4 ms·

YouTube will stop removing false presidential election fraud claims

anaganisk 3y ago
Is Elon gonna buy YouTube now?
- completelylegit 3y ago
  They’re just trying to compete with twitter, can’t let Elon have all the nut jobs.
phendrenad2 3y ago
Don't het excited, right-wingers, they probably can save a few hundred dollars per month by turning off the election misinformation scanner. All about that bottom-line, especially in today's economy.
- rvz 3y ago
  Define "misinformation". Since at this point, anything one doesn't like can be defined as 'misinformation' these days. I think everyone already has had enough of these nonsensical narratives on both sides like the 2016 calls still screaming in denial of 'our election was hijacked' or 'he knows he is an illegitimate president' and in 2020 about the tired 'rigged elections' and 'dead people still voting' and the like. You should understand that the media is once again placing in distractions like this to light more outrage as the election year is around the corner. Almost everyone fell for it in 2016. Then again in 2020. Don't fall for it again and don't listen to the media biases. They want even more outrage next year.
  - ttfkam 3y ago
    There is a Grand Canyon of difference between these two that goes well beyond simply "anything one doesn't like": 1. "Throwing eligible voters off the rolls, reducing polling places in left-leaning districts, and increasing polling places in right-leaning districts hijacked the election." 2. "Millions of fraudulent ballots manufactured in China (identifiable from the bamboo threads), 2,000 voter fraud mules (gathered from cell tower connections anywhere in the same square mile of a ballot drop box), and illegal immigrants in polling places stole the election." The first are verifiable facts though the conclusion remains speculative. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations/southern-u-s-states-have-closed-1200-polling-places-in-recent-years-rights-group-idUSKCN1VV09J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations/so... The second is 100% pure made up BS, making the conclusion a summation of BS. You know the second is nonsense when even internal emails at Fox News and Trump's own attorney general all loudly dismiss 2020 election steal conspiracy theories as pure cow manure. Even most of Trump's attorneys were VERY careful not to assert voter fraud in court due to their lack of evidence, even in front of Trump-appointed conservative judges. Those that went ahead were sanctioned by the court for lack of evidence. Rudy Giuliani kept saying in front of cameras there was evidence of widespread voter fraud EXCEPT in court in front of a judge, where he explicitly said, "This is not a fraud case." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fox-news-hosts-allegedly-privately-versus-air-false/story?id=97662551 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fox-news-hosts-allegedly-pri... https://youtu.be/esS-6bHijjM?t=40 https://youtu.be/esS-6bHijjM?t=40 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/03/donald-trump-lawyers-election-lawsuit-sanctions https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/03/donald-trump... https://youtu.be/Wuwl2p9TIDE https://youtu.be/Wuwl2p9TIDE So yeah, I'd distinguish between the two. The first is speculative based on verifiable evidence while the second is demonstrably misinformation precisely because it lacks any evidence for its far more incendiary claims.
    - rvz 3y ago
      Looks like we will certainly be manipulated and fall for it again in 2024 then. Thanks to 'misinformation' powered by AI.
    - Georgelemental 3y ago
      Ah yes, the classic argumentative technique: "take the most reasonable and best-presented version of my side's arguments, and contrast with the craziest nutjob version of the other side's arguments." Here, I'll try: > There is a Grand Canyon of difference between these two that goes well beyond simply "anything one doesn't like": > 1. " Eliminating ID requirements in left-leaning cities, and extending early voting to before the debates affected the election." > 2. "Direct high-level collusion between one of the candidates and the Russian Federation, as part of a treasonous plot to overthrow American democracy and cover up the Pee Tape (they'll release it any day now!), stole the election." > The first are verifiable facts though the conclusion remains speculative. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wisconsin-voters-protection-voter-id-law https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wisconsin-voters-protection... https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-pennsylvania-relaxes-mail-in-ballot-rules-will-no-longer-match-voters-signatures/ https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-or-biden-voters-north-carolina-could-pick-soon-next-n1235688 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-or-bide... > The second is 100% pure made up BS, making the conclusion a summation of BS. You know the second is nonsense when even surreptitious recordings of CNN producers all loudly dismiss 2016 Russia collusion conspiracy theories as pure cow manure. Even Robert Mueller was VERY careful not to assert treason in his report due to the lack of evidence, even in front of a Democratic House of Representatives. Adam Schiff kept saying in front of cameras that there was evidence of widespread collusion. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339632-new-okeefe-video-shows-cnn-producer-calling-russia-coverage-mostly-bullshit/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339632-new-okeefe-video-s... https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows-cnns-van-jones-calling-russia-story-a-nothingburger/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collusion-trump-12837cnn https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collus... https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/10/adam-schiff-russian-collusion-damning-sot-sotu.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/10/adam-schiff-r... > So yeah, I'd distinguish between the two. The first is speculative based on verifiable evidence while the second is demonstrably misinformation precisely because it lacks any evidence for its far more incendiary claims. The 2016 election taught me that the institutions I once believed to be respectable and honorable were actually completely dishonest and totally off their rocker. The 2020 election taught me that "my side" was capable of just as much insanity. To fix our problems, we must go beyond blind loyalty to our respective "teams."
- washadjeffmad 3y ago
  The opposite of "right-wing" isn't "left-wing" any more than the opposite of Zionism is Jihad. Extremism in support of any ideology is extremism. If you can't define and delineate what makes something what it is, then do as you would to the Buddha if you meet him on the road - "kill it".
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
I can't not avoid the absence of double-negatives here, and I'm sure a court will overturn the appeal of an injunction to quash the motion to block this stoppage of removals.
Dig1t 3y ago
A cynical person might say that they suspect the left might lose the upcoming election and are preparing to allow for the left to make claims of election fraud.
- krapp 3y ago
  The Democratic Party isn't "the left," nor does the Democratic Party control Youtube, nor would the Democratic Party need Youtube to make claims of election fraud. And this hypotheical cynic seems to be ignoring the party which has been making spurious claims of election fraud since 2016, but go off.
kylecazar 3y ago
I don't really think any of these decisions are about upholding democratic ideals and values, etc. I think it's just easier.
- acdha 3y ago
  It’s more profitable: removing lies means they have to pay humans to look at videos, make decisions, and deal with whatever consequences the affected politicians can manage. Doing nothing lets you sell ads, keep some percentage of users who might leave in disgust, and congratulate yourself for a principled position.
Georgelemental 3y ago
I suppose they are worried about losing audience to Twitter, which has both reduced censorship and emphasized video content recently?
- FloNeu 3y ago
  You mean the same twitter that melts down because of line five people trying to watch puddingfinger Ron’s presidential run announcement- and lost most of it’s advertisers because the increased hate speech and child pornography since removing the censoring of right wing voices? I am sure that gives em sleepless nights
user6723 3y ago
It was fortified. For Kamala who everyone likes so much.

Is Elon gonna buy YouTube now?

completelylegit 3y ago
They’re just trying to compete with twitter, can’t let Elon have all the nut jobs.

Don't het excited, right-wingers, they probably can save a few hundred dollars per month by turning off the election misinformation scanner. All about that bottom-line, especially in today's economy.

rvz 3y ago
Define "misinformation". Since at this point, anything one doesn't like can be defined as 'misinformation' these days. I think everyone already has had enough of these nonsensical narratives on both sides like the 2016 calls still screaming in denial of 'our election was hijacked' or 'he knows he is an illegitimate president' and in 2020 about the tired 'rigged elections' and 'dead people still voting' and the like. You should understand that the media is once again placing in distractions like this to light more outrage as the election year is around the corner. Almost everyone fell for it in 2016. Then again in 2020. Don't fall for it again and don't listen to the media biases. They want even more outrage next year.
- ttfkam 3y ago
  There is a Grand Canyon of difference between these two that goes well beyond simply "anything one doesn't like": 1. "Throwing eligible voters off the rolls, reducing polling places in left-leaning districts, and increasing polling places in right-leaning districts hijacked the election." 2. "Millions of fraudulent ballots manufactured in China (identifiable from the bamboo threads), 2,000 voter fraud mules (gathered from cell tower connections anywhere in the same square mile of a ballot drop box), and illegal immigrants in polling places stole the election." The first are verifiable facts though the conclusion remains speculative. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations/southern-u-s-states-have-closed-1200-polling-places-in-recent-years-rights-group-idUSKCN1VV09J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations/so... The second is 100% pure made up BS, making the conclusion a summation of BS. You know the second is nonsense when even internal emails at Fox News and Trump's own attorney general all loudly dismiss 2020 election steal conspiracy theories as pure cow manure. Even most of Trump's attorneys were VERY careful not to assert voter fraud in court due to their lack of evidence, even in front of Trump-appointed conservative judges. Those that went ahead were sanctioned by the court for lack of evidence. Rudy Giuliani kept saying in front of cameras there was evidence of widespread voter fraud EXCEPT in court in front of a judge, where he explicitly said, "This is not a fraud case." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fox-news-hosts-allegedly-privately-versus-air-false/story?id=97662551 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fox-news-hosts-allegedly-pri... https://youtu.be/esS-6bHijjM?t=40 https://youtu.be/esS-6bHijjM?t=40 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/03/donald-trump-lawyers-election-lawsuit-sanctions https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/03/donald-trump... https://youtu.be/Wuwl2p9TIDE https://youtu.be/Wuwl2p9TIDE So yeah, I'd distinguish between the two. The first is speculative based on verifiable evidence while the second is demonstrably misinformation precisely because it lacks any evidence for its far more incendiary claims.
  - rvz 3y ago
    Looks like we will certainly be manipulated and fall for it again in 2024 then. Thanks to 'misinformation' powered by AI.
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    Ah yes, the classic argumentative technique: "take the most reasonable and best-presented version of my side's arguments, and contrast with the craziest nutjob version of the other side's arguments." Here, I'll try: > There is a Grand Canyon of difference between these two that goes well beyond simply "anything one doesn't like": > 1. " Eliminating ID requirements in left-leaning cities, and extending early voting to before the debates affected the election." > 2. "Direct high-level collusion between one of the candidates and the Russian Federation, as part of a treasonous plot to overthrow American democracy and cover up the Pee Tape (they'll release it any day now!), stole the election." > The first are verifiable facts though the conclusion remains speculative. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wisconsin-voters-protection-voter-id-law https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wisconsin-voters-protection... https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-pennsylvania-relaxes-mail-in-ballot-rules-will-no-longer-match-voters-signatures/ https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/a-big-deal-for-voting-... https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-or-biden-voters-north-carolina-could-pick-soon-next-n1235688 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-or-bide... > The second is 100% pure made up BS, making the conclusion a summation of BS. You know the second is nonsense when even surreptitious recordings of CNN producers all loudly dismiss 2016 Russia collusion conspiracy theories as pure cow manure. Even Robert Mueller was VERY careful not to assert treason in his report due to the lack of evidence, even in front of a Democratic House of Representatives. Adam Schiff kept saying in front of cameras that there was evidence of widespread collusion. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339632-new-okeefe-video-shows-cnn-producer-calling-russia-coverage-mostly-bullshit/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339632-new-okeefe-video-s... https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows-cnns-van-jones-calling-russia-story-a-nothingburger/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/339867-okeefe-video-shows... https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collusion-trump-12837cnn https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/21/adam-schiff-collus... https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/10/adam-schiff-russian-collusion-damning-sot-sotu.cnn https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/10/adam-schiff-r... > So yeah, I'd distinguish between the two. The first is speculative based on verifiable evidence while the second is demonstrably misinformation precisely because it lacks any evidence for its far more incendiary claims. The 2016 election taught me that the institutions I once believed to be respectable and honorable were actually completely dishonest and totally off their rocker. The 2020 election taught me that "my side" was capable of just as much insanity. To fix our problems, we must go beyond blind loyalty to our respective "teams."
washadjeffmad 3y ago
The opposite of "right-wing" isn't "left-wing" any more than the opposite of Zionism is Jihad. Extremism in support of any ideology is extremism. If you can't define and delineate what makes something what it is, then do as you would to the Buddha if you meet him on the road - "kill it".

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

I can't not avoid the absence of double-negatives here, and I'm sure a court will overturn the appeal of an injunction to quash the motion to block this stoppage of removals.

Dig1t 3y ago

A cynical person might say that they suspect the left might lose the upcoming election and are preparing to allow for the left to make claims of election fraud.

krapp 3y ago
The Democratic Party isn't "the left," nor does the Democratic Party control Youtube, nor would the Democratic Party need Youtube to make claims of election fraud. And this hypotheical cynic seems to be ignoring the party which has been making spurious claims of election fraud since 2016, but go off.

kylecazar 3y ago

I don't really think any of these decisions are about upholding democratic ideals and values, etc. I think it's just easier.

acdha 3y ago
It’s more profitable: removing lies means they have to pay humans to look at videos, make decisions, and deal with whatever consequences the affected politicians can manage. Doing nothing lets you sell ads, keep some percentage of users who might leave in disgust, and congratulate yourself for a principled position.

Georgelemental 3y ago

I suppose they are worried about losing audience to Twitter, which has both reduced censorship and emphasized video content recently?

FloNeu 3y ago
You mean the same twitter that melts down because of line five people trying to watch puddingfinger Ron’s presidential run announcement- and lost most of it’s advertisers because the increased hate speech and child pornography since removing the censoring of right wing voices? I am sure that gives em sleepless nights

user6723 3y ago

It was fortified. For Kamala who everyone likes so much.