4 ms·

You are trying to intentionally muddy the waters here. Vaccines, masks and who won the election are not "sweeping opinions you don't like". People have actually

You are trying to intentionally muddy the waters here. Vaccines, masks and who won the election are not "sweeping opinions you don't like". People have actually died due to the anti-vaxx movement, leading to +50% Measle deaths in 2019. These are hard facts and these decisions are a matter of life or death. No one is blocking opinions. Trump has failed to prove election fraud in over 50 cases so far, and the safe harbor deadline has now past, which is why Youtube has now put this rule in place. It is now confirmed that Biden has won the election, and anyone claiming otherwise is intentionally lying. If they had proof, they would've shown it in court, where there are real consequences, not on social media where anything goes.

effingwewt 6y ago
Im not intentionally muddying anything he mentioned reddit. That was a ban of hate speech specifically, not anything to do with masks, elections, or anything you mentioned. I agree with others about radicalization and slowing the spread of misinformation but it's a fine line to walk and throwing around reddits bullshit like it will work for real life scenarios isnt going to help anything. Deplatforming legitimizes and empowers fringe groups and that's not something we need to be doing. As for your rants about trump etc I agree they just had no basis in my and parents arguments.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  My bad, I was arguing about the Youtube ban. As for reddit, they kept T_D along, but subs like that regularly leak out and brigade other subs, which is why they were banned. Not for the information they share. Also, many of the comment sections devolved into doxxing and treats, which is also against global rules. Reddit generally doesn't give a shit about how true or false the opinions are in a sub as long as they don't break global rules and leak to other subs. So no, they were not banned for "sweeping opinions you don't agree with" either.
rayiner 6y ago
100 million people died due to communism and socialism. Should we censor that?
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Fascists killed something like 70-5 million people during WWII. The neocon/neoliberal wars in the middle east have killed a couple of million.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    I’m pretty sure Nazi propaganda is banned on YouTube?
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      Amusing no. HN which hates censorship. Instinct is to censor hard facts that don't fit their preferred narrative.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  What kind of pro-communism content do you see that proliferates on Youtube? And no, the kind of politics Sanders and AOC preach for are not it.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> If they had proof, they would've shown it in court, where there are real consequences, not on social media where anything goes. This is a great example of why censorship is such a disaster. The Texas case was dismissed today because Texas "has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections". So regardless of whether there was anything to complain about, Texas isn't allowed to complain about it. (This is basically what everybody predicted, but it means the Supreme Court will never even hear the case.) The case in Pennsylvania was dismissed because they were complaining that Pennsylvania had changed its election procedures in violation of its own constitution (in ways alleged to facilitate fraud), which appears to be true, but the court dismissed the case for a procedural reason again, in this case for being brought too late. Several other cases were dismissed for similar reasons, i.e. lack of standing or timing. The only one I'm aware of where they're even being allowed to make their case is the one in Wisconsin, which is still pending. Does it concern you at all that you apparently didn't know that?
- ehsankia 6y ago
  I did know that, thank you for blindly assuming I didn't. First off, the reason why so many of these lawsuits are dismissed for procedural mistakes is because they are taken by awful lawyers, since real election lawyers don't want to touch these with a 10 foot pole. Secondly, again, while they claim fraud on social media and on TV, the lawyers actually don't claim fraud in court, as that's much harder to prove, and affidavits are just hearsay when it comes to proving fraud. The reality is that so far, across 50+ lawsuits, they haven't managed to show any real proof of anything. You explained the two SC ones but still fail to explain how the other 50 or more failed, or why none of them have been able to present any real evidence. Why is it that they all have lack of standing? Because you can't overturn an entire election based on an affidavit of someone claiming they saw trucks full of ballots, with zero other evidence. And rightly so. As for the Texas case, what a coincidence that such a baseless suit happen to have been brought by the Texas AG, who is coincidentally under investigation by the FBI, and is seeking a pardon from the President. I'm honestly curious what YOU think the reason is. Is it just pure bad luck that all 50+ lawsuits just failed in the most miserable way? Is the court system broken? If they have real solid evidence (and no, someone signing an affidavit is not it), then where is it? Why have we not seen any yet? But go ahead and assume it's because of censorship if it makes you happy. EDIT: I'd also add that many of these cases are dismissed early because, even the defense can show that even if everything the plaintiff claims is true, it still isn't enough. In most of these cases, Trump's team is trying to use irregularity with a 1-2 ballots to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots, and that's just not how it works. That's why all those lawsuits are being dismissed without even being heard because even if they prove their point, they cannot overturn the election.

effingwewt 6y ago

Im not intentionally muddying anything he mentioned reddit. That was a ban of hate speech specifically, not anything to do with masks, elections, or anything you mentioned. I agree with others about radicalization and slowing the spread of misinformation but it's a fine line to walk and throwing around reddits bullshit like it will work for real life scenarios isnt going to help anything. Deplatforming legitimizes and empowers fringe groups and that's not something we need to be doing. As for your rants about trump etc I agree they just had no basis in my and parents arguments.

ehsankia 6y ago
My bad, I was arguing about the Youtube ban. As for reddit, they kept T_D along, but subs like that regularly leak out and brigade other subs, which is why they were banned. Not for the information they share. Also, many of the comment sections devolved into doxxing and treats, which is also against global rules. Reddit generally doesn't give a shit about how true or false the opinions are in a sub as long as they don't break global rules and leak to other subs. So no, they were not banned for "sweeping opinions you don't agree with" either.

rayiner 6y ago

100 million people died due to communism and socialism. Should we censor that?

Gibbon1 6y ago
Fascists killed something like 70-5 million people during WWII. The neocon/neoliberal wars in the middle east have killed a couple of million.
- rayiner 6y ago
  I’m pretty sure Nazi propaganda is banned on YouTube?
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    Amusing no. HN which hates censorship. Instinct is to censor hard facts that don't fit their preferred narrative.
ehsankia 6y ago
What kind of pro-communism content do you see that proliferates on Youtube? And no, the kind of politics Sanders and AOC preach for are not it.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> If they had proof, they would've shown it in court, where there are real consequences, not on social media where anything goes. This is a great example of why censorship is such a disaster. The Texas case was dismissed today because Texas "has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections". So regardless of whether there was anything to complain about, Texas isn't allowed to complain about it. (This is basically what everybody predicted, but it means the Supreme Court will never even hear the case.) The case in Pennsylvania was dismissed because they were complaining that Pennsylvania had changed its election procedures in violation of its own constitution (in ways alleged to facilitate fraud), which appears to be true, but the court dismissed the case for a procedural reason again, in this case for being brought too late. Several other cases were dismissed for similar reasons, i.e. lack of standing or timing. The only one I'm aware of where they're even being allowed to make their case is the one in Wisconsin, which is still pending. Does it concern you at all that you apparently didn't know that?

ehsankia 6y ago
I did know that, thank you for blindly assuming I didn't. First off, the reason why so many of these lawsuits are dismissed for procedural mistakes is because they are taken by awful lawyers, since real election lawyers don't want to touch these with a 10 foot pole. Secondly, again, while they claim fraud on social media and on TV, the lawyers actually don't claim fraud in court, as that's much harder to prove, and affidavits are just hearsay when it comes to proving fraud. The reality is that so far, across 50+ lawsuits, they haven't managed to show any real proof of anything. You explained the two SC ones but still fail to explain how the other 50 or more failed, or why none of them have been able to present any real evidence. Why is it that they all have lack of standing? Because you can't overturn an entire election based on an affidavit of someone claiming they saw trucks full of ballots, with zero other evidence. And rightly so. As for the Texas case, what a coincidence that such a baseless suit happen to have been brought by the Texas AG, who is coincidentally under investigation by the FBI, and is seeking a pardon from the President. I'm honestly curious what YOU think the reason is. Is it just pure bad luck that all 50+ lawsuits just failed in the most miserable way? Is the court system broken? If they have real solid evidence (and no, someone signing an affidavit is not it), then where is it? Why have we not seen any yet? But go ahead and assume it's because of censorship if it makes you happy. EDIT: I'd also add that many of these cases are dismissed early because, even the defense can show that even if everything the plaintiff claims is true, it still isn't enough. In most of these cases, Trump's team is trying to use irregularity with a 1-2 ballots to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots, and that's just not how it works. That's why all those lawsuits are being dismissed without even being heard because even if they prove their point, they cannot overturn the election.