> Clinton conceded the day after the 2016 election. That's immaterial. YouTube's censorship restrictions have nothing to do with a formal concession, merely c

> Clinton conceded the day after the 2016 election. That's immaterial. YouTube's censorship restrictions have nothing to do with a formal concession, merely claims of fraud impacting the election. And identical claims of election tampering resulting in a "fraudulent electioin" have been ongoing by Democrats on MSNBC, Twitter, Facebook, CNN etc. for 4 years. So we're now in a boat where Google/YouTube is essentially arguing they're qualified to make judgements on defending election integrity in the U.S. It has nothing to do with policy consistency, and everything to do with who the people are who work there.