Why should "alleging" anything be policed? I concur that painting widespread fraud as "definite" seems like a false claim (at least with current evidence), but

Why should "alleging" anything be policed? I concur that painting widespread fraud as "definite" seems like a false claim (at least with current evidence), but let's leave that aside for now. Exploration of election fraud would have to begin with speculation ("alleging"), just like challenging any prevailing thought begins with speculation. For example, imagine if no one was permitted to challenge the WHO's claim earlier this year that there was no human to human transmission of the coronavirus. Furthermore, if there WERE fraud happening, there aren't any great avenues by which outsiders could detect it to offer up evidence. The system is too opaque, proprietary in its implementation, and varied across jurisdictions to allow gathering of evidence. So the notion that there must be hard proof before people can talk about a problem doesn't make sense to me in this instance. Some thoughts on content curation and censorship by big tech platforms: YouTube is not a small backwaters website. It is one of the most influential and popular websites, with reach greater than most countries' governments, and it is therefore a digital public square. YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook should not be allowed to implement restrictions on content beyond what the law minimally requires, since doing so effectively curtails practical access to the right to free speech. And I am not talking about legal technicalities of free speech as enshrined in current US law, but rather the fundamental principle of free speech - something worthy of aspiring to regardless of what the law allows right now. Lastly, a word on elections: elections need to implement the law strictly and be tightly controlled. There should be nothing left to chance. This means there needs to be multiple cross-checked counts by default, with a variety of organizations involved (observers and counters from parties, media outlets, etc.). There should be random sampling of ballots where citizens are asked to vote a second time to validate their initial ballot. There should be strong voter verification to disallow any illegal voting. All machines and software must be open source and audited by third parties. People should be able to verify their ballot's choices were recorded as expected online. And so on. I realize some of this may run into limitations of secret ballots, but we can perhaps come up with technical solutions to allay those fears (like issuing one-time use logins for each election that have no PII tying a ballot back to a specific individual).