4 ms·

Removing all videos claiming that election fraud happened/happens seems like it would further reinforce to believers of the idea, that there is a cover-up. Ask

Removing all videos claiming that election fraud happened/happens seems like it would further reinforce to believers of the idea, that there is a cover-up. Asking people to trust the election process by banning anyone who critiques it?

watwut 3y ago
They are not criticism, they are outright lies. Not everything negative about X is criticism. It might not be affecting your main point, but it is still an important point. Bad right wing actors are always talked about with euphemisms and given excessive benefit of doubt. Let's call what they do by right names.
becquerel 3y ago
this is like saying we have to engage with denialists about historical atrocities because otherwise it will make it seem like there is a conspiracy to push a narrative that the atrocity happened. this is a losing proposition because denialists (of any kind) aren't interested in truth or uncovering factual evidence, they're interested in using the strategy of Just Asking Questions as a cudgel for ulterior aims. we don't need to give airtime to the fantasies of election conspiracists for the same reason we don't need to teach creationism in science class
- krapp 3y ago
  > this is like saying we have to engage with denialists about historical atrocities because otherwise it will make it seem like there is a conspiracy to push a narrative that the atrocity happened. That's exactly what people say we should do, instead of censoring and deplatforming them. Give them as big a platform as possible to aggressively spread their disinformation without interference, then politely ask for an opportunity to debate. And when they refuse, ignore you, mock you or just smother you in bad faith bullshit, all you can do is shrug and hope for the best.
chx 3y ago
You can critize the process either on the meta level as in first past the post creates a two party system etc. Or you can criticize the execution -- for example, report on the amount of touchscreen machines not working in New Mexico during the election of the younger Bush, etc. I would not equate these factual problems with a completely unfounded, call-for-a-coup outright lies though. Problem is the well documented behavior of YouTube algorithm of feeding similar videos to someone, radicalizing them. Not having any at all is a good way to completely avoid the problem. We do not need to raise more domestic terrorists, there are plenty already.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  I don't remember Youtube spamming me frinche videos in the extreme direction of what I watch, earlier. Somewhere they messed up their recommendation algorithm. Spotify does not recommend me semi-white power music, even though they got plenty.
- sterlind 3y ago
  so is the idea that YouTube can take a list of rules, e.g. "don't say the election was stolen," and automatically flag all the videos that break that rule? of course, it'd have to be nuanced enough to distinguish between people debunking claims the election was stolen. even if they play clips from people claiming otherwise. and of course, it shouldn't flag irony.. but it should flag meta-irony like 4chan. this is basically AGI. in the age of LLMs, this might be possible (if not now then soon), but that's terrifying. YouTube can then write rules, in English, and accurately filter/boost/limit ideologies. and wait until other countries start pressuring YouTube to add rules for them - no claiming Taiwan is a country, or criticizing the Saudi royal family. and if the tech isn't that frighteningly sophisticated, anything remotely edgy gets wiped. a childproofed internet, engineered for the lowest common denominator of human. I'm quite progressive politically, but I've seen this kind of narrative control gone quite badly (e.g. early days of covid.) no thank you.
- eastbound 3y ago
  So Youtube admits it plays a role in legitimating the winning party or not, depending on how fast videos are censored and how long the censorship lasts. If they wanted to play a role in the next election, they would allow videos about vote fraud exactly now, just in case. It is very grave.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
oleril 3y ago
[flagged]
- thephyber 3y ago
  This just sounds like trolling or badly formed sarcasm.
  - oleril 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - oleril 3y ago
    [flagged]
thephyber 3y ago
The people who think the 2020 and 2022 elections were fraudulent do not care about truth or facts. No amount of new facts about the event will convince them. They are using numerology and QAnon baking techniques to try and make sense of the election, not rational logic. Trust is the wrong word. Trust is earned and is based on evidence, exposure, and time. I have trust in the election system because I have read the legal challenges, I understand what parts of the election system are networked, I have entertained the possibility of some of the 2020 fraud claims, I volunteered in the 2022 election as a poll worker, and I have looked at the reputation/trustworthiness of the people bringing challenges to the election. What these people have is faith that the election was fraudulent — faith is the conviction in something unseen. They are convinced they are victims without being able to show anything except hypotheticals. I might agree with your statement if the same group of people who supposedly perpetrated the fraud were the ones who removed the videos. Eg. Police officers who refuse to take written complaints about police violence within their department. But YouTube, Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc are not part of the election system. Those companies are allowed to treat their property how they like; the YouTube ToS has nothing to do with trustworthiness of an election run in 50 states across 3300 counties.

watwut 3y ago

They are not criticism, they are outright lies. Not everything negative about X is criticism. It might not be affecting your main point, but it is still an important point. Bad right wing actors are always talked about with euphemisms and given excessive benefit of doubt. Let's call what they do by right names.

becquerel 3y ago

this is like saying we have to engage with denialists about historical atrocities because otherwise it will make it seem like there is a conspiracy to push a narrative that the atrocity happened. this is a losing proposition because denialists (of any kind) aren't interested in truth or uncovering factual evidence, they're interested in using the strategy of Just Asking Questions as a cudgel for ulterior aims. we don't need to give airtime to the fantasies of election conspiracists for the same reason we don't need to teach creationism in science class

krapp 3y ago
> this is like saying we have to engage with denialists about historical atrocities because otherwise it will make it seem like there is a conspiracy to push a narrative that the atrocity happened. That's exactly what people say we should do, instead of censoring and deplatforming them. Give them as big a platform as possible to aggressively spread their disinformation without interference, then politely ask for an opportunity to debate. And when they refuse, ignore you, mock you or just smother you in bad faith bullshit, all you can do is shrug and hope for the best.

chx 3y ago

You can critize the process either on the meta level as in first past the post creates a two party system etc. Or you can criticize the execution -- for example, report on the amount of touchscreen machines not working in New Mexico during the election of the younger Bush, etc. I would not equate these factual problems with a completely unfounded, call-for-a-coup outright lies though. Problem is the well documented behavior of YouTube algorithm of feeding similar videos to someone, radicalizing them. Not having any at all is a good way to completely avoid the problem. We do not need to raise more domestic terrorists, there are plenty already.

rightbyte 3y ago
I don't remember Youtube spamming me frinche videos in the extreme direction of what I watch, earlier. Somewhere they messed up their recommendation algorithm. Spotify does not recommend me semi-white power music, even though they got plenty.
sterlind 3y ago
so is the idea that YouTube can take a list of rules, e.g. "don't say the election was stolen," and automatically flag all the videos that break that rule? of course, it'd have to be nuanced enough to distinguish between people debunking claims the election was stolen. even if they play clips from people claiming otherwise. and of course, it shouldn't flag irony.. but it should flag meta-irony like 4chan. this is basically AGI. in the age of LLMs, this might be possible (if not now then soon), but that's terrifying. YouTube can then write rules, in English, and accurately filter/boost/limit ideologies. and wait until other countries start pressuring YouTube to add rules for them - no claiming Taiwan is a country, or criticizing the Saudi royal family. and if the tech isn't that frighteningly sophisticated, anything remotely edgy gets wiped. a childproofed internet, engineered for the lowest common denominator of human. I'm quite progressive politically, but I've seen this kind of narrative control gone quite badly (e.g. early days of covid.) no thank you.
eastbound 3y ago
So Youtube admits it plays a role in legitimating the winning party or not, depending on how fast videos are censored and how long the censorship lasts. If they wanted to play a role in the next election, they would allow videos about vote fraud exactly now, just in case. It is very grave.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

oleril 3y ago

[flagged]

thephyber 3y ago
This just sounds like trolling or badly formed sarcasm.
- oleril 3y ago
  [flagged]
- oleril 3y ago
  [flagged]

thephyber 3y ago

The people who think the 2020 and 2022 elections were fraudulent do not care about truth or facts. No amount of new facts about the event will convince them. They are using numerology and QAnon baking techniques to try and make sense of the election, not rational logic. Trust is the wrong word. Trust is earned and is based on evidence, exposure, and time. I have trust in the election system because I have read the legal challenges, I understand what parts of the election system are networked, I have entertained the possibility of some of the 2020 fraud claims, I volunteered in the 2022 election as a poll worker, and I have looked at the reputation/trustworthiness of the people bringing challenges to the election. What these people have is faith that the election was fraudulent — faith is the conviction in something unseen. They are convinced they are victims without being able to show anything except hypotheticals. I might agree with your statement if the same group of people who supposedly perpetrated the fraud were the ones who removed the videos. Eg. Police officers who refuse to take written complaints about police violence within their department. But YouTube, Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc are not part of the election system. Those companies are allowed to treat their property how they like; the YouTube ToS has nothing to do with trustworthiness of an election run in 50 states across 3300 counties.