YouTube to remove Election Fraud videos

[Eldorado]

YouTube said Wednesday it will begin removing any videos that falsely claim widespread voting fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential race now that the deadline for states to resolve disputes over the results has passed.

It's a policy shift that could put the tech giant at odds with President Donald Trump and his GOP allies in the remaining days of his administration, but one that will be welcomed by Democrats who have called for more aggressive action.

Full monty at Politico: Link

And at The Verge (tech): Link

[zep73]

Youtube has gained a really bad reputation, since the 9-11 Loose Change videos in the 00's, to be a source of CT's and other lies, that undermine the public trust in authorities.
I'm sure they are aware of that, and want to change that. I welcome it. As long as the content removed is proven lies. Like these election fraud videos.

[acute]

1 hour ago, Eldorado said:

YouTube said Wednesday it will begin removing any videos that falsely claim widespread voting fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential race now that the deadline for states to resolve disputes over the results has passed.

Hoo******'rah!

What took them so long?

[+susieice]

YouTube removes anything it doesn't want people to see. I'm surprised the videos lasted this long.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Eldorado said:

YouTube said Wednesday it will begin removing any videos that falsely claim widespread voting fraud changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential race now that the deadline for states to resolve disputes over the results has passed.

That's nice...  Doesn't matter in the long term though:

https://therightscoop.com/breaking-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-texas-election-case-suing-four-states/

Oh YEAH...   

No guarantees here BUT if the central argument is that these 4 states violated the "EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE" then we may be about to see fireworks like we've not seen yet.  There is absolutely NO WAY they can rule that all votes were treated equally on Nov. 3rd.

[Eldorado]

3 minutes ago, and then said:

That's nice...  Doesn't matter in the long term though:

https://therightscoop.com/breaking-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-texas-election-case-suing-four-states/

Oh YEAH...   

No guarantees here BUT if the central argument is that these 4 states violated the "EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE" then we may be about to see fireworks like we've not seen yet.  There is absolutely NO WAY they can rule that all votes were treated equally on Nov. 3rd.

This thread is about google censorship.

"In the name of public safety, but without any public referendum or accountability, Google, Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook, are taking active steps to censor information and tweak the underlying algorithms that determine the picture of reality on our screens and newsfeeds. In doing so they have claimed to be acting, as governments once did, on behalf of the common good. But what happens when the actions taken by companies like Google make the public less safe, and spread misleading and downright false information?"

Google Censorship Is a Danger to Public Health: The Tablet article from last July

Edited December 9, 2020 by Eldorado

[+Desertrat56]

1 hour ago, Eldorado said:

t's a policy shift that could put the tech giant at odds with President Donald Trump and his GOP allies

 Like they should care anymore.   Probably why they waited until now to do it.

[spartan max2]

Yah. Private corporations deciding what we can and can't see. What could go wrong.

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by spartan max2

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Private corporations deciding what we can and can't see.

On their own platform.

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, zep73 said:

On their own platform.

I use Duck Duck Go, Safari and Mozilla with the option to not save my searches.  

Edited December 9, 2020 by Desertrat56

[spartan max2]

3 minutes ago, zep73 said:

On their own platform.

The antitrust lawsuits against big tech are because they are no longer just little companies. They are so large that what they do effects everything. Too much power. 

[Eldorado]

15 minutes ago, zep73 said:

On their own platform.

A platform that claims to be unbiased:

"We work hard to ensure that our systems are not designed to be biased against content belonging to individuals or groups based on political viewpoints or other attributes like gender or sexual orientation. Our platform has always been about sharing information everywhere and giving many different people a voice."

https://www.youtube.com/intl/ALL_uk/howyoutubeworks/our-commitments/preventing-bias/

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, Eldorado said:

A platform that claims to be unbiased:

"We work hard to ensure that our systems are not designed to be biased against content belonging to individuals or groups based on political viewpoints or other attributes like gender or sexual orientation. Our platform has always been about sharing information everywhere and giving many different people a voice."

https://www.youtube.com/intl/ALL_uk/howyoutubeworks/our-commitments/preventing-bias/

Rejecting lies is not bias.

[zep73]

1 hour ago, and then said:

That's nice...  Doesn't matter in the long term though:

https://therightscoop.com/breaking-supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-texas-election-case-suing-four-states/

Oh YEAH...   

No guarantees here BUT if the central argument is that these 4 states violated the "EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE" then we may be about to see fireworks like we've not seen yet.  There is absolutely NO WAY they can rule that all votes were treated equally on Nov. 3rd.

Quote

Paul Smith, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, said Texas did not have a legitimate basis to bring the suit.

“There is no possible way that the state of Texas has standing to complain about how other states counted the votes and how they are about to cast their electoral votes,” Smith said.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/08/texas-lawsuit-donald-trump-election-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin

Mr. Smith is not just any yahoo. He's at the top of his profession, and has had a flawless career. I trust him.

Edited December 9, 2020 by zep73

[acute]

It's not "censorship", but removal of misinformation, disinformation, and baseless conspiracy theories.

Who can argue with that?

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by acute
Gramma

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, acute said:

It's not "censorship", but removal of misinformation, disinformation, and baseless conspiracy theories.

Who can argue with that?

 

And who are you going to let define what constitutes that for you? 

[acute]

14 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

And who are you going to let define what constitutes that for you? 

I would say, use a variety of reliable media sources.

Ignore Fox and anything further right, ignore CNN and anything further left, and you'll find a consensus of reality.

I would expect YouTube to use a similar approach.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, Eldorado said:

But what happens when the actions taken by companies like Google make the public less safe, and spread misleading and downright false information?"

My bad... I'd just heard that YT was ditching ANY video that made an allegation of electoral fraud.  They never touched a single video during four years of slanders and lies against the president but, okay, so be it.  There was a recent video, for example, of a Michigan State legislator openly calling for "Trumpers" to be targeted if they keep exercising their right to dissent against electoral fraud.  Let's see if this video of Miss Johnson gets flagged and she gets banned.  

It's too hot to put it here without being accused of flame baiting so I won't.  Her name is Cynthia Johnson and there are pro and con videos about what she said.  IMO, there is NO excuse for inciting people to violence. 

BTW, for those here who regularly accuse me of that, seek out her video and you can see what REAL incitement to violence looks like.  She wasn't talking about potential repercussions for behaviors or blowback against policies.  Sistah Gurl was giving marching orders and YEAH, that is illegal.  It remains to be seen whether she'll be held accountable, but I doubt it.  She made an accusation about being threatened online and in voicemails - PRIOR TO her posting the video.  If that is true then she needed to give evidence to local PDs or the FBI, not behave like a Mafia Don while she's a Michigan State Representative.  If she WAS threatened then those who did it need to be charged.

Hopefully, I can be forgiven for being a wee tad skeptical after Jussie's little escapade last year.  Her computer and phone should be put through forensics and if she cannot prove her claims she needs to be impeached and removed and she needs some alone time to work out her demons.  This nation may be headed for a nasty divorce and any individual or media source that colludes to instigate violence needs to be held criminally accountable.  

[+and-then]

1 minute ago, acute said:

I would say, use a variety of reliable media sources.

Ignore Fox and anything further right, ignore CNN and anything further left, and you'll find a consensus of reality.

I would expect YouTube to use a similar approach.

If you are genuinely interested in looking into bias then sample stories and how they are covered by ALL MSM outlets.  It isn't difficult.  I guarantee you that political coverage will be darned near verbatim in all of them except Fox and even Fox is sliding that way.  It is most definitely NOT a conservative leaning site any longer.  For example, perfect choice today is the story of the statements by Cynthia Johnson, a Michigan State Representative.  

My point is that all media now except for the Epoch Times, OAN or Newsmax, are just megaphones for the Left.  If that's your concept of reality then don't bother.  But you also shouldn't be surprised when outrageous stories seem to come out of nowhere and you find they're mostly or completely TRUE and you heard it nowhere before it blew up.

[Wistman]

29 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

And who are you going to let define what constitutes that for you? 

A tautology.  Each side will reject the others' complaints and truths.  And the truth will be indistinguishable from a lie.

The courts have thus far determined the truth about election fraud.  The Trump lawyers and GOP's wave of efforts have proven insupportable, legally.

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by The Wistman

[+and-then]

38 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Mr. Smith is not just any yahoo. He's at the top of his profession, and has had a flawless career. I trust him.

That's your call.  I have no problem with anyone choosing what they believe to be true.  Apparently, SCOTUS disagrees with Mr. Smith in this instance.  I don't know that their brief has been made public yet but my understanding (limited) is that Texas is challenging those 4 states for Equal Protection issues.  The idea being that by those 4 states essentially "colluding" (how ironic is THAT?) to weaken or nullify equal protection, they have harmed the State of Texas' voters.  Last I heard there was a total of 17 states who are in process of getting on board.  My hope is that SCOTUS will find enough merit in the case to set aside the election as irredeemably tainted and send it to the House for a Contingent election.

[+and-then]

8 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

A tautology.  Each side will reject the others' complaints and truths.  And the truth will be indistinguishable from a lie.

The courts have thus far determined the truth about election fraud.  The Trump lawyers and GOP's wave of efforts have proven insupportable, legally.

 

Have they also determined whether Equal Protection was violated?  How about the Constitutionality of having 4 and ONLY 4 states using a judicial remedy to change "times, places and manner" of the state's elections?   If SCOTUS refuses to deal with EQUAL PROTECTION they'll be openly going against precedent set by the SCOTUS for exactly the same kind of breach in Gore V Bush.  

[ChrLzs]

38 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

And who are you going to let define what constitutes that for you? 

Oh, verifiable facts.  Judgements of the Supreme Court.  The Law.  The Constitution.  that kinda thing, mostly.

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Oh, verifiable facts.  Judgements of the Supreme Court.  The Law.  The Constitution.  that kinda thing, mostly.

Well right now it's just YouTube's board members. 

[ChrLzs]

6 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Well right now it's just YouTube's board members. 

Do you trust them to remove 'obviously' illegal stuff?  If not, then where should the line be and how else do you suggest it should work?