59 ms·

Once again a thread about censorship invites comments that ignore the nuance of the situation. Having companies dictate what information is widely accessible is

Once again a thread about censorship invites comments that ignore the nuance of the situation. Having companies dictate what information is widely accessible is dangerous for democracy. Having the sitting president make completely baseless claims in an effort to delegitimize the results of an election because it didn’t go his way is also dangerous for democracy. That’s what we call a tricky situation. We don’t have an easy solution.

whiddershins 6y ago
I would genuinely like to know why you are so confident about what claims are and aren’t baseless. Do you have inside knowledge that the public doesn’t posses? Because I’ve been paying attention and I’m genuinely unsure what is happening ... default skeptical about all claims in every direction. Edit: A lot of the responses here seem to be unaware of Texas’ lawsuit and the ramifications. I expect the conspiracy claims to be separated out from the genuine concerns if the Supreme Court chooses to hear that suit.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- donkeyd 6y ago
  I would say those claims based on the absence of evidence, or evidence that was proven fraudulent or incorrect would be baseless. It's impossible to prove something didn't happen, so we need proof something did happen. None was provided, just look at all the lawsuits.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    In the case of ballots, each ballot should have a recorded chain of custody, so it's actually not 'impossible' to prove something didn't happen. If the accusations are "There are a bunch of ballots that were entered into the counts without proper chain of custody" that can be easily proven or disproven. If the accusation is "Signatures were required to be verified and bipartisan representatives were legally supposed to witness the process" which apparently is the case in many jurisdictions, that too would be easy to prove or disprove. There will be records associated with those observations and chain of custody records of those ballots. Unfortunately, some ballot envelopes have already been 'thrown away' so they cannot be audited to see if counts match, to see how many ballots were indeed signed (sometimes a witness is required), or be able to be verified against other controls (such as numbering, ensuring the name on the ballot matches who it was sent to, etc). The law says you must hold an election, and exactly what steps you need to take to hold such an election. If you didn't follow the steps, there wasn't a lawful election. That's more or less what some of the lawsuits are about. Are these claims 'baseless'? I don't think so. There's no shortage of sworn affidavits and statements from election officials about how the processes weren't followed. There's also court cases (such as in Georgia) where the executive branch possibly unlawfully struck an agreement with Democrats to relax certain requirements. The only remaining question is, how heavily should this evidence be weighed, and is it enough to affect the outcome of the process. TBD.
    - jrs235 6y ago
      >"There are a bunch of ballots that were entered into the counts without proper chain of custody" that can be easily proven or disproven." And unfortunately due to the amount of bad faith in play, I would be concerned of the party hoping that there was a break in the chain of custody to employ an insider to perform a break in the chain of custody in order to get the result they want... throwing everything out in hopes of getting a different outcome. The conspiracies will never end. Sigh.
      - linuxftw 6y ago
        In some cases, the chain of custody records (allegedly) aren't even available, so what are you supposed to do about that situation? In my mind, that begs the question, how can these elections even be 'certified?' What due diligence did election officials perform to ensure everything was fair and square? In Georgia, I believe, there were reports of multiple USB drives found that weren't initially counted during the recount. Did anyone know how many people voted in those precincts and who was in charge of ensuring the numbers were square? It seems like a complete circus.
        disgrunt 6y ago
        If there is a truth to be gleamed here, it's that U.S. elections as they're presently conducted are a train wreck. Even the parties seeking to prove a fair election took place are being thwarted by incompetence.
        linuxftw 6y ago
        That's really the entire point, IMO. If the people holding the election can't prove they did everything by the letter, how do they know they did everything by the letter? You're talking 100's or 1000's of different precincts across an entire state.
      - djsumdog 6y ago
        In PA at least, they could have not kicked out GOP observers, literally cheering as they were thrown out. In other counties, observers had to stand far away for "COVID" reasons, while dozens or counters of DEM observers were crammed together at tables. In Georgia, observers were told to go home, and then people continued to count behind closed doors, unobserved. There is video and no matter how many news sources yell "debunked" ... there is no reasonable explanation for it. There was no water pipe burst. It was a lie and it LOOKS TERRIBLE. If you want an honest election, then people have to not make up this shit. But everyone sees every single GOP/Republican as some evil racist Nazi, so some of these things could have been totally on the books, but people threw out observers due to media fueled hate. The trouble is ... it's impossible to tell. The percentage of rejected mail-in ballots due to signatures is far far below what is has been before. It looks bad. It stinks. Anyone who is in the center and is truly looking at everything is likely going to make the judgement, even if their party won, the election was shady as fuck.
- cmsonger 6y ago
  > I would genuinely like to know why you are so confident about what claims are and aren’t baseless. Because he continues to lose in court time and time again, often to judges that were appointed during his administration and yet the rhetoric and allegations continue at the same pace.
- neogodless 6y ago
  Some things have been claimed without a single shred of evidence. A complete lack of evidence points to claims as being baseless. (That doesn't mean that YouTube's removal of those will help the situation. Though letting baseless claims be a part of polarizing the country does not appear to have been the correct solution, given where we are now.)
- aerovistae 6y ago
  And this is exactly why we need the social media companies to step in. Because Trump has successfully created uncertainty where there is in fact no question.
  - trueluk 6y ago
    Trump didn't create the uncertainty. Statistically improbably events did that. There is overwhelming evidence of fraud and breaking of rules. The media, including YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, are censoring the evidence. https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/
    - uoaei 6y ago
      Jesus Christ that website runs about 30 more scripts on my computer than it needs to. Under the root domain, no less. You fell for a honeypot, bud.
      - pedroma 6y ago
        Oh no... I got hacked and all my bank accounts are empty. Watamuhgunnado?!
        uoaei 6y ago
        Your IP address and associated shadow profile are recorded by multiple nation-state intelligence agencies, most likely. Or else by private groups who are interested in compiling an army of impressionable and easily-duped folks to continue using them as a weapon to subvert democracy. This is not a far-fetched claim. If I was Russia, for example, I would do something exactly like this for exactly that reason. Not to mention that stuff exactly like this has happened and was later shown to be run by exactly the groups I'm referencing. It's Occam's razor.
        pedroma 6y ago
        I just lost self-control. These nation states are moving my fingers and controlling my thoughts. Help.
- ragnese 6y ago
  The court case record is a decent barometer. The fact that the Trump campaign's cases have almost unanimously tossed out quickly tells us that reality is likely one of two: 1. They have approximately no evidence of anything substantive. 2. All of the courts in all of the states where this is happening are conspiring against the President. Including those with Republican-appointed judges. Can I argue that it must be #1 the same way I can use the laws of physics to argue that a hammer will fall to the ground when I drop it? No. Is it WAY beyond my own reasonable doubt? Yep.
  - trueluk 6y ago
    Some courts are refusing to even allow lawyers to present evidence. Additionally, many of the Trump cases reported by the media are not, in fact, Trump Campaign cases.
    - ragnese 6y ago
      > Some courts are refusing to even allow lawyers to present evidence. Source? > Additionally, many of the Trump cases reported by the media are not, in fact, Trump Campaign cases. That doesn't really matter. The "denominator" is not the most important part. In other words, it's not so much that his campaign won 1/51 cases or if it was really 1/10 cases. I only care about how many his campaign won (1). And are you being honest, or are you being technically truthful while trying to deceive me? In other words, if a case was brought by Rudy Giuliani or Sidney Powell, but not some legal entity called "The Trump Campaign", then it's all the same to me.
      - trueluk 6y ago
        I'm being honest. The Trump Campaign has filed only a handful of suits. Here's their suit in Georgia: https://publicrecordsaccess.fultoncountyga.gov/app/RegisterOfActions/#/8AC58FA3E74D313EE950B76978C31FD3F1B59334F84E6E89B0B3A2FA59C9DB008F9597326FEAB55063675E9C184B47E4/anon/portalembed https://publicrecordsaccess.fultoncountyga.gov/app/RegisterO... 2,560 felons voted 66,247 underage voters 2,423 votes from people not registered 1,043 individuals registered at PO boxes 4,926 individuals who voted in Georgia after registering in another state 395 individuals who voted in two states 15,700 votes from people who moved out of state before the election 40,279 votes of people who moved without re-registering in their new county 30,000 - 40,000 absentee ballots lacking proper signature matching and verification
- MGGJFU 6y ago
  I think the side which is getting all their lawsuits dismissed (and with prejudice) is probably the one with the baseless claims. I also think that the side on which the biggest (public) provable liar/narcissist of all time is on has a chance of having the most baseless claims. Occam's Razor also applies. What is more likely: a massive conspiracy to rig the election, only in specific swing states, only for the presidency and nothing else on the ballot, requiring massive coordination and having no proof. Or... The president is a huge liar and the people in the GOP are afraid to go against him lest he turn his cult against them too. > Because I’ve been paying attention and I’m genuinely unsure what is happening I'm genuinely unsure how you're genuinely unsure, except if you attribute the same weight to Fox News / OANN and other propaganda networks as you do sources of information with actual credibility. There is zero doubt to be had.
  - Fellshard 6y ago
    Credible by repetition only, at this point. They've shown themselves at the same level, and the most self-righteous networks have proven the most hypocritical, and they don't even seem to see it.
  - zests 6y ago
    If Trump is "the biggest provable liar/narcissist of all time" -- clearly this would make him a huge national security threat -- why wouldn't Democrats do everything in their power to get him removed from office? Including, hypothetically, voter fraud. I don't believe the claims of voter fraud. But if you take what is said about Trump at face value you maybe you should adjust your priors about the likelihood of such fraud. If you don't take the claims at face value, why you take the analysis of the voter fraud situation at face value? Political discussion is practically zero trust right now.
    - uoaei 6y ago
      Did they not? Have you been following the news at all in the past year or so?
      - 6y ago
- enumjorge 6y ago
  There’s nothing secret or private about any of this. Go read what the judges’ responses where to the Trump legal team’s claims were. Some of these judges were appointed by Trump. The Supreme Court has struck down multiple claims. Those are public too. Election officials have investigated and found to evidence of fraud. The people Trump is attacking in Georgia for example are Republicans. Barr’s investigation found no evidence of fraud that would have changed the election. Every person that was actually involved in the election has said Biden won fairly. They made public statements. It’s all out there in the open available for you to see. If that doesn’t convince you I don’t know what evidence would.
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    You're spreading misinformation. Should you be censored? > "Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the Department has concluded its investigation of election fraud and announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election," the spokesperson said. "That is not what the Associated Press reported nor what the Attorney General stated. The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible." [0] [0]: https://www.newsmax.com/politics/doj-william-barr-fraud-ballots/2020/12/02/id/999639/ https://www.newsmax.com/politics/doj-william-barr-fraud-ball...
    - namdnay 6y ago
      How is the person above spreading misinformation? They stated that no evidence of fraud has been found. No evidence of fraud has been found. The fact that the AG will pursue any evidence of it if it is found is doesn’t contradict that in any way?
- trueluk 6y ago
  The Supreme Court will absolutely hear that suit. Those four states bypassed thier legislatures in order to change their election laws. To anyone willing to invest a few hours of his time, he'll find it's quite obvious this election was rife with fraud. What's sad is that our officials refuse to audit the votes. What's sad is the GOP officials in Wayne County who tried to say there was a problem were doxed and threatened. After that, no one was willing to stand up for the truth. Is there anything more important than making sure every legal vote was counted and illegal votes are discarded? They don't want transparency. That's the issue.
  - destroyHN 6y ago
    You pitiful, damaged, loser.
  - uoaei 6y ago
    What has anyone done that is explicitly illegal? Cite the statutes and laws. The fact is, those procedures (i.e., "bypassing legislatures") have been implemented precisely for situations like this. Don't get mad just because people actually use them.
  - Daishiman 6y ago
    Dude... There were multiple audits in a ton of states. Every time, it came out that the results were fair. You're going to need to come up with much more than that.
  - czep 6y ago
    > Those four states bypassed thier legislatures in order to change their election laws. When these special measures were enacted in March to accommodate voting during a pandemic, ample time was given for public comment and legal challenge. Why weren't these suits raised at that time? It seems awfully suspicious that plantiffs had no issue with the mail balloting until they lost the election.
    - whiddershins 6y ago
      People did sue at the time
- natex 6y ago
  So far, the vast majority of court cases are getting tossed out due to lack of evidence. The courts are asking for more evidence but there is none. At what point would you be agree that the claims are baseless? Like, what has to happen for you are confident about it? Texas' lawsuit is frivolous and will get denied.
- not2b 6y ago
  The Supreme Court isn't going to hear Texas's suit. They've already strongly signaled that by rejecting the Pennsylvania suit without any dissents; Texas is basically trying to sue Pennsylvania for the same things, again.
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    You're mistaking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with the U.S. Supreme Court. Don't feel bad, The New York Times is perpetuating this confusion.
    - whiddershins 6y ago
      No I believe it is true that a plaintiff from Pennsylvania who was suing Pennsylvania was denied in the SCOTUS, but this was after Texas files their suit which was more inclusive, so the two might relate. Edit: SCOTUS declined to hear that case, possibly in anticipation of hearing the Texas one instead, possibly because they intend to hear neither.
      - disgrunt 6y ago
        You can believe what you want, it's (for now) a free country. But the SCOTUS has not ruled on anything yet.
        whiddershins 6y ago
        Not what I said.
        disgrunt 6y ago
        You edited your post. How about some good faith here?
        whiddershins 6y ago
        To clarify. But I never said what you thought I said.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  I wrote https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25354086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25354086 to explain why Texas v Pennsylvania is going to be dismissed by SCOTUS. There are at least six reasons to dismiss that don't even involve any consideration of the merits, with standing far and away the most likely reason to dismiss.
- panda-giddiness 6y ago
  > Edit: A lot of the responses here seem to be unaware of Texas’ lawsuit and the ramifications. I expect the conspiracy claims to be separated out from the genuine concerns if the Supreme Court chooses to hear that suit. I'm not sure why you think that. I doubt any legally-minded individuals think there's any merit to that lawsuit. 1. It's dubious Texas even has standing. Texas has extremely limited influence, if any, over the manner in which other states manage their elections. If Pennsylvania wanted, they could divvy out their electoral votes via coin flip in future elections. As far as I'm aware (and I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt), a state suing another state for the way it handles elections is entirely without precedent. 2. There's the issue of laches. If mail-in voting is unconstitutional, the time to make that argument was months ago. Courts are already hesitant to change election procedure near election day for fear of confusing voters. They are far less willing to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters after ballots have already been cast.
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    1. It is not dubious at all. The U.S. Constitution is actually quite clear about this. 2. Claims depend on damages. Judges tend to avoid ruling on hypotheticals.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Three more states have joined Texas.
  - jelliclesfarm 6y ago
    17 states now. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/17-states-trump-join-texas-lawsuit-it-s-still-doomed-ncna1250603 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/17-states-trump-join-t...
- mcguire 6y ago
  This lawsuit: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima... As a former resident of Texas, I'm particularly entertained by irregularity #2: "Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters–whether lawful or unlawful–in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States." Check out Tarrant, Dallas, Harris, and Travis counties: https://redistricting.capitol.texas.gov/docs/19R0036_86th_Senate_Tabloid_2020_07_31.pdf https://redistricting.capitol.texas.gov/docs/19R0036_86th_Se...
- tshaddox 6y ago
  > I would genuinely like to know why you are so confident about what claims are and aren’t baseless. I'm confident that no good explanations have been offered for certain claims, and my epistemology is that the truth value of claims depends on having good explanations for those claims. Someone might have a different epistemology which admits claims of the form "X is true despite there being no good explanation of X being true," but note that such an epistemology effectively allows for all claims being true (the existence of unicorns, the claim that the Universe's existence began 1 millisecond ago and will end in the next 1 millisecond, etc.).
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Do you have inside knowledge that the public doesn’t posses? Because I’ve been paying attention and I’m genuinely unsure what is happening ... default skeptical about all claims in every direction. No inside knowledge necessary. Just read the court decisions themselves. They are public documents. I don't have the time or the inclination to dig up all 50+ court rulings, many of which explain in great detail, the deficiencies of the claims that have been made and/or are unsupported by evidence. If you are unaware of these court rulings (along with the claims being made by both sides, the arguments for and against and the opinions of the judges), that's because you haven't looked. Each and every case is in the public record. Don't believe anyone who tells you there was/wasn't widespread electoral fraud/irregularities. Look at the documents yourself. They are publicly available (yes, I know I'm repeating myself). Hell, even a bunch of the ballot counting processes across the country were live-streamed.
secondcoming 6y ago
If the election was totally normal would Texas still be suing four other states?
- SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
  If Texas politics was totally normal right now, would Texas still be suing four other states?
  - jrs235 6y ago
    Unfortunately normal and healthy are not the same. Seems Texas politics is normal for Texas politics at the moment.
  - mythrwy 6y ago
    It's not just Texas though. Like 10 other states have joined.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Zero states or other parties have joined, or filed to intervene, but seven states plus the president have indicated that they support and intend to do so. Filings in the case are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/... No one but Texas has filed anything. [EDIT: As noted downthread, things have moved on, and new filings are in.]
      - mythrwy 6y ago
        I think it's 9 indicating they want to join now. I don't have an official source. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Missouri. They may get Indiana and Oklahoma as well is my understanding. And they are (at least some of them) interested in joining. https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-louisiana-ags-want-join-texas-election-lawsuit-against-battleground-states-1553392 https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-louisiana-ags-want-join-tex... This is a big deal no matter what your political persuasion is. It's not just some crazy people claiming voting machines are controlled by the Chinese using mind control and a local judge throwing it out. If they take the case it's going to be a very historic event.
pupdogg 6y ago
I'm on the same boat as @whiddershins, please take a moment to explain your thoughts in detail.
- destroyHN 6y ago
  Oh my god. Seriously, go attend a super spreading rally and fuck yourself.
- mcguire 6y ago
  It would seem to be incumbent on someone making claims of a crime, particularly a serious, disturbing crime against the fundamentals of the United States, to provide evidence of that crime. Real evidence, not just allegations. The only unequivocal "evidence" I have seen has been eyewitness statements, but those eyewitnesses have repeatedly refused to testify under oath. That makes their allegations useless to the legal system. The way that some people continue to make those allegations in spite of being unable to produce any evidence makes me suspect they are not interested in legal avenues, but rather in drumming up civil unrest and distrust in the foundations of the United States. That suspicion might be reason for YouTube's actions.
starbugs 6y ago
How is it [the president making baseless claims] dangerous for democracy? What if the opposite is true? What if censoring thoughts is the real danger for democracy? I am not saying I have proof for any of this. But I guess, that's true for your claim, too. I think it would be wise to rephrase it so that it doesn't sound like a fact.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- uoaei 6y ago
  Low-effort what-if scenarios don't deserve much consideration.
  - the_optimist 6y ago
    Can you clarify your theory? Is it specifically the amount of effort that determines legal consideration?
    - uoaei 6y ago
      It's the same concern that Google is addressing. Anyone can make claims. No one is required to give them a platform if there's no reason to take anything they say seriously. Until they present well-reasoned and informed arguments, they should be and are ignored by rational people.
      - starbugs 6y ago
        Have you ever looked through the content on YouTube?
        uoaei 6y ago
        Discretion is discretion. If you disagree, get hired by Google and change it.
- 6y ago
worik 6y ago
No there is no easy solution generally. You tube has no obligation to carry anything. It has nothing to do with "Free Speech", that would be a very lazy characterisation. Companies like Google can control what is easily available and discoverable next to the cat videos etc but they do not "...dictate what information is widely accessible" Any website or even more so IP address is widely accessible. Why should Google sit around and let experienced psy ops operators have free reign on their platform? So there is a easy solution for Google - remove it.
- samdlathsworth 6y ago
  That’s the point. This might be acceptable if there was even one single thing about YouTube that was itself democratic in any way. Since there isn’t, this is an inherently anti-democratic maneuver. The corporate oligarchy is shedding yet a bit mote hesitation to fully realize itself. This is not a good thing.
  - worik 6y ago
    It is private property! Why do you expect it to be "democratic"? Whilst the abolition of private property is a interesting idea, that is not, I expect, what you would advocate?
    - jmnicolas 6y ago
      When you're the ONLY* alternative for videos online you have a moral obligation of being impartial. * Vimeo, Daily Motion, Lbry or whatever else have even less shares than desktop Linuxes vs Windows. YouTube is the only game in town.
      - SamBam 6y ago
        The popularity of other equally-good services should have no bearing on whether a service has a "moral obligation" to do something. There's nothing preventing all the conspiracy theorists from deciding en masse to move to Vimeo, or setting up their own video posting system on Gab or Parler.
samiru 6y ago
What if his claims were true and this happened? Wouldn't that be a tricky situation too? I mean, really tricky? At the same time I think Youtube has the right to do this (and whatever they want, basically). Currently there are no real alternatives to Youtube, that is the problem.
- syshum 6y ago
  Clearly election security is perfect when Democrats win, but if Republicans win then Russia stole it //for the record I think both results are valid and we just see cry baby partisans in action on both sides, in 2016 and 2020. It is pure tribalism and I am not a member of either tribe
  - SamBam 6y ago
    No prominent Democrats actually argued that Donald Trump wasn't actually the president, or that the transition shouldn't happen, or that election officials should be shot. "#NotMyPresident" was a statement of dissatisfaction, and a belief that Trump won the election unfairly, not a statement claiming that Trump was not legally the president. It was also never espoused by members of the government. There's a difference between saying someone won by underhanded tactics and saying that someone didn't actually win and isn't legally the president. The two are not comparable.
    - syshum 6y ago
      aside from your subjective view as to what constitutes a "prominent Democrat" Hilary Clinton her self stated multiple times that election was stolen from her. Multiple News personalities dedicated billions of dollars in air time to the meh Russia Stole the election narrative for 3.5 years. So miss me with your partisan moral grandstanding
      - mrguyorama 6y ago
        How many people involved in Trump's campaign went to prison or were otherwise convicted of doing shady shit with russians and money? Wasn't it close to 20?
dwheeler 6y ago
I do not believe there was widespread election fraud, but having a private company control what information people are allowed to see & hear is also dangerous. YouTube has the right to do this as a private company, but it's also a dangerous precedent. I think a better approach, instead of broad censorship, would be simply inserting warning statement(s), at least in front of the material. They already stick in ads, so the tech is there. That way, the material is still available, but with warnings. We "show but warn" with many other materials (sexually explicit, violence, etc.) - I think that would be the much better way to handle such materials.
- uoaei 6y ago
  Private companies control what information they publish, not what information "people are allowed to see". To the general audience: the rhetoric of the parent comment is designed to blur the lines and invite accusations of "censorship" where none apply.
  - teeray 6y ago
    Is there some information that people can see that a company chooses not to publish?
    - uoaei 6y ago
      What even is this question? I mean, absent further context, the answer is "obviously, yes."
      - teeray 6y ago
        Sorry, “can” was misleading there since you can obviously get information elsewhere. What I’m wondering is: If a company chooses not to publish something, how is that different than deciding what people are allowed to see?
        uoaei 6y ago
        Google does not have operational control over humans' bodies.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
It is a flawed argument. Censorship may help democracy in the short term, but long term it effectively invites authoritarian rule. A good comparison may be forced ranking system. It can be used temporarily to 'get rid of dead wood', but long term use is asking for only biggest assholes to stick around. Censorship is not that different. There is no nuance here. Person with power will determine what you can and cannot see. That kind of power does not allow for nuance.
CivBase 6y ago
What's tricky about it? Regarding the former situation, the president is one person with clear, self-serving motives. His actions are constantly examined under the critical eyes of the media and his political opposition. The public itself can also use social media to provide additional scrutiny (with varying degrees of quality and professionalism). The public has to search through garbage to find the truth. It's all easy to access, but there's a lot to go through. In the prior situation, businesses are trying to denying the public access to provide scrutiny based solely on the content of the message, regardless of quality. Those same businesses also happen to facilitate content discovery for the overwhelming majority of internet users. There are still political opponents and a few media organizations which might broadcast the message, but it will unquestioningly reach a much smaller audience. The public still has to search through garbage to find the truth. Now, though, some of it is much harder to access. Neither is good, but the prior situation sounds much worse to me.
- elif 6y ago
  It is not "one person" it is 75% of one half of the population.
  - uoaei 6y ago
    Basically none of those people have any standing because they are nowhere near the actual operations of the election process. Please don't pretend that their voices carry equal weight to those who have authority on the matter.
    - croon 6y ago
      I don't think they're purporting that, but merely stating that's how many believe it. It's a significant problem, especially when it's meritless.
    - elif 6y ago
      The two-party political dynamic depends upon hegemonizing more than 50% of the electorate by providing the least offensive political narrative and ideological pretext. T's effectiveness has been through manipulating that ideological pretext beyond campaign politics and beyond the requirement of even narrative cohesion with reality. He wields his populism to coerce even the interests of power themselves, with little regard for the overall homeostasis of Republican party's ideological pretext[0]. If he continues his ideological schism off-the-rails from an oval room at Mar-A-Lago, he has the precisely the same leverage in 2022 elections which he is wielding today. [0] see Loeffler's catch-22
comeonseriously 6y ago
I also think some of the arguments against Google's actions here don't take into account the engagement algorithms. If this content is left up and people watch it, the algos will feed them more of it. I think if we're going to have the discussion about Google "censoring" content, we have to include in the discussion engagement algos.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
There is indeed no easy solution on what is “good for democracy”, but that ideal can be damned to me because the idea of voters making ”informed choices” is laughable and they will always primarily vote based on simple tribalist allegiance, not to mention that the concept is silly in a two-party state. It has nothing to do with what is and isn't “good for democracy” and indeed simply that I find it scary that powerful companies play arbitrary referee on fact policing. YouTube is of course constantly filled with videos that contain falsehoods and it's arbitrary to only police it here.
beaner 6y ago
> Having the sitting president make completely baseless claims in an effort to delegitimize the results of an election The whole point is that this is a biased assumption. You can't prevent people from making counterpoints, and then say "completely baseless claims." For the conversation to be fair, you need to allow the claims to be made, and then disprove them. This way of thinking is part of the problem.
- mcguire 6y ago
  The person making the claims is responsible for providing evidence of them---specifically, evidence acceptable in the courts. Otherwise, you could continue making claims endlessly.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  > and then disprove them. It is impossible to disprove conspiracy theories. No matter how many judges laugh Trump out of court millions of people will believe for the rest of their lives that their was massive voter fraud.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > then disprove them How many times? This is an exploitable plan. Simply refuse to accept all evidence disproving claims that the election was stolen and continue to demand additional debate forever. Your method would only work if people were actually spreading these ideas in good faith. "Debate" instead becomes a hijacked channel for people to spread propaganda until the rest of time.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    Neither you nor the media are in position to disprove or prove anything. If Trump (empty rhetoric aside) has any claims about the election he needs to ask the competent authorities to review the case, there are regular channels for that. If the authorities(not you, google or twitter) determine there is no case, then Trump has to leave no matter what he says on twitter. If he does not leave, the problem wont be his Twitter account.
mc32 6y ago
I dunno, did that stop the previous loser form claiming Russia cost her the election? Did the media come out and condemn the "undermining of election results" as a consequence? Did the media, youtube, Google, Facebook, have to babysit us? Did they have to babysit the Steele Dossier too?
- bosswipe 6y ago
  The previous loser was pretty quiet about it. There was a special prosecutor appointed based on credible evidence that kept it in the news.
- JshWright 6y ago
  According to the special prosecutor appointed by the Justice Department, there was a concerted effort on the part of the Russian government to influence the US election, the Trump campaign was aware of that effort, and expected to benefit from it. Given those facts, I think the bulk of the coverage erred on the conservative side...
ramblerman 6y ago
> We don’t have an easy solution. Which is why you keep it simple by allowing all speech. Once you start down the road of a little bit of this, not much of that, and who gets to decide what the complexity only goes up. Not to mention the honest concern of where that censorship power is held.
condomhacker 6y ago
And that’s why he’s going to the courts instead of using all the other means and powers at his disposal. To ensure that the Democratic process is followed.
ksk 6y ago
Well, we teach kids how to use knives safely, we don't ban them.
oh_sigh 6y ago
"Dangerous for democracy" sounds like one of those contentless phrases that can be used to justify anything. The late 2010s/2020s version of all the patriotic jingoism thrown around post 9/11.
drukenemo 6y ago
Do you pledge this to be nuanced because it currently favors your political view maybe?
djsumdog 6y ago
> completely baseless claims There have been countless hearings around America. There have been election observers pushed out of counting centers. In Georgia, people were told a pipe burst, sent observers home, and then people kept counting for hours (on video). These are NOT baseless claims! They should be investigated. Let me ask you, if they were baseless, would YouTube even need to ban videos? They are banning them because they're afraid. I've watched hours of the hearings and looked at a lot of the information. There are serious issues with this election and they need to be investigated fully.
- compiler-guy 6y ago
  If they were not baseless, then they would have been used as evidence in any number of the dismissed court cases. They haven't.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    or the courts are so political and so corrurpt, and the media is so corrurpt, that the establishment will regain control through any means necessary. The Sullivan/Flynn situation should be enough to prove the courts are weaponized for the elites and against any political adversaries.
    - compiler-guy 6y ago
      The judicial slap downs have come from many Trump appointed judges. There is no evidence that they are corrupt, but if they are corrupt, Trump has no one to blame but himself.
    - compiler-guy 6y ago
      This is the very definition of a conspiracy theory. So many courts would have to be involved that the coverup would be impossible to manage.
      - djsumdog 6y ago
        Have you been following Sullivan? He has committed insane amounts of Judicial misconduct in the Flynn case. It's not conspiracy. It's right there, in the record. Sullivan had ex parte e-mails sent to him entered into evidence! That's insane and unethical! Viva does a great review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3i4hOPTYjk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3i4hOPTYjk
mlindner 6y ago
There _isn't_ nuance here. That's the entire point. It's an extreme slippery slope and this is already several steps down that slope. The earlier things were censorship of moon landing hoax videos and other such conspiracy theories. People didn't have an issue with censoring those as a tiny minority thought those. Now they're censoring things a significant double digit minority things (probably). Wait until they start censoring things that the political party alignment of the owners of Youtube disagree with, as that's the next step.
mlindner 6y ago
There _isn't_ nuance here. That's the entire point. It's an extreme slippery slope and this is already several steps down that slope. The earlier things were censorship of moon landing hoax videos and other such conspiracy theories. People didn't have an issue with censoring those as a tiny minority thought those. Now they're censoring things a significant double digit minority things (probably). Wait until they start censoring things that the political party alignment of the owners of Youtube disagree with, as that's the next step. At this point Youtube is no longer a "common carrier" of anything at all. Also don't forget how terrible Youtube's algorithm is and how it bans people at random and deletes video streams at random.

whiddershins 6y ago

I would genuinely like to know why you are so confident about what claims are and aren’t baseless. Do you have inside knowledge that the public doesn’t posses? Because I’ve been paying attention and I’m genuinely unsure what is happening ... default skeptical about all claims in every direction. Edit: A lot of the responses here seem to be unaware of Texas’ lawsuit and the ramifications. I expect the conspiracy claims to be separated out from the genuine concerns if the Supreme Court chooses to hear that suit.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
donkeyd 6y ago
I would say those claims based on the absence of evidence, or evidence that was proven fraudulent or incorrect would be baseless. It's impossible to prove something didn't happen, so we need proof something did happen. None was provided, just look at all the lawsuits.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  In the case of ballots, each ballot should have a recorded chain of custody, so it's actually not 'impossible' to prove something didn't happen. If the accusations are "There are a bunch of ballots that were entered into the counts without proper chain of custody" that can be easily proven or disproven. If the accusation is "Signatures were required to be verified and bipartisan representatives were legally supposed to witness the process" which apparently is the case in many jurisdictions, that too would be easy to prove or disprove. There will be records associated with those observations and chain of custody records of those ballots. Unfortunately, some ballot envelopes have already been 'thrown away' so they cannot be audited to see if counts match, to see how many ballots were indeed signed (sometimes a witness is required), or be able to be verified against other controls (such as numbering, ensuring the name on the ballot matches who it was sent to, etc). The law says you must hold an election, and exactly what steps you need to take to hold such an election. If you didn't follow the steps, there wasn't a lawful election. That's more or less what some of the lawsuits are about. Are these claims 'baseless'? I don't think so. There's no shortage of sworn affidavits and statements from election officials about how the processes weren't followed. There's also court cases (such as in Georgia) where the executive branch possibly unlawfully struck an agreement with Democrats to relax certain requirements. The only remaining question is, how heavily should this evidence be weighed, and is it enough to affect the outcome of the process. TBD.
  - jrs235 6y ago
    >"There are a bunch of ballots that were entered into the counts without proper chain of custody" that can be easily proven or disproven." And unfortunately due to the amount of bad faith in play, I would be concerned of the party hoping that there was a break in the chain of custody to employ an insider to perform a break in the chain of custody in order to get the result they want... throwing everything out in hopes of getting a different outcome. The conspiracies will never end. Sigh.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      In some cases, the chain of custody records (allegedly) aren't even available, so what are you supposed to do about that situation? In my mind, that begs the question, how can these elections even be 'certified?' What due diligence did election officials perform to ensure everything was fair and square? In Georgia, I believe, there were reports of multiple USB drives found that weren't initially counted during the recount. Did anyone know how many people voted in those precincts and who was in charge of ensuring the numbers were square? It seems like a complete circus.
      - disgrunt 6y ago
        If there is a truth to be gleamed here, it's that U.S. elections as they're presently conducted are a train wreck. Even the parties seeking to prove a fair election took place are being thwarted by incompetence.
        linuxftw 6y ago
        That's really the entire point, IMO. If the people holding the election can't prove they did everything by the letter, how do they know they did everything by the letter? You're talking 100's or 1000's of different precincts across an entire state.
    - djsumdog 6y ago
      In PA at least, they could have not kicked out GOP observers, literally cheering as they were thrown out. In other counties, observers had to stand far away for "COVID" reasons, while dozens or counters of DEM observers were crammed together at tables. In Georgia, observers were told to go home, and then people continued to count behind closed doors, unobserved. There is video and no matter how many news sources yell "debunked" ... there is no reasonable explanation for it. There was no water pipe burst. It was a lie and it LOOKS TERRIBLE. If you want an honest election, then people have to not make up this shit. But everyone sees every single GOP/Republican as some evil racist Nazi, so some of these things could have been totally on the books, but people threw out observers due to media fueled hate. The trouble is ... it's impossible to tell. The percentage of rejected mail-in ballots due to signatures is far far below what is has been before. It looks bad. It stinks. Anyone who is in the center and is truly looking at everything is likely going to make the judgement, even if their party won, the election was shady as fuck.
cmsonger 6y ago
> I would genuinely like to know why you are so confident about what claims are and aren’t baseless. Because he continues to lose in court time and time again, often to judges that were appointed during his administration and yet the rhetoric and allegations continue at the same pace.
neogodless 6y ago
Some things have been claimed without a single shred of evidence. A complete lack of evidence points to claims as being baseless. (That doesn't mean that YouTube's removal of those will help the situation. Though letting baseless claims be a part of polarizing the country does not appear to have been the correct solution, given where we are now.)
aerovistae 6y ago
And this is exactly why we need the social media companies to step in. Because Trump has successfully created uncertainty where there is in fact no question.
- trueluk 6y ago
  Trump didn't create the uncertainty. Statistically improbably events did that. There is overwhelming evidence of fraud and breaking of rules. The media, including YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, are censoring the evidence. https://hereistheevidence.com/ https://hereistheevidence.com/
  - uoaei 6y ago
    Jesus Christ that website runs about 30 more scripts on my computer than it needs to. Under the root domain, no less. You fell for a honeypot, bud.
    - pedroma 6y ago
      Oh no... I got hacked and all my bank accounts are empty. Watamuhgunnado?!
      - uoaei 6y ago
        Your IP address and associated shadow profile are recorded by multiple nation-state intelligence agencies, most likely. Or else by private groups who are interested in compiling an army of impressionable and easily-duped folks to continue using them as a weapon to subvert democracy. This is not a far-fetched claim. If I was Russia, for example, I would do something exactly like this for exactly that reason. Not to mention that stuff exactly like this has happened and was later shown to be run by exactly the groups I'm referencing. It's Occam's razor.
        pedroma 6y ago
        I just lost self-control. These nation states are moving my fingers and controlling my thoughts. Help.
ragnese 6y ago
The court case record is a decent barometer. The fact that the Trump campaign's cases have almost unanimously tossed out quickly tells us that reality is likely one of two: 1. They have approximately no evidence of anything substantive. 2. All of the courts in all of the states where this is happening are conspiring against the President. Including those with Republican-appointed judges. Can I argue that it must be #1 the same way I can use the laws of physics to argue that a hammer will fall to the ground when I drop it? No. Is it WAY beyond my own reasonable doubt? Yep.
- trueluk 6y ago
  Some courts are refusing to even allow lawyers to present evidence. Additionally, many of the Trump cases reported by the media are not, in fact, Trump Campaign cases.
  - ragnese 6y ago
    > Some courts are refusing to even allow lawyers to present evidence. Source? > Additionally, many of the Trump cases reported by the media are not, in fact, Trump Campaign cases. That doesn't really matter. The "denominator" is not the most important part. In other words, it's not so much that his campaign won 1/51 cases or if it was really 1/10 cases. I only care about how many his campaign won (1). And are you being honest, or are you being technically truthful while trying to deceive me? In other words, if a case was brought by Rudy Giuliani or Sidney Powell, but not some legal entity called "The Trump Campaign", then it's all the same to me.
    - trueluk 6y ago
      I'm being honest. The Trump Campaign has filed only a handful of suits. Here's their suit in Georgia: https://publicrecordsaccess.fultoncountyga.gov/app/RegisterOfActions/#/8AC58FA3E74D313EE950B76978C31FD3F1B59334F84E6E89B0B3A2FA59C9DB008F9597326FEAB55063675E9C184B47E4/anon/portalembed https://publicrecordsaccess.fultoncountyga.gov/app/RegisterO... 2,560 felons voted 66,247 underage voters 2,423 votes from people not registered 1,043 individuals registered at PO boxes 4,926 individuals who voted in Georgia after registering in another state 395 individuals who voted in two states 15,700 votes from people who moved out of state before the election 40,279 votes of people who moved without re-registering in their new county 30,000 - 40,000 absentee ballots lacking proper signature matching and verification
MGGJFU 6y ago
I think the side which is getting all their lawsuits dismissed (and with prejudice) is probably the one with the baseless claims. I also think that the side on which the biggest (public) provable liar/narcissist of all time is on has a chance of having the most baseless claims. Occam's Razor also applies. What is more likely: a massive conspiracy to rig the election, only in specific swing states, only for the presidency and nothing else on the ballot, requiring massive coordination and having no proof. Or... The president is a huge liar and the people in the GOP are afraid to go against him lest he turn his cult against them too. > Because I’ve been paying attention and I’m genuinely unsure what is happening I'm genuinely unsure how you're genuinely unsure, except if you attribute the same weight to Fox News / OANN and other propaganda networks as you do sources of information with actual credibility. There is zero doubt to be had.
- Fellshard 6y ago
  Credible by repetition only, at this point. They've shown themselves at the same level, and the most self-righteous networks have proven the most hypocritical, and they don't even seem to see it.
- zests 6y ago
  If Trump is "the biggest provable liar/narcissist of all time" -- clearly this would make him a huge national security threat -- why wouldn't Democrats do everything in their power to get him removed from office? Including, hypothetically, voter fraud. I don't believe the claims of voter fraud. But if you take what is said about Trump at face value you maybe you should adjust your priors about the likelihood of such fraud. If you don't take the claims at face value, why you take the analysis of the voter fraud situation at face value? Political discussion is practically zero trust right now.
  - uoaei 6y ago
    Did they not? Have you been following the news at all in the past year or so?
    - 6y ago
enumjorge 6y ago
There’s nothing secret or private about any of this. Go read what the judges’ responses where to the Trump legal team’s claims were. Some of these judges were appointed by Trump. The Supreme Court has struck down multiple claims. Those are public too. Election officials have investigated and found to evidence of fraud. The people Trump is attacking in Georgia for example are Republicans. Barr’s investigation found no evidence of fraud that would have changed the election. Every person that was actually involved in the election has said Biden won fairly. They made public statements. It’s all out there in the open available for you to see. If that doesn’t convince you I don’t know what evidence would.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  You're spreading misinformation. Should you be censored? > "Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the Department has concluded its investigation of election fraud and announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election," the spokesperson said. "That is not what the Associated Press reported nor what the Attorney General stated. The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible." [0] [0]: https://www.newsmax.com/politics/doj-william-barr-fraud-ballots/2020/12/02/id/999639/ https://www.newsmax.com/politics/doj-william-barr-fraud-ball...
  - namdnay 6y ago
    How is the person above spreading misinformation? They stated that no evidence of fraud has been found. No evidence of fraud has been found. The fact that the AG will pursue any evidence of it if it is found is doesn’t contradict that in any way?
trueluk 6y ago
The Supreme Court will absolutely hear that suit. Those four states bypassed thier legislatures in order to change their election laws. To anyone willing to invest a few hours of his time, he'll find it's quite obvious this election was rife with fraud. What's sad is that our officials refuse to audit the votes. What's sad is the GOP officials in Wayne County who tried to say there was a problem were doxed and threatened. After that, no one was willing to stand up for the truth. Is there anything more important than making sure every legal vote was counted and illegal votes are discarded? They don't want transparency. That's the issue.
- destroyHN 6y ago
  You pitiful, damaged, loser.
- uoaei 6y ago
  What has anyone done that is explicitly illegal? Cite the statutes and laws. The fact is, those procedures (i.e., "bypassing legislatures") have been implemented precisely for situations like this. Don't get mad just because people actually use them.
- Daishiman 6y ago
  Dude... There were multiple audits in a ton of states. Every time, it came out that the results were fair. You're going to need to come up with much more than that.
- czep 6y ago
  > Those four states bypassed thier legislatures in order to change their election laws. When these special measures were enacted in March to accommodate voting during a pandemic, ample time was given for public comment and legal challenge. Why weren't these suits raised at that time? It seems awfully suspicious that plantiffs had no issue with the mail balloting until they lost the election.
  - whiddershins 6y ago
    People did sue at the time
natex 6y ago
So far, the vast majority of court cases are getting tossed out due to lack of evidence. The courts are asking for more evidence but there is none. At what point would you be agree that the claims are baseless? Like, what has to happen for you are confident about it? Texas' lawsuit is frivolous and will get denied.
not2b 6y ago
The Supreme Court isn't going to hear Texas's suit. They've already strongly signaled that by rejecting the Pennsylvania suit without any dissents; Texas is basically trying to sue Pennsylvania for the same things, again.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  You're mistaking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with the U.S. Supreme Court. Don't feel bad, The New York Times is perpetuating this confusion.
  - whiddershins 6y ago
    No I believe it is true that a plaintiff from Pennsylvania who was suing Pennsylvania was denied in the SCOTUS, but this was after Texas files their suit which was more inclusive, so the two might relate. Edit: SCOTUS declined to hear that case, possibly in anticipation of hearing the Texas one instead, possibly because they intend to hear neither.
    - disgrunt 6y ago
      You can believe what you want, it's (for now) a free country. But the SCOTUS has not ruled on anything yet.
      - whiddershins 6y ago
        Not what I said.
        disgrunt 6y ago
        You edited your post. How about some good faith here?
        whiddershins 6y ago
        To clarify. But I never said what you thought I said.
jcranmer 6y ago
I wrote https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25354086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25354086 to explain why Texas v Pennsylvania is going to be dismissed by SCOTUS. There are at least six reasons to dismiss that don't even involve any consideration of the merits, with standing far and away the most likely reason to dismiss.
panda-giddiness 6y ago
> Edit: A lot of the responses here seem to be unaware of Texas’ lawsuit and the ramifications. I expect the conspiracy claims to be separated out from the genuine concerns if the Supreme Court chooses to hear that suit. I'm not sure why you think that. I doubt any legally-minded individuals think there's any merit to that lawsuit. 1. It's dubious Texas even has standing. Texas has extremely limited influence, if any, over the manner in which other states manage their elections. If Pennsylvania wanted, they could divvy out their electoral votes via coin flip in future elections. As far as I'm aware (and I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt), a state suing another state for the way it handles elections is entirely without precedent. 2. There's the issue of laches. If mail-in voting is unconstitutional, the time to make that argument was months ago. Courts are already hesitant to change election procedure near election day for fear of confusing voters. They are far less willing to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters after ballots have already been cast.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  1. It is not dubious at all. The U.S. Constitution is actually quite clear about this. 2. Claims depend on damages. Judges tend to avoid ruling on hypotheticals.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Three more states have joined Texas.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  17 states now. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/17-states-trump-join-texas-lawsuit-it-s-still-doomed-ncna1250603 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/17-states-trump-join-t...
mcguire 6y ago
This lawsuit: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/ima... As a former resident of Texas, I'm particularly entertained by irregularity #2: "Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters–whether lawful or unlawful–in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States." Check out Tarrant, Dallas, Harris, and Travis counties: https://redistricting.capitol.texas.gov/docs/19R0036_86th_Senate_Tabloid_2020_07_31.pdf https://redistricting.capitol.texas.gov/docs/19R0036_86th_Se...
tshaddox 6y ago
> I would genuinely like to know why you are so confident about what claims are and aren’t baseless. I'm confident that no good explanations have been offered for certain claims, and my epistemology is that the truth value of claims depends on having good explanations for those claims. Someone might have a different epistemology which admits claims of the form "X is true despite there being no good explanation of X being true," but note that such an epistemology effectively allows for all claims being true (the existence of unicorns, the claim that the Universe's existence began 1 millisecond ago and will end in the next 1 millisecond, etc.).
nobody9999 6y ago
>Do you have inside knowledge that the public doesn’t posses? Because I’ve been paying attention and I’m genuinely unsure what is happening ... default skeptical about all claims in every direction. No inside knowledge necessary. Just read the court decisions themselves. They are public documents. I don't have the time or the inclination to dig up all 50+ court rulings, many of which explain in great detail, the deficiencies of the claims that have been made and/or are unsupported by evidence. If you are unaware of these court rulings (along with the claims being made by both sides, the arguments for and against and the opinions of the judges), that's because you haven't looked. Each and every case is in the public record. Don't believe anyone who tells you there was/wasn't widespread electoral fraud/irregularities. Look at the documents yourself. They are publicly available (yes, I know I'm repeating myself). Hell, even a bunch of the ballot counting processes across the country were live-streamed.

secondcoming 6y ago

If the election was totally normal would Texas still be suing four other states?

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
If Texas politics was totally normal right now, would Texas still be suing four other states?
- jrs235 6y ago
  Unfortunately normal and healthy are not the same. Seems Texas politics is normal for Texas politics at the moment.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  It's not just Texas though. Like 10 other states have joined.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    Zero states or other parties have joined, or filed to intervene, but seven states plus the president have indicated that they support and intend to do so. Filings in the case are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/... No one but Texas has filed anything. [EDIT: As noted downthread, things have moved on, and new filings are in.]
    - mythrwy 6y ago
      I think it's 9 indicating they want to join now. I don't have an official source. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota, Missouri. They may get Indiana and Oklahoma as well is my understanding. And they are (at least some of them) interested in joining. https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-louisiana-ags-want-join-texas-election-lawsuit-against-battleground-states-1553392 https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-louisiana-ags-want-join-tex... This is a big deal no matter what your political persuasion is. It's not just some crazy people claiming voting machines are controlled by the Chinese using mind control and a local judge throwing it out. If they take the case it's going to be a very historic event.

pupdogg 6y ago

I'm on the same boat as @whiddershins, please take a moment to explain your thoughts in detail.

destroyHN 6y ago
Oh my god. Seriously, go attend a super spreading rally and fuck yourself.
mcguire 6y ago
It would seem to be incumbent on someone making claims of a crime, particularly a serious, disturbing crime against the fundamentals of the United States, to provide evidence of that crime. Real evidence, not just allegations. The only unequivocal "evidence" I have seen has been eyewitness statements, but those eyewitnesses have repeatedly refused to testify under oath. That makes their allegations useless to the legal system. The way that some people continue to make those allegations in spite of being unable to produce any evidence makes me suspect they are not interested in legal avenues, but rather in drumming up civil unrest and distrust in the foundations of the United States. That suspicion might be reason for YouTube's actions.

starbugs 6y ago

How is it [the president making baseless claims] dangerous for democracy? What if the opposite is true? What if censoring thoughts is the real danger for democracy? I am not saying I have proof for any of this. But I guess, that's true for your claim, too. I think it would be wise to rephrase it so that it doesn't sound like a fact.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
uoaei 6y ago
Low-effort what-if scenarios don't deserve much consideration.
- the_optimist 6y ago
  Can you clarify your theory? Is it specifically the amount of effort that determines legal consideration?
  - uoaei 6y ago
    It's the same concern that Google is addressing. Anyone can make claims. No one is required to give them a platform if there's no reason to take anything they say seriously. Until they present well-reasoned and informed arguments, they should be and are ignored by rational people.
    - starbugs 6y ago
      Have you ever looked through the content on YouTube?
      - uoaei 6y ago
        Discretion is discretion. If you disagree, get hired by Google and change it.
6y ago

worik 6y ago

No there is no easy solution generally. You tube has no obligation to carry anything. It has nothing to do with "Free Speech", that would be a very lazy characterisation. Companies like Google can control what is easily available and discoverable next to the cat videos etc but they do not "...dictate what information is widely accessible" Any website or even more so IP address is widely accessible. Why should Google sit around and let experienced psy ops operators have free reign on their platform? So there is a easy solution for Google - remove it.

samdlathsworth 6y ago
That’s the point. This might be acceptable if there was even one single thing about YouTube that was itself democratic in any way. Since there isn’t, this is an inherently anti-democratic maneuver. The corporate oligarchy is shedding yet a bit mote hesitation to fully realize itself. This is not a good thing.
- worik 6y ago
  It is private property! Why do you expect it to be "democratic"? Whilst the abolition of private property is a interesting idea, that is not, I expect, what you would advocate?
  - jmnicolas 6y ago
    When you're the ONLY* alternative for videos online you have a moral obligation of being impartial. * Vimeo, Daily Motion, Lbry or whatever else have even less shares than desktop Linuxes vs Windows. YouTube is the only game in town.
    - SamBam 6y ago
      The popularity of other equally-good services should have no bearing on whether a service has a "moral obligation" to do something. There's nothing preventing all the conspiracy theorists from deciding en masse to move to Vimeo, or setting up their own video posting system on Gab or Parler.

samiru 6y ago

What if his claims were true and this happened? Wouldn't that be a tricky situation too? I mean, really tricky? At the same time I think Youtube has the right to do this (and whatever they want, basically). Currently there are no real alternatives to Youtube, that is the problem.

syshum 6y ago
Clearly election security is perfect when Democrats win, but if Republicans win then Russia stole it //for the record I think both results are valid and we just see cry baby partisans in action on both sides, in 2016 and 2020. It is pure tribalism and I am not a member of either tribe
- SamBam 6y ago
  No prominent Democrats actually argued that Donald Trump wasn't actually the president, or that the transition shouldn't happen, or that election officials should be shot. "#NotMyPresident" was a statement of dissatisfaction, and a belief that Trump won the election unfairly, not a statement claiming that Trump was not legally the president. It was also never espoused by members of the government. There's a difference between saying someone won by underhanded tactics and saying that someone didn't actually win and isn't legally the president. The two are not comparable.
  - syshum 6y ago
    aside from your subjective view as to what constitutes a "prominent Democrat" Hilary Clinton her self stated multiple times that election was stolen from her. Multiple News personalities dedicated billions of dollars in air time to the meh Russia Stole the election narrative for 3.5 years. So miss me with your partisan moral grandstanding
    - mrguyorama 6y ago
      How many people involved in Trump's campaign went to prison or were otherwise convicted of doing shady shit with russians and money? Wasn't it close to 20?

dwheeler 6y ago

I do not believe there was widespread election fraud, but having a private company control what information people are allowed to see & hear is also dangerous. YouTube has the right to do this as a private company, but it's also a dangerous precedent. I think a better approach, instead of broad censorship, would be simply inserting warning statement(s), at least in front of the material. They already stick in ads, so the tech is there. That way, the material is still available, but with warnings. We "show but warn" with many other materials (sexually explicit, violence, etc.) - I think that would be the much better way to handle such materials.

uoaei 6y ago
Private companies control what information they publish, not what information "people are allowed to see". To the general audience: the rhetoric of the parent comment is designed to blur the lines and invite accusations of "censorship" where none apply.
- teeray 6y ago
  Is there some information that people can see that a company chooses not to publish?
  - uoaei 6y ago
    What even is this question? I mean, absent further context, the answer is "obviously, yes."
    - teeray 6y ago
      Sorry, “can” was misleading there since you can obviously get information elsewhere. What I’m wondering is: If a company chooses not to publish something, how is that different than deciding what people are allowed to see?
      - uoaei 6y ago
        Google does not have operational control over humans' bodies.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

It is a flawed argument. Censorship may help democracy in the short term, but long term it effectively invites authoritarian rule. A good comparison may be forced ranking system. It can be used temporarily to 'get rid of dead wood', but long term use is asking for only biggest assholes to stick around. Censorship is not that different. There is no nuance here. Person with power will determine what you can and cannot see. That kind of power does not allow for nuance.

CivBase 6y ago

What's tricky about it? Regarding the former situation, the president is one person with clear, self-serving motives. His actions are constantly examined under the critical eyes of the media and his political opposition. The public itself can also use social media to provide additional scrutiny (with varying degrees of quality and professionalism). The public has to search through garbage to find the truth. It's all easy to access, but there's a lot to go through. In the prior situation, businesses are trying to denying the public access to provide scrutiny based solely on the content of the message, regardless of quality. Those same businesses also happen to facilitate content discovery for the overwhelming majority of internet users. There are still political opponents and a few media organizations which might broadcast the message, but it will unquestioningly reach a much smaller audience. The public still has to search through garbage to find the truth. Now, though, some of it is much harder to access. Neither is good, but the prior situation sounds much worse to me.

elif 6y ago
It is not "one person" it is 75% of one half of the population.
- uoaei 6y ago
  Basically none of those people have any standing because they are nowhere near the actual operations of the election process. Please don't pretend that their voices carry equal weight to those who have authority on the matter.
  - croon 6y ago
    I don't think they're purporting that, but merely stating that's how many believe it. It's a significant problem, especially when it's meritless.
  - elif 6y ago
    The two-party political dynamic depends upon hegemonizing more than 50% of the electorate by providing the least offensive political narrative and ideological pretext. T's effectiveness has been through manipulating that ideological pretext beyond campaign politics and beyond the requirement of even narrative cohesion with reality. He wields his populism to coerce even the interests of power themselves, with little regard for the overall homeostasis of Republican party's ideological pretext[0]. If he continues his ideological schism off-the-rails from an oval room at Mar-A-Lago, he has the precisely the same leverage in 2022 elections which he is wielding today. [0] see Loeffler's catch-22

comeonseriously 6y ago

I also think some of the arguments against Google's actions here don't take into account the engagement algorithms. If this content is left up and people watch it, the algos will feed them more of it. I think if we're going to have the discussion about Google "censoring" content, we have to include in the discussion engagement algos.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

There is indeed no easy solution on what is “good for democracy”, but that ideal can be damned to me because the idea of voters making ”informed choices” is laughable and they will always primarily vote based on simple tribalist allegiance, not to mention that the concept is silly in a two-party state. It has nothing to do with what is and isn't “good for democracy” and indeed simply that I find it scary that powerful companies play arbitrary referee on fact policing. YouTube is of course constantly filled with videos that contain falsehoods and it's arbitrary to only police it here.

beaner 6y ago

> Having the sitting president make completely baseless claims in an effort to delegitimize the results of an election The whole point is that this is a biased assumption. You can't prevent people from making counterpoints, and then say "completely baseless claims." For the conversation to be fair, you need to allow the claims to be made, and then disprove them. This way of thinking is part of the problem.

mcguire 6y ago
The person making the claims is responsible for providing evidence of them---specifically, evidence acceptable in the courts. Otherwise, you could continue making claims endlessly.
bosswipe 6y ago
> and then disprove them. It is impossible to disprove conspiracy theories. No matter how many judges laugh Trump out of court millions of people will believe for the rest of their lives that their was massive voter fraud.
UncleMeat 6y ago
> then disprove them How many times? This is an exploitable plan. Simply refuse to accept all evidence disproving claims that the election was stolen and continue to demand additional debate forever. Your method would only work if people were actually spreading these ideas in good faith. "Debate" instead becomes a hijacked channel for people to spread propaganda until the rest of time.
- cambalache 6y ago
  Neither you nor the media are in position to disprove or prove anything. If Trump (empty rhetoric aside) has any claims about the election he needs to ask the competent authorities to review the case, there are regular channels for that. If the authorities(not you, google or twitter) determine there is no case, then Trump has to leave no matter what he says on twitter. If he does not leave, the problem wont be his Twitter account.

mc32 6y ago

I dunno, did that stop the previous loser form claiming Russia cost her the election? Did the media come out and condemn the "undermining of election results" as a consequence? Did the media, youtube, Google, Facebook, have to babysit us? Did they have to babysit the Steele Dossier too?

bosswipe 6y ago
The previous loser was pretty quiet about it. There was a special prosecutor appointed based on credible evidence that kept it in the news.
JshWright 6y ago
According to the special prosecutor appointed by the Justice Department, there was a concerted effort on the part of the Russian government to influence the US election, the Trump campaign was aware of that effort, and expected to benefit from it. Given those facts, I think the bulk of the coverage erred on the conservative side...

ramblerman 6y ago

> We don’t have an easy solution. Which is why you keep it simple by allowing all speech. Once you start down the road of a little bit of this, not much of that, and who gets to decide what the complexity only goes up. Not to mention the honest concern of where that censorship power is held.

condomhacker 6y ago

And that’s why he’s going to the courts instead of using all the other means and powers at his disposal. To ensure that the Democratic process is followed.

ksk 6y ago

Well, we teach kids how to use knives safely, we don't ban them.

oh_sigh 6y ago

"Dangerous for democracy" sounds like one of those contentless phrases that can be used to justify anything. The late 2010s/2020s version of all the patriotic jingoism thrown around post 9/11.

drukenemo 6y ago

Do you pledge this to be nuanced because it currently favors your political view maybe?

djsumdog 6y ago

> completely baseless claims There have been countless hearings around America. There have been election observers pushed out of counting centers. In Georgia, people were told a pipe burst, sent observers home, and then people kept counting for hours (on video). These are NOT baseless claims! They should be investigated. Let me ask you, if they were baseless, would YouTube even need to ban videos? They are banning them because they're afraid. I've watched hours of the hearings and looked at a lot of the information. There are serious issues with this election and they need to be investigated fully.

compiler-guy 6y ago
If they were not baseless, then they would have been used as evidence in any number of the dismissed court cases. They haven't.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  or the courts are so political and so corrurpt, and the media is so corrurpt, that the establishment will regain control through any means necessary. The Sullivan/Flynn situation should be enough to prove the courts are weaponized for the elites and against any political adversaries.
  - compiler-guy 6y ago
    The judicial slap downs have come from many Trump appointed judges. There is no evidence that they are corrupt, but if they are corrupt, Trump has no one to blame but himself.
  - compiler-guy 6y ago
    This is the very definition of a conspiracy theory. So many courts would have to be involved that the coverup would be impossible to manage.
    - djsumdog 6y ago
      Have you been following Sullivan? He has committed insane amounts of Judicial misconduct in the Flynn case. It's not conspiracy. It's right there, in the record. Sullivan had ex parte e-mails sent to him entered into evidence! That's insane and unethical! Viva does a great review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3i4hOPTYjk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3i4hOPTYjk

mlindner 6y ago

There _isn't_ nuance here. That's the entire point. It's an extreme slippery slope and this is already several steps down that slope. The earlier things were censorship of moon landing hoax videos and other such conspiracy theories. People didn't have an issue with censoring those as a tiny minority thought those. Now they're censoring things a significant double digit minority things (probably). Wait until they start censoring things that the political party alignment of the owners of Youtube disagree with, as that's the next step.

mlindner 6y ago