YouTube Criticized For Not Removing Post-Election Misinformation (nbcnews.com) 183
"YouTube is facing growing criticism for allowing election misinformation after it decided not to remove or individually fact-check videos that spread unfounded conspiracy theories alleging voter fraud," reports NBC News:
While all internet platforms are struggling to contain the volume of misinformation since voting ended last week — and all have been criticized to some degree by researchers for their handling of the situation — YouTube has staked out a position that is less aggressive than its social media competitors, most notably Facebook and Twitter.
YouTube said before the election that it wouldn't allow videos that encourage "interference in the democratic process," but now, as state officials are working to certify vote tallies, the company said it wants to give users room for "discussion of election results," even when that discussion is based on debunked information. Somewhere in between those two policies it has decided to leave up videos challenging Joe Biden's election, and some have received millions of views.
"Is YouTube unable to contend with this material, meaning they lack resources? Or is it a lack of will?" asked Sarah Roberts, co-director of UCLA's Center for Critical Internet Inquiry and an associate professor of information studies. "I think one of those is probably more damning than the other, but they both have the same outcome of allowing propaganda material masquerading as news being distributed on their platform at a critical juncture for the American political cycle," Roberts said...
"There's a good chance YouTube's handling of this goes in the first sentence of every story about how social networks handled the 2020 election for the next several years," Casey Newton, a journalist who writes the technology newsletter Platformer, said in a tweet.
YouTube said before the election that it wouldn't allow videos that encourage "interference in the democratic process," but now, as state officials are working to certify vote tallies, the company said it wants to give users room for "discussion of election results," even when that discussion is based on debunked information. Somewhere in between those two policies it has decided to leave up videos challenging Joe Biden's election, and some have received millions of views.
"Is YouTube unable to contend with this material, meaning they lack resources? Or is it a lack of will?" asked Sarah Roberts, co-director of UCLA's Center for Critical Internet Inquiry and an associate professor of information studies. "I think one of those is probably more damning than the other, but they both have the same outcome of allowing propaganda material masquerading as news being distributed on their platform at a critical juncture for the American political cycle," Roberts said...
"There's a good chance YouTube's handling of this goes in the first sentence of every story about how social networks handled the 2020 election for the next several years," Casey Newton, a journalist who writes the technology newsletter Platformer, said in a tweet.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:3, Insightful)
YouTube can't win. Advertisers on one side, conservatives screaming censorship on the other, normal people appalled at the misinformation and hatred their algorithm promotes. Creators pissed off with their vague policies and inconsistent enforcement.
No matter what they do someone will complain.
Re:Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Its better that they do nothing, and advertisers should change their expectations.. - the suppression by authorities of content they disagree with using the excuse of "misinformation" is basically a fascist act that makes the US like Venezuela. Whether the information in some random person's video is accurate or not is not relevant. The recourse for inaccurate information is people should fact check what they read, see, and here before reading it, so there should be no illusion that unvetted sources can be trusted without verifying claims.
People are meant to have free speech as a fundamental right, and "misinformation" is nothing more than a meritless excuse for taking away the right to criticize or share potential concerns with those who will listen; just like any other excuse used by fascists... Authorities almost always call their opponents' words "lies" and "misinformation", no matter who their opponents are, or whether they may be true or not.
Phrases such as its misinformation or "its all lies", or "they are lying" are the same as the words of tyrants which should never be a legitimate basis for suppressing speech; many governments that committed genocide and similar atrocities censored the media before and during calling anything critical to be "Lies" and "Misinformation".
It matters not whether said interference is carried about by a large corporate entity that controls the only major platforms or by a government entity that tells the platforms what to do -- when the authorities (authorities includes large corporations) can react by "turning off the internet" or "deleting" whenever their people are discussing things/spreading a message that they deem a "threat"; Free speech has been denied, and the democratic system has failed and no longer exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the information in some random person's video is accurate or not is not relevant.
And that's the key. (Well, that and silly stuff that nobody cares about like free speech.)
Facebook is a glorified multi-user blog. Youtube is a glorified multi-user video blog.
When the heck did we decide that stuff said on there matters anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
When the heck did we decide that stuff said on there matters anyway?
When 52% and 28% of Americans started using Facebook and Youtube, respectively, their source of news [forbes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I think you identified the crux of the issue here,
(authorities includes large corporations)
That an organization not answerable to normal people is considered an authority is contrary to the idea of representative government. They can't be voted out. People seem to be under the impression they can't voluntarily stop doing business with them. If these organizations are de facto governing, there should be a way to establish the consent of the governed.
I suppose you could try breaking the companies up, and write a binder full of highly-technic
Re: (Score:2)
Whether the information in some random person's video is accurate or not is not relevant.
Would you continue to defend my right to spread misinformation if I were shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, with full knowledge that there was no fire? Would you admonish the usher who, seeing what I was doing, clamped their hand over my mouth to prevent a stampede?
Even setting aside the fact that the first amendment only applies to government restriction, the right to free speech is not absolute.
Re: (Score:2)
if I were shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater
Well: You are quoting a famous line from a case that went against free speech, but that nonsense was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
So that is an analogy that doesn't really apply, since the case that won on that argument against free speech Regarding Draft Opposition in WWWI basically got reversed by the Supreme Court decades ago.
Also it is not what any of the videos people complain about on Youtube are actually doing - they might be false, but they are
Re: (Score:2)
The politicians have the threat of regulation and anti-trust to do something about it.
Well: it certainly is possible that a politician, administrator, or government department will coerce people who manage media organizations or supporting platforms for publishers to discourage them from exercising their rights, Or to encourage that they prevent the publication of something that's not a legitimately illegal message - As in interfering with their content/users (by encouraging them to suppress certain
did it to themselves (Score:2)
As long as these companies refused to meddle, they had a viable neutral posture. NOBODY gets pissed at the phone company for allowing phone calls that support one candidate or another, or for calls that spread this conspiracy theory or that one.
The problem these companies have is they started meddling, and they lied about it. They started picking sides in some arguments, while denying it even as the evidence was obvious and even objectively measureable.
How many times did Facebook or Twitter or YouTube flag/
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get upset at the phone company for allowing spam robocalls?
Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:2)
That's how it's been done for the entirety of US history. Why should this one be any different?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it's been done for the entirety of US history. Why should this one be any different?
As the self-appointed spokesperson for the rest of the world, I ask: what the fuck, America? I mean I know you do it this way, and apparently it works, but seriously what the fuck?
Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:2)
That is hopelessly outdated.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets tackle the in your face lie to start with. How do you tackle unfounded conspiracy theories, you do fucking nothing about the. They are unfounded because they have not be discussed and explored. The one and only reason to attempt to block discussion of conspiracy theories is because they are not theories they are facts and they want to block investigation of the theories by silencing discussion of them.
What to inflame dissent, try to force silencing. The one and only reason to silence dissent because i
Re: (Score:2)
The one and only reason to attempt to block discussion of conspiracy theories is because they are not theories they are facts
Or maybe because you just don't want discussion of shit like holocaust denial on your platform.
Declining to allow a discussion does not validate its topic.
Re: (Score:2)
'Normal people' want a gigantic oligarchy of megacorps hovering over them at all times gatekeeping and censoring every little bit of information and giving them on the approved FACTs as they deem it.
The invisible hand of the marketplace decided these services aren't worth directly paying for, so the services have to appease the advertisers to keep the lights on. If you think there's a vacuum in the market for another business model, nothing is stopping you from rolling up your sleeves and being the change you want to see.
Its kind of bizarre theres a significant chunk of the population in a country that supposedly holds freedom of expression as its core value, especially from the side that started the 'Free Speech Movement' a few decades ago that is openly and proudly supporting this.
It makes perfect sense, provided you understand that "free as in speech" doesn't mean "free as in beer". In America, you also have the right to own a gun, but you do not have the rig
Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:2)
The biggest problem is that the rules don't get defined through a reasoned, debated process. Any group which shouts loud enough, long enough, can either get their prejudices made Policy, or convince Advertisers to use their leverage.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that platforms like YouTube, Twitter, FB, etc. have a massive reach. So while their rules aren't "Censorship" in the legal sense it really is effectively similar.
So, you're essentially saying of a handful of entities have accumulated too much of something (in this case, access to an audience), the government should step in and make sure it's being distributed fairly? That's kind of like social media.. socialism.
Rules for thee, not for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The invisible hand of the marketplace decided these services aren't worth directly paying for, so the services have to appease the advertisers to keep the lights on. If you think there's a vacuum in the market for another business model, nothing is stopping you from rolling up your sleeves and being the change you want to see.
See, people only like the invisible hand when it's punching someone else in the nuts. Turnabout it seems is not fair play.
Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:2)
In not sure...
In my view, normal people were convinced, blackmailed, pushed and bullied to accept the reality you describe. And lied to. Big time. And given no alternatives.
The convinced are collectively known as 'useful idiots'.
The rest of us are victims with no recourse.
Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:5, Insightful)
A good policy would be, "if it ain't illegal, it's allowed, no exceptions, not now, not ever."
That would be a terrible policy.
1. Advertisers would abandon them, they would go out of business.
2. It would turn into PornHub overnight.
3. Popular creators who don't want to swim in the cesspool would leave.
4. Users would quit after the algorithm recommends yet another n@zi porn video.
5. They would still get criticised because only a court of law can decide what is legal and illegal, and only long long after it's been posted and only if the poster is tracked down and prosecuted. They would either be leaving illegal material up until the trial or taking it down based on their opinion of what a court might decide.
Re: Damned if they do, damned if they don't (Score:2)
And the cesspool argument disappears entirely if YouTube would let users choose their own filters. Censorship is never the solution
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Calling people's right to choose what content they carry on their privately owned platform "censorship" is an assault on freedom of speech and freedom of association.
It's also a pretty big concession. If your argument is so poor that it can only gain traction by forcing other people to publish it for you then it can't be very good.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell no. Youtube began as a non-censoring common carrier of information and it should stay as such. Giving them the opportunity and the platform to bias the information the entire world receives is incredibly d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Best to declare a policy that minimizes the amount of flak long-term and stick to it religiously, long-term. A good policy would be, "if it ain't illegal, it's allowed, no exceptions, not now, not ever."
If there's a space for this, then the free market will deliver a solution, surely? As a self professed right-winger, what is your opinion on the ability of free markets to actually do a reasonable job? In the mean time, as a self-professed right winger you presumably support private property rights s
Youtube doesn't care (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but what if the advertisers care about other things, too?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The dictionaries define dis-information, what next, are you going to say 'who defines lies'?
Misinformation is simple, it is "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive"
I saw some today, no sources given, numbers stated as facts were wrong, endless stream of claims that didn't match reality. Obvious disinformation.
Ignorant people won't be able to discern mis-information because they are ignorant. People who are well-informed about the subject in question, peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily (Score:2)
We all tend to think that corporations are ruthlessly apolitical and will do anything for the bottom line, but that may not be true.
I recall that some years ago (cannot recall what year) former PBS film critic Michael Medved authored a book on Hollywood (this was before the internet craze) in which he presented a good argument that film studios were in fact NOT just doing films to boost their numbers, but were putting out films that aligned with particular ideological viewpoints and losing money doing it. T
What is Youtube without disinformation videos? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are going to take down videos you consider disinformation, how wide a net do you cast?
What about videos that give really bad haircare/makeup tips? Those are disinformation.
How much of YouTube is left if you remove everything that is not absolute verifiable fact? Is it just ASMR videos at that point since you can't quite make out what they are saying?
Just let people say whatever and let otherscorrect them in comments. It all works out in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
What about videos that give really bad haircare/makeup tips?
There are only good makeup tips on youtube.
https://youtu.be/75YIq5f5ASQ [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a false equivalency, 1) because there is lots of evidence that Russia supported Trump (see the GOP Controlled Senate report https://www.rollcall.com/2020/... [rollcall.com]) and 2) There is no credible evidence that fraud changed the outcome of the election. If you disagree, find me a court case that looks promising for Trump. As far as I can tell, Trump loses cases every day, and files more just to be able to collect "legal defense" money that actually pays down campaign debt ( https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com] )
Re: (Score:2)
> If you disagree, find me a court case that looks promising for Trump.
How about we let the Courts decide what is legal or not.
Y'know, just MAYBE they have more information on these cases than anybody on /. or at Google.
In the meantime it's a bad look for YouTube (or /.-ers) to pretend at being know-it-alls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"They found nothing," but Trump Jr. met with a Russian intelligence asset (to meet about adoption issues, they claim!), and Trump's people were convicted in connection with the investigation, and the GOP-controlled Senate released a report stating that there was interference by Russia, and we know Trump tried to shake down Ukraine for assistance in our most recent election. Yes it is truly wild speculation to claim one iota more than Meuller found.
Just admit your boy is crooked and you love him for it. Thi
Re: (Score:3)
The exact same thing happened in 2020 and 2016 . . . there is no proof of the core of the claim that Russia and Trump collaborated together and significantly affected the 2016 election.
You moved the goalposts and then pretended not to know the difference between unproven (Mueller did not investigation collusion https://politicalwire.com/2019... [politicalwire.com] ) and disproved ( https://politicalwire.com/2020... [politicalwire.com] ).
I don't want to censor anything. Parler can fill itself with every nutjob conspiracy on the planet. But I won't fault a company for not repeating falsehoods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Show them videos confirming their (incorrect) views and they're more likely to be convinced than if they search and don't find anything.
It's not so much that I've made up my mind - if there was evidence that showed all the collusion was just a big misunderstanding, I could be swayed to think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Mueller probe was about collusion with Russia - meaning that accusations against Trump was that he intentionally and knowingly collaborated with Russians.
I think you are mostly trying to reply to post 60725464. But you are correct that I mischaracterized the Meuller Report there (though I have a quibble with your definition of collusion). I remembered the conspiracy / collusion distinction nothing of the substance.
I am not sure what you mean when you say I made "'changed the outcome of the election' as the criteria for a successful lawsuit." But I do think that Trump has to show more than a couple fraudulent votes to get any sort of counting injunction an
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, "Stop the Steal" is a conspiracy. I think all reasonable pe
Re: (Score:2)
Given the amount of paperwork involved in voting, I think it is fair to demand a higher level of proof for allegations of fraud than for a two-party conspiracy where the smart ones won't write anything down ever.
But it may just be a matter of the Overton Window. The former head of the FBI thinks it is plausible that Trump is a Russian asset, so it dosn't seen as outlandish to continue to question this absent exoneration. https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19... [cnn.com]
Conversely, the pro-Trump side has an extremely para
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The courts must listen without prejudice to the in-court evidence provided by both sides. Journalists should report what they find in the context of what they already know. Everyone else can call them names and tell them to take their garbage BS elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why interfere with Freedom of Press? (Score:2)
"YouTube is facing growing criticism for allowing election misinformation after it decided not to remove or individually fact-check videos that spread unfounded conspiracy theories alleging voter fraud,"
Whose metric are we using to determine that one story is unfounded and borders near a conspiracy theory than otherwise?
This is America, where we have the Freedom of the PRESS.
Re: (Score:3)
This is America, where we have the Freedom of the PRESS.
Please, stop talking unless you know what you're talking about. The Constitution's freedom of the press, which, I might add, the con artist has repeatedly and endlessly tried to silence, even going so far as to say he wants libel laws expanded, only applies to the government. Read those last four words again: only applies to the government. In case you forgot, here's the entire text of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Note the first five words. That means the go
Re: (Score:2)
Please, stop talking unless you know what you're talking about. The Constitution's freedom of the press, which, I might add, the con artist has repeatedly and endlessly tried to silence, even going so far as to say he wants libel laws expanded, only applies to the government.
Well, one aspect of freedom of the press is the press cannot also be compelled to publish things. One could also argue that this IS the free press in action.
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't be mad at me for what I printed, I have Freedum of the PRESS!"
It is not their place (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it was a flat earth video its not the place of a platform to dictate and censor and pick and choose what you can and cannot see. I dislike communism but I would not support Google preventing me from seeing videos about it.
Google isn't preventing you from seeing anything, you can go elsewhere, but you simply don't want to. So what you're really saying is:
"I dislike Communism but I don't support private property rights".
Yeah no. Piss off, commie.
Re: (Score:2)
Either start acting like an adult or you will be treated as a child.
You want Google to be forced to carry content you want them to carry because you want them to carry it. Because you said so. Okay, kiddo.
Authoritarian Hysteria. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Including - ironically enough - viral claims of voter suppression and election rigging to elect Trump that spread on social media despite being completely bogus. One of the more popular ones even had a sentence in the article, innocuous enough unless you knew what was wrong with his claims, that made it clear he knew it was bullshit and couldn't work to rig the election as claimed. Basically, he compared the number of people marked to be purged from the electoral roll in key states like Michigan, pointed to
At least my video is still up (Score:2)
The one where I outline how Lindsey Graham had an out of wedlock child with a Puerto Rican maid.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a shocking revelation!
I did not think confirmed bachelor Lindsey Graham would enter a relationship with any lady
Schadentube (Score:2)
I've been reading the Right wing forums lately and they are getting flooded by so much disinformation that even some of the smarter marks are starting to catch on. They are wondering: why do Trump's attorneys not use the information I read about? Why doesn't Trump talk about the US commandos that raided the voting software offices in Frankfurt?
When one of their own suggests that these reports are BS, they get the other 90% of the bell curve shouting them down and accusing them of being leftist trolls. The
Re: (Score:2)
I think most people realized that the "Hunter Biden laptop" gambit was foreign disinfo when the several laptops found all had really suspect origins.
But, if it turns out that the incriminating information is reliable despite that, the (likely) GOP Senate will do a bang-up investigation for the next four years. Actually, I'm pretty sure they'll have that four-year investigation regardless.
And reichwing morons will be able to enjoy the fruits of competent government that entire time. TANJ!
nice try, China bot ;-) (Score:2, Informative)
There have NOT been "several laptops found" - There is only ONE laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden, which he stupidly abandoned at a repair shop and which was turned over to the FBI [delawarebusinessnow.com]. The FBI has publicly and privately confirmed [jonathanturley.org] this laptop, confirmed it was Hunters, and stated on the record that it is NOT Russian disinformation. It WAS however, a clever ploy by Biden supporters to quickly make several obviously fake Hunter pics, release them on the internet, and then debunk them and point at them as suppo
Re: (Score:2)
There were fewer laptops than I thought (other than the three left in Delaware). But more than one, it seems (if you consider the Post reputable). https://nypost.com/2020/10/31/... [nypost.com] We have four years to deal with the Hunter Biden laptop. If I was unduly skeptical I will apologize. But right now it seems to me that you got conned and are determined to stay conned.
Your statement that there was no evidence of Trump Russia collusion shows a lack of critical thinking common to Trump supporters. Calling you a
My how Slashdot has changed regarding censorship.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because it was never actually about that (Score:3, Interesting)
For the left, "free speech" like everything else is a means to an end.
When their ideas were unpopular and counter to the then-current culture, they used an insistence on "free speech" and frequently quoted the line "I disagree with everything you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" as a tactic to guilt-trip classical liberals into tolerating and protecting every outrageous thing they thought to say. It's how they mainstreamed many of their ideas. As the left took over media and educationa
Re: (Score:3)
Having read Slashdot in the late 1990s, I think many of its newer readers today would be surprised to see what a libertarian stronghold it was back then. I can't remember the exact comment or story, but I recall long ago somebody making a comment at how sensitive people were on the forum about censorship, and many users jumped on his comment and more-or-less explained, "here on Slashdot, free speech is sacred to us". Fast-forward almost 20+ years, and you actually many of the Slashdot commenters criticizing websites for not doing enough censorship.
Strange, isn't it?
I think it's because people support free speech much more strongly when they feel like outsiders. When it's your group running the institutions, suddenly making outliers shut up becomes much more attractive.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Spreading lies and inciting violence do not fall under free speech. Your speech is not free from consequence.
Re: (Score:3)
Censorship is a slippery slope. It always starts with the nastiest of nasty content nobody wants to be associated with. That drives the initial requirement for infrastructure to censor. Once in place, the music and video industry jumps on the bandwagon. Censorship becomes common-place in the guise of protecting "intellectual property". Freedom-fighters (aka terrorists) seems an obvious target nobody will question. Now that censorship is a trivial every-day topic, adding political opponents to the list doesn
Re: (Score:2)
Having read Slashdot in the late 1990s, I think many of its newer readers today would be surprised to see what a libertarian stronghold it was back then. I can't remember the exact comment or story, but I recall long ago somebody making a comment at how sensitive people were on the forum about censorship, and many users jumped on his comment and more-or-less explained, "here on Slashdot, free speech is sacred to us". Fast-forward almost 20+ years, and you actually many of the Slashdot commenters criticizing
Re: (Score:2)
Yes slashdot was libertarian. But you know what actual libertarians don't support? Forcibly commandeering other people's private property so you can use it as a free megaphone. I don't recall the slashdot of the early 2000s ever being in favour of forcing websites to host your particular message for free.
Youtube is private property and you have no right to it. Pay for your own megaphone and stop expecting big daddy government to step in and give you communal rights to other people's private property. It's amazing how quickly a self-professed libertarian turns commie when other people use their liberties in a way you don't like.
Seems like a strawman to me. Please show us a few libertarian comments arguing for government control of big tech.
What I have seen is severe criticism of big tech and their censorship. And suggestions to categorize their platforms as other publishers due to the heavy handed content editing. And then in the US you do of course also have rules regarding election interference. But those are not as far as I know championed by libertarians. But please prove wrong.
And I hope you do realize that there is a world o
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a strawman to me. Please show us a few libertarian comments arguing for government control of big tech.
If you can't find them, you should give up using the internets forever, because they are legion. Specifically, they continually demand that Google be forced to carry their speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Pay for your own megaphone and stop expecting big daddy government to step in and give you communal rights to other people's private property. It's amazing how quickly a self-professed libertarian turns commie when other people use their liberties in a way you don't like.
Er, you do know that even domain name registrars colluded recently to "de-platform" people, right? They actually had paid for their own megaphone.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they hadn't seen yet the waves of malicious idiots that populated the internet afterwards :) Like that (fake?) Churchill quote: “The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Not that I'm pro-censorship mind you, but context matters.
Russia (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is getting repeated over and over again. In arguing that they should be treated similarly, are you saying that there's as much evidence of voter fraud as there is that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election in favor of Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
Personal fact checking is dead. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not any social media's job to fact check posts. It's your job.
Just because you're are too lazy and or too stupid to fact check doesn't mean that some moderator all of a sudden has to step in and fact check for you.
Back in the day, no one slapped stickers staying "Disputed" on Weekly World News to save Grandma from thinking Bat Boy would terrorize her in the night. It should be no different when it comes to any other social platform.
Re: (Score:2)
save Grandma from thinking Bat Boy would terrorize her in the night.
But Bat Boy terrorized me in the grocery store when I was a kid -- I was afraid he would swoop down and take my candy. Now I have an ever-so-slight fear of bats, ceilings, and candy. And the most important question to ask:
whom do I sue who has money?
Re: (Score:3)
OK, a hypothetical (Score:2)
The Problem Is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you got a sourceabout 10s of thousands of dead people voting each year?
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/1... [cnn.com]
https://www.euronews.com/2020/... [euronews.com]
https://www.brennancenter.org/... [brennancenter.org]
https://ballotpedia.org/Votes_... [ballotpedia.org]
There are voter reigstry lists that take too long to remove deceased people, and there has been a few documented cases (see the last link), and presumably not all cases would be caught, but nothing (except YouTube videos) to suggested it's in 10s of thousands.
There's a bogus list of 20,000+ dead voters
Re: (Score:2)
For instance, when it comes to fraud in the last election, all of the talking heads are using escape words. For instance "There was no widespread fraud in the election." Well, what the hell is "widespread"?
wideÂspread /ËwÄdËOEspred/
adjective: widespread; adjective: wide-spread
found or distributed over a large area or number of people.
Maybe learn to use a dictionary? That helps a lot.
Or "Trump alleges fraud without evidence". Well, evidence is what he's trying to gather.
You mean he's trying to use the courts to go fishing? That's illegal.
Are you saying the poll workers that submitted affidavits are all lying?
You mean the affidavits that they supposedly have a big stack of but aren't allowing anyone to see? They wave a big stack of paper and claim it's affidavits of election fraud, but never actually open up the stack a
How? (Score:2)
"Is YouTube unable to contend with this material, meaning they lack resources?"
300 hours of video get uploaded every _minute_, how could they do it?
With a couple of hundred thousand people speaking 1500 languages?
My, how things change (Score:2)
"The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it"
2020: "Unless, of course, you say things we don't like. In soviet internet, internet routes around you!"
Wait... (Score:2)
Censorship is over? As in, now the election is over there is no reason?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd save a local copy of anything relevant, but the bastards made it so my copy of youtube-dl fails to update now...
Re: Is there a Parler equivalent for YouTube? (Score:2)
Rumble
YouTube sucks anymore because of their over the top censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Dozens. Google it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
A while back, some 2a types started putting gun videos sans tits in pornhub,
Well the user are expecting actual porn, not gun porn.
Re: (Score:2)
No they are not obligated to remove it just as they are not obligated to publish everything uploaded.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you are a CPA or fraud investigator, ethics demand you scream to the heavens about the obvious fraud flags. The idea there is no evidence is in itself misinformation. There are mountains of evidence but it is circumstantial. Almost as if the people meant to watch for said chicanery were kicked out or lied to about the state of ballot counting in order to continue counting without their presence.
Re: (Score:2)