5 ms·

> 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

by 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.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > Neither you nor the media are in position to disprove or prove anything. Then what do people want? I'm not hearing simultaneous complaints that it is important for youtube to host these. "debates" so that the social media community can address wild claims and also that it is a worthless effort. If random internet commenters can't make productive change in the crazy beliefs held by some people then great! I actually agree that is the most likely outcome. This means that nothing is lost if youtube says "we don't want to be the home to this debate".
    - cambalache 6y ago
      You are free to disagree but for me a company like Youtube who has a quasi-monopolistic dominion on internet video (yes people say go to dailymotion etc, they are being disingenuous, for many reasons youtube is the only good option) is playing a dangerous game by selectively enforcing what content to host. If tomorrow they start removing BLM videos or even worst any video critical of Google I expect you wont just shrug your shoulders and say "Well, they can go and create their own video service, nothing is lost"
      - UncleMeat 6y ago
        > If tomorrow they start removing BLM videos or even worst any video critical of Google I expect you wont just shrug your shoulders and say "Well, they can go and create their own video service, nothing is lost" That's right. I do believe that booting white supremacist content off youtube is good and booting blm content off youtube is bad. The merits of the content are meaningfully different. If people want to argue the white supremacist content is merited, they can certainly try. The game is already dangerous, even if youtube decides to host literally everything its users upload.
        cambalache 6y ago
        Is Jordan Peterson white supremacism? What about Christopher Hitchens? Is Nigel Farage white supremacism? Trump? Marie Le Pen? Geert Wilders? Bolsonaro? Voyage a bout de la nuit from Celine? Lovecraft? How about Teddy Roosevelt? Churchill? Columbus? Music about the crusades? Nordic rock? Midsommer? Thanks god you and google will take all those decisions for me.Thinking is hard , paraphrasing Barbie(oops more white supremacism).
- beaner 6y ago
  Forever. Infinite times. That's the point.
chipotle_coyote 6y ago
> For the conversation to be fair, you need to allow the claims to be made, and then disprove them. These claims have been made on an ongoing basis for a month -- arguably more than a month, since Trump and his allies spent time before the election promoting the idea that Trump losing is itself de facto evidence of fraud. And they keep being disproven. Over, and over, and over. At what point is it okay for a publisher -- or whatever we wish to call YouTube -- to say "enough is enough"? Must any and all arguments be endlessly re-litigated on any platform?
Falling3 6y ago
> The whole point is that this is a biased assumption It's absolutely not. Whether the president's claims are true is another matter entirely. When he makes a claim with no specifics, no explanation of how it occurred, and no evidence, that's a baseless claim. And it does not deserve equal representation in the media merely by virtue of it having been said.

by beaner 6y ago

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.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > Neither you nor the media are in position to disprove or prove anything. Then what do people want? I'm not hearing simultaneous complaints that it is important for youtube to host these. "debates" so that the social media community can address wild claims and also that it is a worthless effort. If random internet commenters can't make productive change in the crazy beliefs held by some people then great! I actually agree that is the most likely outcome. This means that nothing is lost if youtube says "we don't want to be the home to this debate".
  - cambalache 6y ago
    You are free to disagree but for me a company like Youtube who has a quasi-monopolistic dominion on internet video (yes people say go to dailymotion etc, they are being disingenuous, for many reasons youtube is the only good option) is playing a dangerous game by selectively enforcing what content to host. If tomorrow they start removing BLM videos or even worst any video critical of Google I expect you wont just shrug your shoulders and say "Well, they can go and create their own video service, nothing is lost"
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      > If tomorrow they start removing BLM videos or even worst any video critical of Google I expect you wont just shrug your shoulders and say "Well, they can go and create their own video service, nothing is lost" That's right. I do believe that booting white supremacist content off youtube is good and booting blm content off youtube is bad. The merits of the content are meaningfully different. If people want to argue the white supremacist content is merited, they can certainly try. The game is already dangerous, even if youtube decides to host literally everything its users upload.
      - cambalache 6y ago
        Is Jordan Peterson white supremacism? What about Christopher Hitchens? Is Nigel Farage white supremacism? Trump? Marie Le Pen? Geert Wilders? Bolsonaro? Voyage a bout de la nuit from Celine? Lovecraft? How about Teddy Roosevelt? Churchill? Columbus? Music about the crusades? Nordic rock? Midsommer? Thanks god you and google will take all those decisions for me.Thinking is hard , paraphrasing Barbie(oops more white supremacism).
beaner 6y ago
Forever. Infinite times. That's the point.

chipotle_coyote 6y ago

> For the conversation to be fair, you need to allow the claims to be made, and then disprove them. These claims have been made on an ongoing basis for a month -- arguably more than a month, since Trump and his allies spent time before the election promoting the idea that Trump losing is itself de facto evidence of fraud. And they keep being disproven. Over, and over, and over. At what point is it okay for a publisher -- or whatever we wish to call YouTube -- to say "enough is enough"? Must any and all arguments be endlessly re-litigated on any platform?

Falling3 6y ago

> The whole point is that this is a biased assumption It's absolutely not. Whether the president's claims are true is another matter entirely. When he makes a claim with no specifics, no explanation of how it occurred, and no evidence, that's a baseless claim. And it does not deserve equal representation in the media merely by virtue of it having been said.