5 ms·

This is Orwellian bullshit. And I'll take it because I think the alternative is leading to a few greedy assholes using analytical data to successfully weaponiz

This is Orwellian bullshit. And I'll take it because I think the alternative is leading to a few greedy assholes using analytical data to successfully weaponize millions upon millions of uninformed people against logic and common sense. Do we add restrictions to voting to weed out people who habitually vote anti-facts? No. Disenfranchisement. Do we make fake news illegal? No. Censorship leading to state run media. Do we have a civil war because it's so bad that people are being evicted and dying of starvation because their neighbors are being convinced by propaganda that they're less than? Hopefully not. So we're kind of left with this option. We're stuck with speaking with our wallets through corporations because our voices in government have been corrupted. It sucks.

ghthor 6y ago
If you think the ones weaponizing disinformation are unable to also weaponize centralized unelected censors, you're a fucking moron. These centralized censors will be weaponized by the same actors weaponizing the information.
its_simple 6y ago
I don't need some pythonistas doing sprints telling me which videos I should or shouldn't watch when I'm getting high, yes or yes?
- bofadeez 6y ago
  Shout out Tim Dillon?
wwright 6y ago
Agreed 100%. YouTube’s massively outsized impact is obviously the problem here. This wouldn’t be Orwellian if they didn’t have so much power. We wouldn’t need it if YouTube didn’t allow for such insane manipulation of people. But if we’re going to have YouTube, by god do I prefer people NOT proliferating this madness freely.
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  > I prefer people NOT proliferating this madness freely. Just the madness you happen to agree with, right?
  - pldr1234 6y ago
    Bothsideism is not a good argument for preserving dangerous untruths. Also, this is a free market. Those who feel they are being censored can freely start their own AntiTube service.
    - fbru02 6y ago
      it is funny how people with liberal tendencies resort to "it is a free market" when it is convenient to the them and if not they say it is rigged for people with power
      - txsoftwaredev 6y ago
        The same will cry for net neutrality and government provided internet. Go start your own ISP if you don't like Comcast (or whoever).
        cheese_van 6y ago
        Two competing camps trying to fork the nation because they both believe the guys upstream keep making shitty commits, year after year. Unless those 9 reviewers properly do their job, it's only a matter of time before the whole project is deprecated.
      - wwright 6y ago
        That was exactly my point. It being a “free market” is why it sucks in the first place — but if it’s going to be a shitty adtech-driven brain-sludgifying monstrosity, the very least we can do is not actively promote the worst things people put into it.
    - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
keithnz 6y ago
Such a tricky situation, but I think what youtube is getting used for is actually the Orwellian bullshit. The power of youtube videos to convince people of untrue things is quite astounding. I have no idea what the right answers to any of this is. At he moment nearly any action is considered as dire in that it will either make America a communist state or it will bring a right wing dictator to power. Hopefully, what we are witnessing is robustness of the legal system and constitution amongst all the chaos.
anonymouse008 6y ago
I’m asking as sincerely as I can, I wish no one harm or to lose their right to vote — How do we have a higher mail in ballot rejection rate in non-pandemic times than we do in pandemic times? And then follow up, if we assume incredible voter turnout, how do many of these first time mail in ballots follow the process so correctly that the ballot rejection rate is lower? Were the standards altered? That’s fine with me. Just say it. Can we see all the ballot signatures side by side with the rolls? I don’t think that’s too much to ask really — I mean it’s a part of the process (we already check voter rolls in state and local elections). These questions could really begin a true discussion to build a shared world views. It’s what I imagine a forthright and true partner would do for someone with slight reservations... or at least I’d hope. Shutting it down with Orwellian tactics rather than hard verifiable data is what feels a bit disingenuous that we are all on the same team.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > How do we have a higher mail in ballot rejection rate in non-pandemic times than we do in pandemic times? Probably because the rejection rate is exaggerated in normal times because the population that relies on absentee voting in regular times is less able to produce consistent signatures. Also probably because a lot more effort (both official government and outside organization) went into educating people on the rules for mail-in ballots. > And then follow up, if we assume incredible voter turnout, how do many of these first time mail in ballots follow the process so correctly that the ballot rejection rate is lower? That's not a follow-up, it's just rephrasing the exact same question with different and more extensive framing commentary.
  - anonymouse008 6y ago
    Thanks for the honest and thoughtful response. I have not heard that explanation, and believe it does give a wider margin for possible rejection rates. I will have to chew on that new point a bit longer — it feels plausible, and I’d like to find more publicly available data that indicates how much weight should be given to that explanation. So, now I guess I’ll ask a true “follow up” (thanks for that too ha!)... From my experience in local and state elections, I know of scenarios where 1-3 people are in charge of “getting out the vote” (read as: not election fraud, but people would look side eyed at it). It is not hard for me to see how those same 1-3 people get out 100 votes when not in a pandemic, because they have to get the actual person voter to the polls. However, in this pandemic mail in voting environment, those same 1-3 people can get 500-1,000 voters information to fill out a ballot request - then have those ballots sent to the small team HQ. once there, the “get out the votes” become certain for the sides you want and you can cover tracks with the ways one fills in the ballot. Also, the team can just copy the signature from the gathering ballot request step. There are approximately a team like this for every 50,000 voters, in off presidential races. So long story (or background) short, if such a scenario did occur, do you feel that is representative of the people and a valid election? Then please poke holes in my scenario above if you see something else I missed.
esja 6y ago
There is another option: use anti-trust enforcement or similar regulatory actions to ensure a competitive market, so people can be always get access to information, and no single private provider can become a universal censor.

ghthor 6y ago

If you think the ones weaponizing disinformation are unable to also weaponize centralized unelected censors, you're a fucking moron. These centralized censors will be weaponized by the same actors weaponizing the information.

its_simple 6y ago

I don't need some pythonistas doing sprints telling me which videos I should or shouldn't watch when I'm getting high, yes or yes?

bofadeez 6y ago
Shout out Tim Dillon?

wwright 6y ago

Agreed 100%. YouTube’s massively outsized impact is obviously the problem here. This wouldn’t be Orwellian if they didn’t have so much power. We wouldn’t need it if YouTube didn’t allow for such insane manipulation of people. But if we’re going to have YouTube, by god do I prefer people NOT proliferating this madness freely.

cmdshiftf4 6y ago
> I prefer people NOT proliferating this madness freely. Just the madness you happen to agree with, right?
- pldr1234 6y ago
  Bothsideism is not a good argument for preserving dangerous untruths. Also, this is a free market. Those who feel they are being censored can freely start their own AntiTube service.
  - fbru02 6y ago
    it is funny how people with liberal tendencies resort to "it is a free market" when it is convenient to the them and if not they say it is rigged for people with power
    - txsoftwaredev 6y ago
      The same will cry for net neutrality and government provided internet. Go start your own ISP if you don't like Comcast (or whoever).
      - cheese_van 6y ago
        Two competing camps trying to fork the nation because they both believe the guys upstream keep making shitty commits, year after year. Unless those 9 reviewers properly do their job, it's only a matter of time before the whole project is deprecated.
    - wwright 6y ago
      That was exactly my point. It being a “free market” is why it sucks in the first place — but if it’s going to be a shitty adtech-driven brain-sludgifying monstrosity, the very least we can do is not actively promote the worst things people put into it.
  - cmdshiftf4 6y ago

keithnz 6y ago

Such a tricky situation, but I think what youtube is getting used for is actually the Orwellian bullshit. The power of youtube videos to convince people of untrue things is quite astounding. I have no idea what the right answers to any of this is. At he moment nearly any action is considered as dire in that it will either make America a communist state or it will bring a right wing dictator to power. Hopefully, what we are witnessing is robustness of the legal system and constitution amongst all the chaos.

anonymouse008 6y ago

I’m asking as sincerely as I can, I wish no one harm or to lose their right to vote — How do we have a higher mail in ballot rejection rate in non-pandemic times than we do in pandemic times? And then follow up, if we assume incredible voter turnout, how do many of these first time mail in ballots follow the process so correctly that the ballot rejection rate is lower? Were the standards altered? That’s fine with me. Just say it. Can we see all the ballot signatures side by side with the rolls? I don’t think that’s too much to ask really — I mean it’s a part of the process (we already check voter rolls in state and local elections). These questions could really begin a true discussion to build a shared world views. It’s what I imagine a forthright and true partner would do for someone with slight reservations... or at least I’d hope. Shutting it down with Orwellian tactics rather than hard verifiable data is what feels a bit disingenuous that we are all on the same team.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> How do we have a higher mail in ballot rejection rate in non-pandemic times than we do in pandemic times? Probably because the rejection rate is exaggerated in normal times because the population that relies on absentee voting in regular times is less able to produce consistent signatures. Also probably because a lot more effort (both official government and outside organization) went into educating people on the rules for mail-in ballots. > And then follow up, if we assume incredible voter turnout, how do many of these first time mail in ballots follow the process so correctly that the ballot rejection rate is lower? That's not a follow-up, it's just rephrasing the exact same question with different and more extensive framing commentary.
- anonymouse008 6y ago
  Thanks for the honest and thoughtful response. I have not heard that explanation, and believe it does give a wider margin for possible rejection rates. I will have to chew on that new point a bit longer — it feels plausible, and I’d like to find more publicly available data that indicates how much weight should be given to that explanation. So, now I guess I’ll ask a true “follow up” (thanks for that too ha!)... From my experience in local and state elections, I know of scenarios where 1-3 people are in charge of “getting out the vote” (read as: not election fraud, but people would look side eyed at it). It is not hard for me to see how those same 1-3 people get out 100 votes when not in a pandemic, because they have to get the actual person voter to the polls. However, in this pandemic mail in voting environment, those same 1-3 people can get 500-1,000 voters information to fill out a ballot request - then have those ballots sent to the small team HQ. once there, the “get out the votes” become certain for the sides you want and you can cover tracks with the ways one fills in the ballot. Also, the team can just copy the signature from the gathering ballot request step. There are approximately a team like this for every 50,000 voters, in off presidential races. So long story (or background) short, if such a scenario did occur, do you feel that is representative of the people and a valid election? Then please poke holes in my scenario above if you see something else I missed.

esja 6y ago

There is another option: use anti-trust enforcement or similar regulatory actions to ensure a competitive market, so people can be always get access to information, and no single private provider can become a universal censor.