
Great idea. No chance my school in Australia will do this so will be upto me. That Bloomberg China supply chain compromise article. Never forget
Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud
#947I find this action very alarming and ominous.
Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud
#948This has nothing to do with "Free Speech", that would be a very lazy characterisation. Thi sis no threat to democracy. Youtube is not the Internet, not even the Web. Any nutter is still free to put up a website - or some other new machine behind a IP address and carry on exercising their free speech. Google has no obligation to let its platform be used by any idiot who wants to, and in hopefully less frequent cases,…
Where is this kind of comment in threads about Google randomly banning someone’s Gmail or randomly suspending someone’s developer account?
Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud
#949Here's a better title: "Private company where a large chunk of public discussion happens get to push a certain political agenda and decide what's true and what's not".
"Not hosting baseless nutjob conspiracy allegations" is easy to differentiate from your regular "political opinion".
Your equivalence is false.
Re: YouTube to remove content that alleges widespread election fraud
#950If 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…
It's depressing to read this quote and then realize it was delivered in 1922, meaning our media has been suffering from this problem of extreme political bias for likely more than a century now. A lot of my friends spend all day "Liking" Facebook posts that mocking Trump supporters as ignorant simpletons, then they repeat blatant falsehoods like "Trump told people to drink bleach" or "Trump called Nazis 'very fine pe…
> "very fine people"
https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trump...
The exact quote:
Reporter: "The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest --"
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.
So. Trump admitted that the neo-Nazis are very bad people, but the group ALSO had some very fine people.
To Trump supporters or "enlightened centrists", this is proof that the left is also deliberately distorting the truth, but you're missing the point.
The point isn't that Trump drew a distinction between the Nazis (who were bad) and the non-Nazis (who were good), and therefore he didn't call Nazis good people.
The point is that there people marching with Neo-Nazis are not better than Neo-Nazis.
If you have a political position and you find yourself attracting neo-Nazis, you have to take a long hard look at what you're doing.
This is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_German fallacy. Silently and tacitly accepting fascism because you benefit from it is still fascism.
So in conclusion, yes, Trump called Nazis "very fine people". It's just that you and Trump don't consider those people Nazis, when they are.
> "Trump told people to drink bleach"
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52407177
The exact quote:
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? So it'd be interesting to check that."
Pointing to his head, Mr Trump went on: "I'm not a doctor. But I'm, like, a person that has a good you-know-what."
OK. First of all, let's start with the fact that Trump has a Cult of Personality. His supporters don't just love him, they TRUST him implicitly - more than any other authority figure. More than other politicians, but also more than DOCTORS.
An idea from Trump matters more to his supporters than an idea from any medical expert.
So. You have Trump "just asking questions" that if a disinfectant can be shown to knock out the virus on a kitchen counter (and at that point there were COUNTLESS news articles about how to protect yourself from the virus by bleaching and disenfecting all your things. He goes a step further and says maybe there is a way to do the same by taking the same disinfectant INSIDE the body. Finally, he says I'm not a doctor, but I know things. Which basically seals the deal and confirms he thinks it's a promising idea.
So, no, he didn't say the words "MAGA NATION! Go buy bleach and drink it!"
But he did say that he believes that: Disinfectant inside the body could help with the virus through injection or something like it.
It is a plausibly deniable one, but it is an endorsement nonetheless.