> "The public" is not some perfectly rational collection of human beings. Rather, it's droves of people susceptible to propaganda and misinformation campaigns.
Correct.
> Let's be clear: there was no widespread election fraud, certainly not by large enough margins to overturn the election.
I am not 100% committed to that being an impossibility, but I have yet to see any evidence to make me question the final outcome of the 2020 US election. I'm legitimately concerned about small scale voter fraud, but nothing significant enough to invalidate the final result.
> Videos that purport otherwise are not improving public discourse; in fact, they're causing it to disintegrate.
I agree. But far be it from me to determine what constitutes "quality public discourse". I have a history of being wrong about a great many things so I'd rather not have myself - or any individual or organization - arbitrate on what the public is allowed to discuss.
> I agree that Youtube should not have carte blanche to remove content that it finds objectionable per its own capricious standards. But that doesn't mean it should have no discretion at all.
Maybe I'd be less critical of Goolge if they actually had some sort of guidelines for objectively determining what content should be allowed on their platforms. This inconsistent "whatever we think is best" policy strategy is way too susceptible to abuse and Google hasn't proven themselves trustworthy.
> I am not 100% committed to that being an impossibility, but I have yet to see any evidence to make me question the final outcome of the 2020 US election.
It's impossible to be 100% certain about anything. Scientists often quote a 95% confidence interval. Why not the a 100% confidence interval? Because that would be the real number line.
> But far be it from me to determine what constitutes "quality public discourse".
Fortunately, you don't need to determine the cutoff. Fact-free conspiracies are so far removed from "quality public discourse" as to render the issue irrelevant.
> Maybe I'd be less critical of Google if they actually had some sort of guidelines for objectively determining what content should be allowed on their platforms.
I absolutely agree that transparency is the best practice here; but until there's evidence of abuse, I'm not going to assume the process is abusive. And even then, I'll weigh the harm done by YouTube vs the harm done by the conspiracy theorists.
> Fortunately, you don't need to determine the cutoff. Fact-free conspiracies are so far removed from "quality public discourse" as to render the issue irrelevant.
What bodies of evidence count as "facts" and how much is necessary to surpass the "fact free" threshold?
> I absolutely agree that transparency is the best practice here; but until there's evidence of abuse, I'm not going to assume the process is abusive.
Google has a sordid history of suppressing information and ideas. Suppressing critisisms of jihad[0] and of course project Dragonfly to name a couple examples offhand.
>I am not 100% committed to that being an impossibility, but I have yet to see any evidence to make me question the final outcome of the 2020 US election.
Are you also 100% not committed to the 1969 moon landing being an impossibility? Big Foot?
There's no evidence of wide spread voter fraud, there's lots of a wide spread fair election occurring.
The burden of proof is on the accuser, because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." To say you can't be sure fraud didn't change the outcome of the election at this point is ridiculous, and is exactly why youtube is banning such opinions.
> Are you also 100% not committed to the 1969 moon landing being an impossibility? Big Foot?
There are obvious incentives and a huge, immediate payout for using voter fraud to overturn an election result. And voter fraud is an old, recurring phenomena - even if you only consider the history of the US elections[0].
On top of that, we're talking about an event from barely a month ago. The Russian collusion thing from the 2016 election went on for years.
While I would be astounded if the voter fraud investigations yielded sufficient evidence to overthrow the election results, you'll have to forgive me for not outright rejecting that potential. Of course, I would also be extremely skeptical if that did happen.
Besides, why do we have to be 100% committed to anything right now?
I thought of the Russia collusion story too. It's pretty much this narrative in reverse: our election was stolen + invented facts. anybody who believes that the pee tape was real ought to be able to make the logical jump to believing that Biden stole the election because there's exactly the same amount of evidence for both.
The US has become so incredibly partisan though, that both sides literally experience different realities. The same people that believe the pee tape is real will scream for censorship of Trump's lies and vice versa.
Some theories are more falsifiable than others. The theory that there was fraud on a scale large enough to swing this election should be falsifiable in any sane, working electoral system. In parts of the US, however, I'm less confident, since in some cases it doesn't seem possible to disprove the theory that an individual vote was fraudulent. Hence the problem: anyone saying it's impossible is just as deluded as the person saying the election was stolen. The system is broken.
Both parties have dumb justifications for why they think the voting system should stay the way it is, but the reality is simply that the person/party in charge has no incentive to overhaul the system that go them there. They call foul and make a big fuss when the system doesn't work in their favor, but then they don't have the power to fix it. They've realized it's easier to just undermine the legitimacy of the winner and just patiently wait for the next opportunity.
I wish I knew what it would take to get the support necessary to fix it without endorsement from a political party.
My country had similar issues, it took a right man at the head of election commission to reform it. We lucked out, I think something similar would be the only way out.
As an Australian, I need no ID to vote in any elections. I can just turn up at any polling place, tell them my name & address, and they hand me the forms and mark me as having voted.
There is nothing stopping me doing this again at a different polling place on the same day, but it would trigger an investigation if my name was marked at multiple polling booths.
And yet, there is basically no electoral fraud at all. In each election, this happens less than 10 times nationally with a population of 25M ppl.
It turns out to be forgetful senior citizens more often than fraudulent voters.
The electoral roll is simply made up of legal names and addresses in each electorate.
Your name must be on the roll, or you can't vote. So fake names wont work. Nor will a name without the correct address.
If you turn up and your name/address combo is already crossed out, you will be given some sort of provisional ballot, while an investigation is started.
It would be trivial to learn someones address and turn up at a booth in their electorate early to vote in their name, but the irregularity would be obvious.
Also, it is very difficult to stay off the electoral roll or have an incorrect address, because most interactions with a government agency will automatically update it. ie: get or change drivers license details or get a passport, or enroll you kids in school etc.
You may be purged from the roll if another person legitimately enrolls at an address you used to be enrolled at, but this will be picked up quickly in practice when you change your address for any official paperwork.
Correct.
> Let's be clear: there was no widespread election fraud, certainly not by large enough margins to overturn the election.
I am not 100% committed to that being an impossibility, but I have yet to see any evidence to make me question the final outcome of the 2020 US election. I'm legitimately concerned about small scale voter fraud, but nothing significant enough to invalidate the final result.
> Videos that purport otherwise are not improving public discourse; in fact, they're causing it to disintegrate.
I agree. But far be it from me to determine what constitutes "quality public discourse". I have a history of being wrong about a great many things so I'd rather not have myself - or any individual or organization - arbitrate on what the public is allowed to discuss.
> I agree that Youtube should not have carte blanche to remove content that it finds objectionable per its own capricious standards. But that doesn't mean it should have no discretion at all.
Maybe I'd be less critical of Goolge if they actually had some sort of guidelines for objectively determining what content should be allowed on their platforms. This inconsistent "whatever we think is best" policy strategy is way too susceptible to abuse and Google hasn't proven themselves trustworthy.