6 ms·

>...false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of select past national elections, after final election results are officially c

>...false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of select past national elections, after final election results are officially certified. This currently applies to: > * Any past U.S. Presidential election > * The 2021 German federal election I don't ascribe to election stealing myths; but my god, listing them out specifically really makes me question whether I'm wrong. It's like a blueprint for what to review further.

scohesc 5y ago
I can't wait to see the list be modified further to include other countries that these companies want to gain footholds in by favoring local governments.
Joker_vD 5y ago
Hey, at least you're allowed to (apparently, truthfully?) claim that fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the recent Russian parliament elections because there is no way the ruling party ought to have won those.
justinlink 5y ago
Any past U.S. Presidential election? I'm sure there are a lot of old videos out there about Florida in 2000. Will youtube scrub them from history?
- trothamel 5y ago
  How about every video that contains the idea of 'Russian collusion' in 2016?
  - enragedcacti 5y ago
    I'm not sure why everyone associates the russian collusion theory with election fraud. It has always primarily been the theory that the trump campaign and the russian government colluded to generate propaganda to support Trump's election. One aspect is that the russian government also attacked our election infrastructure but that isn't at all the core of the collusion theory or what Mueller investigated. Illegal but not election fraud.
- tzs 5y ago
  It said false claims. Florida 2000 really did have widespread errors or glitches.
BrightGlow 5y ago
>It's like a blueprint for what to review further. Why? Something going viral on social media is not proof or evidence that it happened or not. And as you know, without these policies anyone can spread false information about any election for any reason they want. And the thing is: we know who won those elections. This is not a matter of dispute, it's legal fact. It's great to review things and to theorize about what would have happened if elections were run differently (there was a lot of this around the 2000 US election for example) but just saying something like "the election was fraud, Gore really won" is egregiously false and does nothing besides undermine the democratic process.
- BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
  >” we know who won those elections. This is not a matter of dispute, it's legal fact.” Yes, it is a legal and historical fact these elections had a certified winner. This misses the point, though. If the integrity of the election is in question, then let people discuss it. Perhaps, in due time, the consensus will eventually shift and historians will recognize some underhanded things took place. We now know the 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy election is suspect because of Chicago/Illinois. We know that there were major discrepancies in Lyndon Johnson’s 1948 Texas Senate primary. It’s all pretty well documented at this point. People who “voted” for LBJ signed affidavits that they never voted in the runoff and yet ballots were cast in their name. Sure, it does no good to declare that Nixon really won, or that Coke Stevenson should have been Senator. But it does mean the election process is vulnerable to fraud and needs reform or oversight.
  - BrightGlow 5y ago
    I don't see how I am missing the point. Everything you've said would be mostly within the guidelines. Where you would get into trouble is if you did start saying "Nixon really won" or otherwise trying to say the election was fraudulent, because that would be false. You may want to re-read the guidelines to double check this. But you may want to be careful with statements like "We now know the 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy election is suspect". The election is not suspect and the end results (Kennedy won) are not going to change. It was settled decades ago. Specific events like you mention might have been suspect, but the election itself was not, it was settled legally according to the way the system worked at the time. >the election process is vulnerable to fraud and needs reform or oversight But that's the thing though, just this saying this on social media in the context of any election is not meaningful and can cause harm, and is causing harm. Every election has statistical oddities, errors, disputes, recounts, and other issues. All of these mentioned election processes already do have oversight and formal reform procedures in place. That's all a normal and expected part of the process. It's a constant ongoing process to improve them. We can never make a perfect system so each election year we just do our best and then resolve the resulting legal disputes in the traditional manner. That's the way the system works.
ralph84 5y ago
So no discussion of the 1876 US Presidential election is allowed, despite everyone involved being dead and plenty of evidence of shenanigans.
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>I don't ascribe to election stealing myths; but my god, listing them out specifically really makes me question whether I'm wrong. It's like a blueprint for what to review further. Actions speak louder than words. More than half the US states have updated their election laws after that election. The winner of the election in question publicly admitted to "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics" That needs much more explaining than has been provided. By Biden's own words, he's the most popular US president in history. This isn't Trump, this is Biden who created this problem. It only looks like it's real when you're banned from talking about it.
chrismcb 5y ago
So .. like the 2016 election that someone keeps claiming was stolen?

scohesc 5y ago

I can't wait to see the list be modified further to include other countries that these companies want to gain footholds in by favoring local governments.

Joker_vD 5y ago

Hey, at least you're allowed to (apparently, truthfully?) claim that fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the recent Russian parliament elections because there is no way the ruling party ought to have won those.

justinlink 5y ago

Any past U.S. Presidential election? I'm sure there are a lot of old videos out there about Florida in 2000. Will youtube scrub them from history?

trothamel 5y ago
How about every video that contains the idea of 'Russian collusion' in 2016?
- enragedcacti 5y ago
  I'm not sure why everyone associates the russian collusion theory with election fraud. It has always primarily been the theory that the trump campaign and the russian government colluded to generate propaganda to support Trump's election. One aspect is that the russian government also attacked our election infrastructure but that isn't at all the core of the collusion theory or what Mueller investigated. Illegal but not election fraud.
tzs 5y ago
It said false claims. Florida 2000 really did have widespread errors or glitches.

BrightGlow 5y ago

>It's like a blueprint for what to review further. Why? Something going viral on social media is not proof or evidence that it happened or not. And as you know, without these policies anyone can spread false information about any election for any reason they want. And the thing is: we know who won those elections. This is not a matter of dispute, it's legal fact. It's great to review things and to theorize about what would have happened if elections were run differently (there was a lot of this around the 2000 US election for example) but just saying something like "the election was fraud, Gore really won" is egregiously false and does nothing besides undermine the democratic process.

BuyMyBitcoins 5y ago
>” we know who won those elections. This is not a matter of dispute, it's legal fact.” Yes, it is a legal and historical fact these elections had a certified winner. This misses the point, though. If the integrity of the election is in question, then let people discuss it. Perhaps, in due time, the consensus will eventually shift and historians will recognize some underhanded things took place. We now know the 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy election is suspect because of Chicago/Illinois. We know that there were major discrepancies in Lyndon Johnson’s 1948 Texas Senate primary. It’s all pretty well documented at this point. People who “voted” for LBJ signed affidavits that they never voted in the runoff and yet ballots were cast in their name. Sure, it does no good to declare that Nixon really won, or that Coke Stevenson should have been Senator. But it does mean the election process is vulnerable to fraud and needs reform or oversight.
- BrightGlow 5y ago
  I don't see how I am missing the point. Everything you've said would be mostly within the guidelines. Where you would get into trouble is if you did start saying "Nixon really won" or otherwise trying to say the election was fraudulent, because that would be false. You may want to re-read the guidelines to double check this. But you may want to be careful with statements like "We now know the 1960 Nixon vs. Kennedy election is suspect". The election is not suspect and the end results (Kennedy won) are not going to change. It was settled decades ago. Specific events like you mention might have been suspect, but the election itself was not, it was settled legally according to the way the system worked at the time. >the election process is vulnerable to fraud and needs reform or oversight But that's the thing though, just this saying this on social media in the context of any election is not meaningful and can cause harm, and is causing harm. Every election has statistical oddities, errors, disputes, recounts, and other issues. All of these mentioned election processes already do have oversight and formal reform procedures in place. That's all a normal and expected part of the process. It's a constant ongoing process to improve them. We can never make a perfect system so each election year we just do our best and then resolve the resulting legal disputes in the traditional manner. That's the way the system works.

ralph84 5y ago

So no discussion of the 1876 US Presidential election is allowed, despite everyone involved being dead and plenty of evidence of shenanigans.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

>I don't ascribe to election stealing myths; but my god, listing them out specifically really makes me question whether I'm wrong. It's like a blueprint for what to review further. Actions speak louder than words. More than half the US states have updated their election laws after that election. The winner of the election in question publicly admitted to "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics" That needs much more explaining than has been provided. By Biden's own words, he's the most popular US president in history. This isn't Trump, this is Biden who created this problem. It only looks like it's real when you're banned from talking about it.

chrismcb 5y ago

So .. like the 2016 election that someone keeps claiming was stolen?