US President Donald Trump
This afternoon.
YouTube announced that it will begin removing any content alleging widespread voter fraud influenced the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election.
Via YouTube:
“Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect.
Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections.
For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors.
We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come. As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific or artistic context.”
Lol.
FIGHT!
YouTube will now remove videos disputing Joe Biden’s election victor (The Verge)
AP
https://youtu.be/v7VwMJisUWo
Proper order. The outraged squealing and oinking was funny at first but it’s old now.
Bit of ciúin anois for poor oul Donny One-Term as he fecks off!
Go censorship!
Stop lies more like.
Lies have had a good four year run in fairness.
Give truth a go! ;)
Unfortunately, truth is subjective nowadays.
This does nothing more than to alienate people.
Truty is not subjective. The targets for these videos are already alienated.
Em… you’ve argued that it is subjective before.
But, it is good to see you seeing sense that it is not. Facts is facts, and the whole “my truth”, ie, ‘subjective truth’, is now considered by you to be not a thing is surely a turn up for the better.
Good man.
Why do you do that?
@Nigel
If they are already alienated then how do we bring them back into the fold?
Do we just continue to ridicule them and radicalize them further. When has that approach ever worked in human history?
Trump’s 2016 election and Brexit spring to mind as recent disasters from this way of thinking.
I think the people they alienated, hurt, damaged, demonised, dehumanised, delegitimised and for whom they have expressed nothing but contempt and hatred deserve to be prioritised, don’t you? Perhaps if we stop treating Trumpsters and Brexiteers like they’re king plops of plop mountain they might cop on to themselves. We got Trump and Brexit because it was not argued forcefully enough that they were awful, stupid ideas, and were too deferential to people who thought they were.
Sorry Micko, you’ll have to wait a while, my reply is being….. SENSWORD!
…oh please…I’m not sure which is worse…the whiney, yapping Nigel with his mad notions about Russians or the gloating, sneering Nigel with his epiphany regarding democracy and the inviobility of the process…
I like how you still can’t see they’re the same thing. It’s a sliver of constancy in a world gone mad.
(It’s weird though – Russiagate and Hilary Clinton are two things I’m supposed to be obsessed with, but I never bring them up – it’s always you or Colonel Mustard. Funny, that.)
“We got Trump and Brexit because it was not argued forcefully enough”
I think I’ll have to disagree there.
And the exit polls rife of people saying they voted differently to the actual final outcomes would demonstrate that.
Trump wasn’t defeated this time round by worrying about alienating Trump voters.
Well if that’s the line of moderation the YouTube crowd are working with
Then they better be on hand tomorrow night on the Telly
Let them do their work and we’ll see how faithful they are to that policy
Suggestions welcome btw
Let’s call it Frilly Fables
“Go censorship!” says the man who turned my “peep-peep” into a “winky” earlier..!
I call that editing
Fuppin A right, Hank.
Go highly profitable and politcaly motivated disinformation!
But like when you delete posts all willy-nilly like….. right?
I’ve been censored on here loads of times for pointing out that BS gave a platform to the anti-vax/anti-mask/anti-lockdown/alt-right fringe element of society.
*waiting for this post to be censored*
YouTube is a private enterprise. They don’t owe anyone an answer for what they do or don’t allow on their platform.
You’re absolutely correct in what you say. A private enterprise indeed.
Unfortunately Google are so intertwined with the way that we use the internet that it’s a really hard one to call.
I know people are free to use other search engines and other video distribution and social media platforms, but let’s face it – they won’t. These platforms are ubiquitous now.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have all really overstretched their level of control in the past few years and as much as am not a fan of government regulating private enterprise – maybe there needs to be some form of regulation that allows for free speech online regardless of how crackpot or unpalatable it is. (Once it’s not illegal or calling for it of course)
Because the opposite is tyranny through the back door . It might not seem like that now because you might agree with the censorship of these select subjects.
But someday, it might be a subject YOU agree with being censored. That would feel very different.
Stalin believed that newspapers were like guns – and just as effective a weapon as one.
Maybe the internet is like the worlds biggest newspaper ;)
The last few years have shown us that targeted, manufactured disinformation and propaganda can be used to undermine democracy, spread falsehoods, and affect populations and electroal outcomes. Banal appeals to freedom of speech are simply inadequate to deal with it, because they are themselves a threat to freedom of speech and democracy.
So, only the ‘right speech’ is allowed?
But who determines what is right and wrong speech?
Oh damn! The flaw in my plan is that dinsinformation is impossible to detect!
Sounds like the same flaw that Hillary Clinton and David Cameron had. .
How’d it go for them? :)
Exactly.
…why do you persist in asserting something that simply isn’t true Nigel…you know that the defeat of crooked Hillary and the triumph of brexit was down to opinion polls and the failure of millions to come out to vote…
It’s not censorship – they have a content policy on their website, the same as you have on yours.
Cos hey, trump cares so much for opposing opinions.
They are just prepping for when he announces that aliens have been in contact.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1250333
While I don’t care either way who did or didn’t cheat in the US election, Online platforms that promote user content outrightly saying they are going to remove such user content that THEY believe is misleading is worrying.
I know YT and the like are private companies, but there are a lot of people in the states and worldwide that believe in odd things. But, we’ve seen what happens when those people feel disconnected and sidelined in their own country.
It’s what got the orange muppet in power in the first place.
Not good. These platforms should encourage debate and seek to convince people of the truth of things through dialogue – labelling people’s opinions as wrong or stupid only pushes them underground.
The horse has truly bolted for the encouraging of debate and convincing people of the truth in the age of weaponised online disinformation.The people who create these videos don’t care about any of that. You, for example, dont care. It’s up to others to devote time, energy and money into opposing utterly bad-faith fire hoses of lies, while infantilising the makers and consumers as too fragile for disagreement. In other words, you won’t stand up for truth, but you will stand up for lies.
I don’t care about the US election because I don’t live there.
I care about it as much as I care about say, the Belgium electoral process.
Perhaps you should look at yourself and think about why you do care so much.
The largest economy and richest democracy in the world that can and should lead the way in terms of tackling climate change? You’re damn feckin right I care whether the person and party in charge thinks it’s a Chinese conspiracy or not. And that’s just one thing that is affected by whoever is in charge of the US.
Why would you care about something that you have no ability to alter the outcome of?
You may as well worry about the sun rising tomorrow.
I’d advise you to focus on problems that you have a chance of resolving or at least have a chance of affecting.
I’m assuming you don’t actually live in the US or have the ability to vote there of course. If you do well then – go you.
It’s very kind of you to take such an interest in the things that interest other people and offering unsolicited advice to people you don’t know and not patronising at all. I hestitate before pointing out that you have expressed an opinion on the content policy of YouTube, something you have no ability to alter the outcome of, but feel it underlines a certain poignant irony.
@Nigel
My business is involved in several areas, one of which is lobbying certain areas of the economy and society – including the tech sector,
It’s one of the reasons I comment on posts to do with technology. I generally don’t comment on the political issues of other countries, as I can’t change it.
Apologies if you found my comments patronising – it was not my intention.
Well it was, but apology accepted. Most people don’t confine their interests, comments or opinions to things they can change, otherwise all we’d ever talk about is what’s for dinner.
Well @Nigel, when I say “involved”, I suppose I really mean that I try at least to not get bogged down in things I don’t really have a stake in.
I find people in Ireland get extremely animated and upset about the state of current US politics. I suppose it’s social media’s influence. I don’t recall previous generations being so obsessed with it.
Actually, perhaps the oncoming blanket censoring of select subjects on certain social media channels will drive people away from the platforms en masse – hastening their inevitable demise.
Ultimately, what’s the point to engaging on social media if you can’t express your true feelings and ideas – no matter how delusional or deranged those opinions might be.
In that case – bring on the social media censorship!
It might have a fortuitus resolution after all. ;)
While I’m sure the social media sites love making money off dinsinformation that undermines democracy and destroys social norms, I’m sure theycoul muddle by without them if they really tried.
I guess we’ll see Nigel
‘America isn’t a country – America is a business’.
‘America isn’t a country – America is a business’.
It sure does look that way Scottser. I can’t think of a single democratic country that has treated its own people so appallingly. Millions of Americans have not received a single stimulus cheque since March!! That is completely inhumane. People are actually starving, being evicted and losing family to covid 19. I have no idea how people are managing. The way America is run by the millionaire and billionaire class of politicians is just disgusting. They are sitting around in one of their many properties, stocked up for food, relying on maids and servants to clean up after them, while millions are being evicted! They are using regular people as pawns in their political games, not sending cheques for political spite, people like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell. Its outrageous! They are heartless scumbags.
I’m surprised that it has not driven more people to violence.
Nigel arguing FOR debate.
That’s novel.
You engaging in a debate would be novel.
Says the lad who argued that accusation without proof was a legitimate form of debate. And numerous times argued against it when it goes against his narrative…. Purrrlease pet, don’t make me laugh so hard, hah! :)
Says the lad that thinks everything he doesn’t like is an ‘accusation,’ and dissolves into lols and roflmaos when he runs out of anything to say.
Nah… funny though, proper LOL :)
:0p’
There is no way that a platform like YT can “encourage debate” about these things. That’s not how these platforms works. They’re videos uploaded by users who say what they like and are in now way obligated to have a countering point of view on their video.
For example, if Alex Jones puts up a video about the illuminati, do you think he will have a counter point on his show, of course not, why would he when he has some agenda that would be interfered with by debate. Also, are YT supposed to mix that video with counter arguments from someone like Bill Maher? Where would they find such videos and how could they splice it up to have a fair debate in any way. It just cannot work that way.
People find themselves watching YT vids which means they are at the mercy of the producer of that vid wrt what they hear. If that video is spewing falsehoods, then I think it’s only right that YT pull it.
No, but others can create their own content calling out Alex Jones and similar crackpots ideas
Censoring them only makes them more attractive to others who perhaps never even heard of them.
I suspect that Gemma O’Doherty received a massive boost in interest when she was deplatformed on Twitter.
“What was she saying?” “Why is she being censored? “ It all drives interest in their rhetoric.
The only way to deal with these people is in the light. Discussing why they are of the wrong opinion and showing where they are incorrect.
Shaming their followers and deplatforming them only sends them underground.
Besides if one’s opinions are absolute truth to someone, then they should always be robust enough to invite discussion and debate.
This is awfully pure-minded and I’m sure the various off-shore failed-state server farms and content factories funded by dark money PACs and corporations and intelligence agencies churning out disinformation content would be delighted with your engagement with heirr disinformation but since they’re not likely to believe what they’re pumping out, I don’t think you’re going to disinfect them with light. Quite the opposite. You really haven’t learned anything from Trump and Brexit.
Nigel. We’re all intelligent people here.
How is it do you think, that so many of us can have completely opposing views?
I find it jaw dropping that so many of us can be so well educated, but yet disagree on so many levels – and on some really fundamental issues. And it always seems to be same people who disagree.
Do you put it all down to mis-information?
Do you believe that I and those similar to me on here, are simply victims of ‘server farm’ fed ignorance?
Or do you think we are malicious?
There’s nothing wrong with having opposing views. But do you think that you and fanacht share a common reality right now?
You’re confusing, you make the claim that you believe people are being deliberately fed mis-information and that has led to the woes around us today.
“ dinsinformation that undermines democracy and destroys social norms”
But, then on the other hand you say
“There’s nothing wrong with having opposing views”
Which is it?
The statements
“disinformation that undermines democracy and destroys social norms”
and
“There’s nothing wrong with having opposing views”
can both be true in certain circumstances. If Nigel had added one word it could remove the ambiguity :
“There’s nothing wrong with having opposing informed views”
You can’t seriously think it’s either/or.
Cian to the rescue!
Chin up Nidge
Oh no! Where will Qanon diseminate their info?
Where will anti vaxxers and anti maskers dO dEr ReSeArCh!?!?!?
Now that the election is over, a truly belated acknowledgement that they are being used as a platform to destabilise democracy and democratic processes.
I see nothing here on Trump’s threats to regulate and punish papers and social media companies whose reporting and policies he doesn’t like, which is, of course, actual censorship, coming as it does from the very top of the US government, as opposed to private companies controlling the content of their own platforms.
When has Trump ever tried to censor any media outlet?
Don’t poke holes in Nigel’s narrative!
He’s just been threatening to veto some defense bill if it didn’t strip protections from social media companies because he thinks they’re biased against conservatives. He’s been trying to interfere with courses taught in universities and schools because they aren’t patriotic enough. He had the phrase ‘climate change’ removed from reports by scientific agencies. Sorry. That’s not just social media. You get the idea.
You’re stealing my “Lol”s now?
Big problem here is that according to a Rasmussen poll, 46% of people asked in the US think there was fraud in the election. The percentage is way higher amongst Trump supporters. Everyone on that side is already pretty down on Silicon Valley as is. Youtube are really not helping themselves out here. They should stay out of it completely, because now they look like they’re colluding in a cover up…and it’s going to backfire. Have they learned nothing about the Streisand effect?
Agreed- the lesson here is with Parler- which keeps growing unabated. It is only a matter of time before the likes of Rumble does similar in the video market and once one alternative becomes moderately successful- the brand is damaged and the monopoly is broken.
+1
Good for everyone!
Their brands were damaged by the presence and promotion of these videos. If they move to alternatives, those will instantly become cess-pits and scam-factories and data scraping operations.
They’re providing a platform for wildly dishonest claims about election fraud. They can’t stay out of it, they’re in it. The president of the United States is tweeting out these lies by the gallon, the Streisand Effect is a bt redundant.
Well there’s a lot of witnesses who’ve signed sworn affidavits, there are top level lawyers putting their careers very publicly on the line, there is fairly compelling video evidence and now there are actual states suing. So coming out with the standard ‘it’s all rubbish’ response is either ignorant or jut plain wishful thinking. I reckon the Supreme court will rule in favour of Donald Trump or the US will face potential civil war.
A signed sworn affidavit is a statement that someone believes they saw something. It is not irrefutable proof of anything. There is no evidence of voter fraud. Do you really believe SCOTUS will rule to allow Texas disenfranchise 4 other states based on cases that were already rejected by the courts at every other level? Never going to happen.
PANIC
They know the have lost and the only way Biden gets inaugurated is if Trump concedes.
And there’s only two chances of that happening (None and doodle-poopkins all)
Meanwhile one third of US states have now joined the Texas suit against Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin in the Supreme Court.
Popcorn futures are rising.
And have the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case described by one law professor as “procedurally and substantively” a mess?
Another said “The litigation is legally incoherent, factually untethered and based on theories of remedy that fundamentally misunderstand the electoral process. At the core, it is an uninspired retread of the many state-level claims that already have imploded since Nov. 3. Texas has simply delivered these defective claims in an even worse package.” but what would the co-author of “The Limits of Presidential Power”, an associate professor at the University of Washington School of Law know about it?
41 days.
“but what would the co-author of “The Limits of Presidential Power”, an associate professor at the University of Washington School of Law know about it?”
About as much as you, obviously.
[SCOUTS docket listing is below]
That just means they submitted it, not that the court has agreed to hear it.
I wonder what the Michigan AG thinks of the suit?
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, called the filing a “publicity stunt” that was “beneath the dignity” of Paxton’s office and the people of Texas.
“The erosion of confidence in our democratic system isn’t attributable to the good people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia or Pennsylvania but rather to partisan officials, like Mr. Paxton, who place loyalty to a person over loyalty to their country,” Nessel said in a statement.
“The Michigan issues raised in this complaint have already been thoroughly litigated and roundly rejected in both state and federal courts by judges appointed from both political parties.”
But what about the Solicitor General for Texas? Oh. He’s not involved? I wonder why.
If it’s on the docket it means the court has agreed the case will be heard. The Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction for disputes between State governments.
This is not a fraud case – it’s a case about equitable treatment alleging the defendant states changed the voting rules outside the parameters allowed by the US Constitution which disadvantages the citizens of the plaintiff states.
17 states now support the Texas claims: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.
“If it’s on the docket it means the court has agreed the case will be heard.”
Nope, sorry. That’s not how it works. They have not agreed to anything.
SCOTUS is not going to rule to allow Texas disenfranchise the voters of 4 other states. Never going to happen. This entire thing is a begging letter for a pardon from Paxton to Trump.
If they’re not going to take the case then why did they order to defendants to reply by Thursday December 10 at 3pm?
It’s in the link posted earlier:
“Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.”
Here’s a news link if that helps.
https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/12/09/supreme-court-orders-reply-texas-election-lawsuit/
Perhaps you should have read that news article which says “Of course, the only thing that matters will be the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court and whether it decides to take the case.”
That decision has yet to be made.
You won’t have long to wait to find out…
Tick-Tock
Let’s hope so! I can’t wait to see your reaction when SCOTUS tosses it out.
They have to reject it or hear it before the weekend as the electoral college vote is on Monday and the 4 states Texas is trying to disenfranchise will all be voting for Biden. It’ll all be over soon.
40 days.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
IThat’s nnot a magic spell that’s going to make Trump president again, you know. It’s an extraordinarily dumb and weird suit by an AG under indictment for fraud.
nigel, apropos nothing, i really enjoy and appreciate – and admire – your comments; eye is always drawn to them whenever I scan a post. just saying etc
*blush*
There was without a doubt voter fraud,but was there enough of it to swing the election, who knows.
There was, without doubt, no evidence of voter fraud, but is that enough to stop Trump lying about it? Of course not.
So much whining.
…will Trump sue the Russians…on the grounds that his popular vote increased by millions without their help?
While I agree that the election fraud campaign from Trump, Rudy, and the rest of the clown car is damaging trust in democracy, I think Youtube might be overstepping the mark here. It could be a slippery slope. Youtube have tried to silence many legitimate debates, or podcasts interviews that do not fit with their political/cultural points of view, or else they demonetize podcasts they find controversial.
Saying that, I’m not sure what the solution should be to the massive, misleading, misinformation coming from all directions and parts of the world. Especially with regards to conspiracy theory nonsense. The tech world has its work cut out.
You know
I can’t help thinking one thing
If Trump’s people took his phone off him the day he was inaugurated
just now more respectable, like Presidential, would his term have been?