9 ms·
Who decides that the videos in Russia are factual, while the videos in the US are not?
by SkidanovAlex 6y ago
Who decides that the videos in Russia are factual, while the videos in the US are not?
- th0ma5 6y agoEvidence!
- rriepe 6y agoHow do we present evidence for the side that's banned, again?
- th0ma5 6y agoLike normal, and that's a disingenuous rebuttal. The evidence is not being suppressed, the misinformation is.
- ttt0 6y agoGoFundMe deplatformed Matt Braynard when he tried to raise money for the voter fraud research. He didn't even assert that the fraud happened or not and they still kicked him off for what they've said is "disinformation".
- alwayseasy 6y agoGoFundMe is allowed to look at off platform behavior to decide.
- ttt0 6y agoThat's cool, but he started the campaign on November 6 and they kicked him out the next day. He didn't say anywhere that the fraud happened or not. He was just raising money for the research.
- th0ma5 6y agoWill they let people raise money to see if theft of a bank is feasible, or to design business models for heroin dealers? They're not robbing banks or selling heroin... Where does your argument even end? It doesn't matter because it is a private platform, and if they smell BS they are free to get rid of it.
- ttt0 6y agoWhat are you even talking about? You can't compare teaching people how to sell heroin or rob a bank and conducting a research. What I take issue with is that they kicked him out for something that he did not do.
- th0ma5 6y agoIf you don't understand rhetorical argument, then I cannot address your falsehoods in a way that is coherent.
- ttt0 6y agoNothing you've said was in any way coherent, while my point is pretty clear. You should not be punished for something you did not do.
- th0ma5 6y agoSounds like he was punished for raising money in bad faith which is exactly how you describe it.
- ttt0 6y agoSounds like you're talking out of your a##, since you have no idea who this person even is. You've said that evidence is not being suppressed. And now you're trying to make all of these mental gymnastics to say that if the research that is necessary to provide you with the evidence challenges your biases then it surely has to mean that it's somehow disingenuous and it's actually a good thing that it's being censored.
- th0ma5 6y agoHistorically in the US there have been only a handful of cases where voter fraud overturned an election, and it was in small elections with very narrow margins. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the likes of which will not happen in a GoFundMe. The effort was meant to sow distrust and repeat the weaponized cynicism.
- ttt0 6y agoYou're moving the goalposts.
- th0ma5 6y agoNope! Just stating facts.
- ttt0 6y agoSure, "facts" that are irrelevant to the topic. But if you insist, Matt Braynard managed to raise the money on some other platform and he did found enough potentially illegal votes to swing some states. Mainly people who moved out of state and things like that. So here are your facts.
- ehsankia 6y agoBring the evidence to the court? It's funny how the side claiming there was fraud apparently has trucks full of evidence and affidavits on news channels and social media, but when it comes to an actual courtroom, where lying has real consequences, suddenly, they don't claim "fraud" anymore and they don't have any real evidence.
- chillwaves 6y agoIt's always the same. Lie endlessly the news, and they tell a different story under oath, or they go to jail for it. Over and over again.
- dleslie 6y agoThe US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which concluded there existed close ties between Russian nationals, and possibly Russian intelligence, and the Trump campaign. https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512487-senate-panel-releases-final-report-on-russian-interference-detailing https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/512487-senate-p...
- throwaway8078 6y agoExcept it didn't find any evidence of collusion: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-h https://www.npr.org/2019/03/24/706318191/trump-white-house-h... "Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, according to a summary of findings submitted to Congress"
- dleslie 6y agoThe link I provided was not referring to the Mueller investigation. In August, of this year, the a US Senate Committee on Intelligence found that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian nationals, and possibly Russian intelligence. Independently of Mueller.
- throwaway8078 6y agoIn your own provided source: "The committee's findings are a more in-depth look at the interference than Mueller's investigation, but the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election." Your own source literally disproves what you're claiming. I'll say it again, from your source: "lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election."
- dleslie 6y ago
- ineedasername 6y agoI suppose it would depend on whether the claims in the video have been substantiated, e.g., by the intelligence community. A video talking about Russian interference via targeted facebook ads would be fine. On the other hand, a video claiming Russian agents infiltrated thousands of voting centers with sleeper agents should probably not get through the filter. Though as with any content filters, there will be edge cases, false positives, false negatives, etc. that will all pose a problem. This is the fundamental problem of common user spaces on the web these days: a failure to impose standards will often result in a toxic environment. Yet attempting to impose standards is something of an arms-race game of whack-a-mole. I think HN only manages the balance somewhat decently because the users themselves are also highly interested in productive conversation and mostly downvote -> dead comments that are likely to provoke flaming instead of discourse.
- davesque 6y agoWho would you have it be? The government? A committee? Honestly, a private company making the decision seems like the least problematic of all options. You're free to "vote them out of office" with your dollars if you wish.
- gwd 6y agoIf you're hosting a party, it's not only your right to determine what kinds of behavior and conversations are allowed and not allowed, it's your duty to do so. YouTube gets to decide what's on their platform. As an organization, they have decided that the election fraud stuff is not only false, but harmful. That's not only their right, it's their duty.
- alwayseasy 6y agoMueller report and various indictments with pretty documented evidence.