7 ms·

YouTube restricts video of Dems saying 2016 election was hacked then backtracks

23 points by theduder99 4y ago

encryptluks2 4y ago
- mikece 4y ago
  Imagine being of neither party and just seeing the rules and norms applied consistently to partisans on both sides.
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    It would be cool for the same standard to apply to both sides. Ever, on any subject, even just once. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The only standard in existence is the double standard of "whatever I do is good, whatever they do is evil"
  - rvz 4y ago
    The rules should apply to both sides, and it is obvious that there is a double standard going on with what YouTube is doing here.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      How so?
    - weard_beard 4y ago
      Felons can’t vote, you can’t carry a box cutter on an airplane, and if you incite civil war the big bad internet video company is gonna hurt your feelings. We’re not any safer and it doesn’t make sense but I don’t plan on joining your cause first.
      - yucky 4y ago
        >Felons can’t vote FYI: that's only true in a handful of states.
        weard_beard 4y ago
        States are just a construct to make it legal to not cite sources on the internet. That’s a rock fact!
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  You don't get to have it both ways. Either it is acceptable to question the results of an election or it is not. Either it is acceptable to try to alter the outcome (such as through a campaign to suborn electors to cause them to be faithless) or it is not. "It's only wrong when they do it" is not a legitimate viewpoint, and nobody espousing it is worthy of being heard.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    No one said it is wrong to question the results of the election, but trying to overturn the election through force is domestic terrorism and only one candidate is guilty of sponsoring that behavior.
    - freedude 4y ago
      "No one said it is wrong to question the results of the election" This is actually a lie. Many have claimed this on both sides of the fence.
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        I meant here in this thread. You can also find people on both sides that are murderers, but that doesn't meant they represent the majority.
    - thunky 4y ago
      > trying to overturn the election through force I've not seen this discussed so let me ask: how was this supposed to work? Wikipedia says: They sought to keep Trump in power by preventing a joint session of Congress from counting the electoral college votes to formalize the victory of President-elect Joe Biden For how long? I mean wouldn't this only delay the inevitable? How could it have actually overturned the election?
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    The results of every election is questionable, and should be proven to not be questionable. Especially in the US, when it's been shown time and time again that Americans are not to be trusted by the government, via: * TSA checks, * clear bags at games, * weapon bans in government buildings, even when cops carry firearms, * required tax reporting followed by threats of audits * police stops for driving no faster than the police * ID requirements for voting, drinking, etc. * disclosure of all banking and stock information Perhaps this is warranted, or some of it is. But the government has also proven itself untrustworthy: * congress making millions while in office from various deals, donations, and lobbying * president assuming more authority than constitution permits * senate not passing a budget for over a decade * continuing resolutions that bring in tons of special interests to fund the government for a couple of weeks or months * lack of increased members of the House, causing power concentrating in a handful of Representatives. * abandoning US military hardware and allies in a foreign country to fend for themselves at the cost of human lives and billions of dollars * weaponized audits by the IRS and political decisions to investigate by the FBI. Yeah, the government deserves to be blindly trusted.
vannevar 4y ago
It's important to distinguish claims that Trump's Presidency was "illegitimate" from claims that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. The former is unsubstantiated, while the latter has been confirmed by multiple investigations, including one by the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-election-security-findings-first-volume-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea...). This video lumps the two together for sensationalism, erroneously making it seem like everyone was publicly questioning the actual election results, which was not the case. Many people referred to the entire Russian effort to interfere as "Russian hacking," even though attempted access of digital election infrastructure was only part of their activities and there's no evidence actual cyber-attacks changed the outcome.
- joenot443 4y ago
  One of the first clips used in the video includes Clinton herself referencing a "cyber 9-11". This is directly followed by an American talk show host saying "Russia hacked our election". Immediately after this, Jane Psaki, directly says "Russia, you know, of course, hacked our election." How many times do they have to have said it? I've heard this type of revisionism before, saying that back in 2016 they were actually just talking about Russia _interference_ they used the word "hack" so many times to mean something completely different, but I can't in good faith take it seriously. I'm not an American and never will be, but up in Canada we're forced to follow American elections, and I distinctly remember waking up to be told that Trump had cheated, Russia had hacked, etc etc.
  - vannevar 4y ago
    I can't help you, I'm afraid: I can only reiterate that it was common for people to call the Russian activities "hacking" collectively. It's worth noting though that there was some actual hacking, as the Intelligence Committee report I linked above confirms. I lived through the era here in the US, and I rarely heard anyone come right out and say the election was stolen. If you narrow the video down only to unambiguous references to the election being stolen or Trump being illegitimate, you're down to a handful of instances for an election that was referenced thousands of times in the public media. With regard to Trump cheating, the same Senate report confirmed that Trump's campaign met extensively with Russian intelligence agents. While no evidence has been uncovered yet that the campaign worked with the Russians on any specific illegal act, it's still an extremely unusual situation. Given that the Russians were actively interfering in the election, it's not unreasonable to speculate that there was collusion in some of those many meetings, even if no transcripts exist. Whether any of the Russian activity actually changed the outcome is pure speculation, however.

23 points by theduder99 4y ago

mikece 4y ago
Imagine being of neither party and just seeing the rules and norms applied consistently to partisans on both sides.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  It would be cool for the same standard to apply to both sides. Ever, on any subject, even just once. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The only standard in existence is the double standard of "whatever I do is good, whatever they do is evil"
- rvz 4y ago
  The rules should apply to both sides, and it is obvious that there is a double standard going on with what YouTube is doing here.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    How so?
  - weard_beard 4y ago
    Felons can’t vote, you can’t carry a box cutter on an airplane, and if you incite civil war the big bad internet video company is gonna hurt your feelings. We’re not any safer and it doesn’t make sense but I don’t plan on joining your cause first.
    - yucky 4y ago
      >Felons can’t vote FYI: that's only true in a handful of states.
      - weard_beard 4y ago
        States are just a construct to make it legal to not cite sources on the internet. That’s a rock fact!
codefreeordie 4y ago
You don't get to have it both ways. Either it is acceptable to question the results of an election or it is not. Either it is acceptable to try to alter the outcome (such as through a campaign to suborn electors to cause them to be faithless) or it is not. "It's only wrong when they do it" is not a legitimate viewpoint, and nobody espousing it is worthy of being heard.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  No one said it is wrong to question the results of the election, but trying to overturn the election through force is domestic terrorism and only one candidate is guilty of sponsoring that behavior.
  - freedude 4y ago
    "No one said it is wrong to question the results of the election" This is actually a lie. Many have claimed this on both sides of the fence.
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      I meant here in this thread. You can also find people on both sides that are murderers, but that doesn't meant they represent the majority.
  - thunky 4y ago
    > trying to overturn the election through force I've not seen this discussed so let me ask: how was this supposed to work? Wikipedia says: They sought to keep Trump in power by preventing a joint session of Congress from counting the electoral college votes to formalize the victory of President-elect Joe Biden For how long? I mean wouldn't this only delay the inevitable? How could it have actually overturned the election?
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  The results of every election is questionable, and should be proven to not be questionable. Especially in the US, when it's been shown time and time again that Americans are not to be trusted by the government, via: * TSA checks, * clear bags at games, * weapon bans in government buildings, even when cops carry firearms, * required tax reporting followed by threats of audits * police stops for driving no faster than the police * ID requirements for voting, drinking, etc. * disclosure of all banking and stock information Perhaps this is warranted, or some of it is. But the government has also proven itself untrustworthy: * congress making millions while in office from various deals, donations, and lobbying * president assuming more authority than constitution permits * senate not passing a budget for over a decade * continuing resolutions that bring in tons of special interests to fund the government for a couple of weeks or months * lack of increased members of the House, causing power concentrating in a handful of Representatives. * abandoning US military hardware and allies in a foreign country to fend for themselves at the cost of human lives and billions of dollars * weaponized audits by the IRS and political decisions to investigate by the FBI. Yeah, the government deserves to be blindly trusted.

It's important to distinguish claims that Trump's Presidency was "illegitimate" from claims that Russia interfered in the 2016 election. The former is unsubstantiated, while the latter has been confirmed by multiple investigations, including one by the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-election-security-findings-first-volume-bipartisan-russia-report https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-relea...). This video lumps the two together for sensationalism, erroneously making it seem like everyone was publicly questioning the actual election results, which was not the case. Many people referred to the entire Russian effort to interfere as "Russian hacking," even though attempted access of digital election infrastructure was only part of their activities and there's no evidence actual cyber-attacks changed the outcome.

joenot443 4y ago
One of the first clips used in the video includes Clinton herself referencing a "cyber 9-11". This is directly followed by an American talk show host saying "Russia hacked our election". Immediately after this, Jane Psaki, directly says "Russia, you know, of course, hacked our election." How many times do they have to have said it? I've heard this type of revisionism before, saying that back in 2016 they were actually just talking about Russia _interference_ they used the word "hack" so many times to mean something completely different, but I can't in good faith take it seriously. I'm not an American and never will be, but up in Canada we're forced to follow American elections, and I distinctly remember waking up to be told that Trump had cheated, Russia had hacked, etc etc.
- vannevar 4y ago
  I can't help you, I'm afraid: I can only reiterate that it was common for people to call the Russian activities "hacking" collectively. It's worth noting though that there was some actual hacking, as the Intelligence Committee report I linked above confirms. I lived through the era here in the US, and I rarely heard anyone come right out and say the election was stolen. If you narrow the video down only to unambiguous references to the election being stolen or Trump being illegitimate, you're down to a handful of instances for an election that was referenced thousands of times in the public media. With regard to Trump cheating, the same Senate report confirmed that Trump's campaign met extensively with Russian intelligence agents. While no evidence has been uncovered yet that the campaign worked with the Russians on any specific illegal act, it's still an extremely unusual situation. Given that the Russians were actively interfering in the election, it's not unreasonable to speculate that there was collusion in some of those many meetings, even if no transcripts exist. Whether any of the Russian activity actually changed the outcome is pure speculation, however.