YouTube Policy Update: Videos Alleging Voter Fraud Will Removed(cnet.com)
cnet.com
YouTube Policy Update: Videos Alleging Voter Fraud Will Removed
https://www.cnet.com/news/youtube-will-remove-any-new-videos-alleging-trump-lost-election-because-of-fraud/
3 comments
YouTube has historically been the home of conspiracy theory videos, what makes a current event with on-going legal arguments so important to remove?
YouTube is a private company. They are allowed to remove whatever they want. I think they realize election denial videos are the most dangerous right now because they don't want Republicans trying to start a full-blown civil war come Jan 20.
Roughly 40 percent of Americans eligible to vote do not vote.
The facts related to election and or voter fraud are necessary for basic process legitimacy. Same goes for facts related to elections overall, results, process, all of it.
The right answer to claims of illegitimacy is to publish facts that invalidate those claims.
This is true, in general, for speech we do not like, or may consider harmful, or offensive.
Exceptions being criminal speech.
Consider it is not a crime for major news organizations to lie, and to force journalists they employ to lie. FOX took this to court and won on First Amendment grounds.
The very worst thing to do is attempt to silence speech that challenges the establishment orthodoxy in some way. Again, this is generally true for other speech we may not like.
Public trust in major news media organizations is low. Things like the FOX court decision, access journalism, and conflicts of interest due to massive media consolidation all contribute to this reduced level of trust.
Indie media has filled many gaps.
With all this has come misinformation. And let us be clear, misinformation is a chronic problem at all levels of media today, from CNN on down.
Censorship will not improve on trust and legitimacy in media. It will only amplify the trouble brewing for decades now.
A rather disturbing fact is most elections in the US do not comply with the Carter standards for free and fair elections and in many parts of the world the UN would be called upon to intervene.
This means questioning election integrity and legitimacy is perfectly rational! It also means we have real work to do on elections. The cost associated with failure to do that work continues to grow as do the risks.
Both are often cited as justification for censorship. This is treating a symptom, not the disease, and will only add to the problems heavy handed censorship like this will create.
Again, the right answer here is to publish information that is accurate.
The lack of that information does not justify censorship, and should be addressed by both the free press, which can raise awareness and bolster support for the real answer here, which is to improve our elections and maximize how they embody these four ideas:
Anonymity. No vote shall be linked back to or somehow identify the voter who cast it.
Freedom. Voters may cast a vote or not. A no vote is a valid choice and it indicates no consent, no confidence.
Transparency. Votes shall be followed, through a public process, under public law, from when they are cast through to final tally. Vote records are expressions of voter intent and shall be cast in human readable form onto media in an enduring way suitable for a court room review, recount, whatever the process demands.
Oversight. Depends on transparency, and it means elections are for the public, who shall participate as that watchful eye to insure the outcome is trustworthy and process fair.
Censorship does no meaningful public service here. It actually exacerbates the very problems well meaning people are looking to address.
Reconsider Google. Please.
The facts related to election and or voter fraud are necessary for basic process legitimacy. Same goes for facts related to elections overall, results, process, all of it.
The right answer to claims of illegitimacy is to publish facts that invalidate those claims.
This is true, in general, for speech we do not like, or may consider harmful, or offensive.
Exceptions being criminal speech.
Consider it is not a crime for major news organizations to lie, and to force journalists they employ to lie. FOX took this to court and won on First Amendment grounds.
The very worst thing to do is attempt to silence speech that challenges the establishment orthodoxy in some way. Again, this is generally true for other speech we may not like.
Public trust in major news media organizations is low. Things like the FOX court decision, access journalism, and conflicts of interest due to massive media consolidation all contribute to this reduced level of trust.
Indie media has filled many gaps.
With all this has come misinformation. And let us be clear, misinformation is a chronic problem at all levels of media today, from CNN on down.
Censorship will not improve on trust and legitimacy in media. It will only amplify the trouble brewing for decades now.
A rather disturbing fact is most elections in the US do not comply with the Carter standards for free and fair elections and in many parts of the world the UN would be called upon to intervene.
This means questioning election integrity and legitimacy is perfectly rational! It also means we have real work to do on elections. The cost associated with failure to do that work continues to grow as do the risks.
Both are often cited as justification for censorship. This is treating a symptom, not the disease, and will only add to the problems heavy handed censorship like this will create.
Again, the right answer here is to publish information that is accurate.
The lack of that information does not justify censorship, and should be addressed by both the free press, which can raise awareness and bolster support for the real answer here, which is to improve our elections and maximize how they embody these four ideas:
Anonymity. No vote shall be linked back to or somehow identify the voter who cast it.
Freedom. Voters may cast a vote or not. A no vote is a valid choice and it indicates no consent, no confidence.
Transparency. Votes shall be followed, through a public process, under public law, from when they are cast through to final tally. Vote records are expressions of voter intent and shall be cast in human readable form onto media in an enduring way suitable for a court room review, recount, whatever the process demands.
Oversight. Depends on transparency, and it means elections are for the public, who shall participate as that watchful eye to insure the outcome is trustworthy and process fair.
Censorship does no meaningful public service here. It actually exacerbates the very problems well meaning people are looking to address.
Reconsider Google. Please.