14 ms·

> Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-ele

> Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election... This is likely going to make a lot of conservatives in the US unhappy, since a number of elected officials in Congress (!) are openly questioning the election results. Also seems a lot more severe than Twitter’s approach, where Twitter is labeling “disputed claims” rather than taking them down. I don’t believe that the 2020 US presidential election was rigged, but I think it’s heavy-handed to take these videos down outright. After the 2016 election, many people went wild with Russian conspiracy theories that proved to mostly be bogus, and that content never got this level of platform scrutiny or censorship.

smt88 6y ago
As far as I know, no senator is seriously contesting the results. The House always has at least a few crackpots in it, now including a Q believer. I'm not sure why YouTube should cater to conspiracy theorists just because they'll get upset that their conspiracies are not blasted from YouTube's megaphone. YT is within its rights, and there are thousands of other video sharing services (including Mega, which is totally unregulated) for them to share their content on. They can and do self-host as well.
- firloop 6y ago
  Ted Cruz is at least one Senator fighting the election results: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/529146-cruz-offers-to-argue-pennsylvania-election-case-before-supreme-court https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/529146-cruz-offers-to-ar...
  - ojbyrne 6y ago
    The Supreme court declined to hear that case yesterday. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/529334-supreme-court-rejects-gop-bid-to-nullify-biden-win-in-pennsylvania https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/529334-supreme-...
    - slumdev 6y ago
      That is false. The Supreme Court denied a request for emergency injunctive relief. They did not deny certiorari.
      - jcranmer 6y ago
        That is false. The request for emergency injunctive relief was also the request for certiorari. In denying the relief, they closed out the docket and denied certiorari in the process. And yes, I did look through SCOTUS's docket to find any other docketed case referring to Kelly v PA.
        citilife 6y ago
        Kelly was discussing that this morning on the radio still had it pending at SCOTUS. They believe it may be merged with the Texas case. So, unless I'm missing something, the former comment appeared correct.
        jcranmer 6y ago
        This is the link to the actual docket of the case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do... There's no indication in the docket that anything about the case is still live. If you read the original brief, this is what it requests: > Petitioners also ask the Court to consider this Application as a petition for certiorari, grant certiorari on the questions presented, treat the Application papers as merits briefing, and issue a merits decision as soon as practicable. In denying the application, it is by proxy denying the request for certiorari, although I believe it would be theoretically possible to actually reapply for certiorari. (Looking through SCOTUS's rules, it does seem that Rule 22.4 suggests that this is the case)
    - quotemstr 6y ago
      No, that's a different case. The case Cruz has promised to assist is one in which the state of Texas (yes, the whole thing) is suing other states over alleged election irregularities. When one state sues another, the case goes directly to the supreme court.
  - dfxm12 6y ago
    After a cursory search, it looks like you can add Lindsay Graham [0] as a Republican senator questioning election results, as well as Mitch McConnell [1] and Perdue and Loeffler [2]. 0 - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/17/lindsey-graham-spoke-election-officials-multiple-states-ballots/6326680002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/... 1 - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/mitch-mcconnell-trump-2020-election-fraud-b1720689.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio... 2 - https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/georgia-s-republican-senators-falsely-claimed-election-fraud-occurred-just-ncna1248280 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/georgia-s-republican-s...
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    Yeah.. In court. Trump campaign and the party has a right to challenge results in court (if they don't have standing the lawsuit will be thrown out immediately). That's working within the system. Are you arguing that candidates and parties should not be allowed to challenge various aspects of elections in a court of law? You think that had Trump been barred from filing lawsuits, that that would improve trust in the election system?
    - rat87 6y ago
      Valid lawsuits Most of the lawsuits Trumps lawyers and other supporters have produced are batshit and people are trying to get the lawyers sanctioned for frivolous lawsuits. These suits are failing in court, the only thing they're good for is as a justification for conspiracy theories
- bamboozled 6y ago
  I don’t understand why you’re downvoted for this either. YouTube isn’t a public utility and they don’t have to publish things they don’t like. Disclaimer: I don’t really like YouTube and I think it would indeed be better if the internet was less centralised for this very reason.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    >YouTube isn’t a public utility and they don’t have to publish things they don’t like. They are protected under safe harbor provisions. The question arises, once they start taking direct editorial control over content, should they be?
    - gitweb 6y ago
      Should a website dedicated to supporting women who have been sexually abused, be allowed to censor content telling them they deserved it?
      - macspoofing 6y ago
        Are you trying to make the point that YouTube is a special interest site and not a platform? Or are you trying to make the point that YouTube should have its cake and eat it too by being protected as a platform, and at the same time play the role of a curator and publisher?
        nobody9999 6y ago
        >are you trying to make the point that YouTube should have its cake and eat it too by being protected as a platform, and at the same time play the role of a curator and publisher? I could waste everyone's time and explain why that's flat wrong. Instead, I'll refer you here[0] which will explain, in detail, why you're wrong about Section 230. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...
rubyist5eva 6y ago
The safe harbour deadline is mostly procedural anyway. Justice Ginsburg even said something along the lines that the only real date that matters is when Congress actually certifies the electoral college votes - in January.
- elicash 6y ago
  She said that... in a MINORITY opinion. The majority of justices disagreed and gave it much weight.
jonathanstrange 6y ago
It would be a catastrophe if the current US administration indeed was unable to ensure free and fair elections in their country - for the first time in US history, unless previous elections such as the 2016 election were fraudulent, too!
- gitweb 6y ago
  Right... if this election was fraudulent, then might as well cancel the 2016 elections as well. They also had 4 years to help improve election security, which conservatives waited until after they lost to cry fraud.
kgwxd 6y ago
Openly questioning in bad faith. They've gotten way more attention for it than they ever should have, time to move on.
bamboozled 6y ago
YouTube is run by a private company, they can do what they like with the content they own. If they don’t want to show the content, tough luck. Don’t like the content? Don’t watch it. Don’t agree with their ethics ? Don’t use their product. It’s simple.
- mmastrac 6y ago
  Freedom for me, but not for thee.
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    > Freedom for me, but not for thee. You mean that you wish to require others to say or host the things that you want, and if they don't they should be forced to do so? That's freedom for you but not for others, not the other way around.
- erichocean 6y ago
  > YouTube is run by a private company Sigh. YouTube is run by a public company, has been for many years.
Moway 6y ago
Anyone who hasn't seen the video of the 2016 post-Trump-election meeting at Google should watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRf9UxsM-NE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRf9UxsM-NE It should give you an idea about what kind of ideological bias you can expect from this company.

smt88 6y ago

As far as I know, no senator is seriously contesting the results. The House always has at least a few crackpots in it, now including a Q believer. I'm not sure why YouTube should cater to conspiracy theorists just because they'll get upset that their conspiracies are not blasted from YouTube's megaphone. YT is within its rights, and there are thousands of other video sharing services (including Mega, which is totally unregulated) for them to share their content on. They can and do self-host as well.

firloop 6y ago
Ted Cruz is at least one Senator fighting the election results: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/529146-cruz-offers-to-argue-pennsylvania-election-case-before-supreme-court https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/529146-cruz-offers-to-ar...
- ojbyrne 6y ago
  The Supreme court declined to hear that case yesterday. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/529334-supreme-court-rejects-gop-bid-to-nullify-biden-win-in-pennsylvania https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/529334-supreme-...
  - slumdev 6y ago
    That is false. The Supreme Court denied a request for emergency injunctive relief. They did not deny certiorari.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      That is false. The request for emergency injunctive relief was also the request for certiorari. In denying the relief, they closed out the docket and denied certiorari in the process. And yes, I did look through SCOTUS's docket to find any other docketed case referring to Kelly v PA.
      - citilife 6y ago
        Kelly was discussing that this morning on the radio still had it pending at SCOTUS. They believe it may be merged with the Texas case. So, unless I'm missing something, the former comment appeared correct.
        jcranmer 6y ago
        This is the link to the actual docket of the case: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do... There's no indication in the docket that anything about the case is still live. If you read the original brief, this is what it requests: > Petitioners also ask the Court to consider this Application as a petition for certiorari, grant certiorari on the questions presented, treat the Application papers as merits briefing, and issue a merits decision as soon as practicable. In denying the application, it is by proxy denying the request for certiorari, although I believe it would be theoretically possible to actually reapply for certiorari. (Looking through SCOTUS's rules, it does seem that Rule 22.4 suggests that this is the case)
  - quotemstr 6y ago
    No, that's a different case. The case Cruz has promised to assist is one in which the state of Texas (yes, the whole thing) is suing other states over alleged election irregularities. When one state sues another, the case goes directly to the supreme court.
- dfxm12 6y ago
  After a cursory search, it looks like you can add Lindsay Graham [0] as a Republican senator questioning election results, as well as Mitch McConnell [1] and Perdue and Loeffler [2]. 0 - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/17/lindsey-graham-spoke-election-officials-multiple-states-ballots/6326680002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/... 1 - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/mitch-mcconnell-trump-2020-election-fraud-b1720689.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-electio... 2 - https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/georgia-s-republican-senators-falsely-claimed-election-fraud-occurred-just-ncna1248280 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/georgia-s-republican-s...
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Yeah.. In court. Trump campaign and the party has a right to challenge results in court (if they don't have standing the lawsuit will be thrown out immediately). That's working within the system. Are you arguing that candidates and parties should not be allowed to challenge various aspects of elections in a court of law? You think that had Trump been barred from filing lawsuits, that that would improve trust in the election system?
  - rat87 6y ago
    Valid lawsuits Most of the lawsuits Trumps lawyers and other supporters have produced are batshit and people are trying to get the lawyers sanctioned for frivolous lawsuits. These suits are failing in court, the only thing they're good for is as a justification for conspiracy theories
bamboozled 6y ago
I don’t understand why you’re downvoted for this either. YouTube isn’t a public utility and they don’t have to publish things they don’t like. Disclaimer: I don’t really like YouTube and I think it would indeed be better if the internet was less centralised for this very reason.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  >YouTube isn’t a public utility and they don’t have to publish things they don’t like. They are protected under safe harbor provisions. The question arises, once they start taking direct editorial control over content, should they be?
  - gitweb 6y ago
    Should a website dedicated to supporting women who have been sexually abused, be allowed to censor content telling them they deserved it?
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      Are you trying to make the point that YouTube is a special interest site and not a platform? Or are you trying to make the point that YouTube should have its cake and eat it too by being protected as a platform, and at the same time play the role of a curator and publisher?
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        >are you trying to make the point that YouTube should have its cake and eat it too by being protected as a platform, and at the same time play the role of a curator and publisher? I could waste everyone's time and explain why that's flat wrong. Instead, I'll refer you here[0] which will explain, in detail, why you're wrong about Section 230. [0] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello...

rubyist5eva 6y ago

The safe harbour deadline is mostly procedural anyway. Justice Ginsburg even said something along the lines that the only real date that matters is when Congress actually certifies the electoral college votes - in January.

elicash 6y ago
She said that... in a MINORITY opinion. The majority of justices disagreed and gave it much weight.

jonathanstrange 6y ago

It would be a catastrophe if the current US administration indeed was unable to ensure free and fair elections in their country - for the first time in US history, unless previous elections such as the 2016 election were fraudulent, too!

gitweb 6y ago
Right... if this election was fraudulent, then might as well cancel the 2016 elections as well. They also had 4 years to help improve election security, which conservatives waited until after they lost to cry fraud.

kgwxd 6y ago

Openly questioning in bad faith. They've gotten way more attention for it than they ever should have, time to move on.

bamboozled 6y ago

YouTube is run by a private company, they can do what they like with the content they own. If they don’t want to show the content, tough luck. Don’t like the content? Don’t watch it. Don’t agree with their ethics ? Don’t use their product. It’s simple.

mmastrac 6y ago
Freedom for me, but not for thee.
- nobody9999 6y ago
  > Freedom for me, but not for thee. You mean that you wish to require others to say or host the things that you want, and if they don't they should be forced to do so? That's freedom for you but not for others, not the other way around.
erichocean 6y ago
> YouTube is run by a private company Sigh. YouTube is run by a public company, has been for many years.

Moway 6y ago

Anyone who hasn't seen the video of the 2016 post-Trump-election meeting at Google should watch it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRf9UxsM-NE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRf9UxsM-NE It should give you an idea about what kind of ideological bias you can expect from this company.