Incoming drama from all over the place because Youtube updated their policies saying you cant criticize American Elections (but other countries are ok)
1 2020-12-09 by Corporal-Hicks
im seeing it pop up in a bunch of subs at the moment. Heres the juicy changes
Don’t post content on YouTube if it fits any of the descriptions noted below.
Presidential Election Integrity: Content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of any past U.S. presidential election (Note: this applies to elections in the United States only). For the U.S. 2020 presidential election, this applies to content uploaded on or after December 9, 2020.
Candidate Eligibility: Content that advances false claims related to the technical eligibility requirements for current political candidates and sitting elected government officials to serve in office. Eligibility requirements considered are based on applicable national law, and include age, citizenship, or vital status.
121 comments
8 Llamayoda 2020-12-09
Little crazy that YT would ban that stuff while we’ve got a case for it on the Supreme Court docket. Why not just let normies talk about it? This will just push people to more radical measures.
2 Corporal-Hicks 2020-12-09
tbf the texas case isnt arguing fraud occurred
2 The_Dramanomicon 2020-12-09
So wait, can you talk about it on YouTube then? There's that chilling effect
7 Eternal_Mr_Bones 2020-12-09
What the fuck is YT thinking?
This is going to make every person who thinks the election was BS increase that 10x.
9 high_side 2020-12-09
... that it doesn't matter. Rightoid loonies think tech is the (((enemy))) so why would they care if these people become more confident in their delusions?
4 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
There's a lingering hope that it's single digit percent of terminally online rightoids same as leftoids per that research. But with an official YT policy that it will no longer host what appears to be video proof of election fraud because it "advances false claims" the picture is going to change as far for the worse as possible, and then some.
4 high_side 2020-12-09
Some illiterate mayo screeching about ballots being found in rivers isn't video proof.
DDF seeded a half dozen irregularity stories and every new whistleblower has in part or in whole used those stories to validate their thirdhand account of "widespread fraud". It's really pathetic.
5 jubbergun 2020-12-09
You are correct, but video evidence of poll workers pulling out hidden ballots and running them after sending observers home might be, and it's no surprise that YouTube is doing this after that video dropped last week. Before that visits about fraud could be laughed off as righty DDF COPE, but once something shady actually showed up it becomes dangerous to the party's agenda and must be squelched.
1 high_side 2020-12-09
There's video evidence of hidden ballots being tabulated?
2 ironicshitpostr 2020-12-09
Something fucky happened in Georgia yes with a burst water pipe and a briefcase of ballots
Go look it up on Youtube
Ooops
1 high_side 2020-12-09
Was there video evidence or some 2Acel screaming into a camera? Was it removed?
2 ironicshitpostr 2020-12-09
Actual video whether it was evidence of fuckery or innocent is up to you it's not like it actually matters
1 high_side 2020-12-09
While I understand video can be ambiguous, facts aren't a matter of opinion. This timeline is merging back to main.
1 ironicshitpostr 2020-12-09
that's what your opinion is sure
1 jubbergun 2020-12-09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVP_60Hm4P8&feature=emb_title
1 high_side 2020-12-09
What was the response from GA elections?
1 jubbergun 2020-12-09
They allege that the ballots that were hidden from view were perfectly legitimate, and attempted to convince everyone that there was nothing suspicious about poll workers scanning ballots with no observers (which violates their state law) in the middle of the night. They also tried to convince everyone that no one told the observers to go home, but ABC News had already reported that night that Fulton county had sent everyone home at 10:30, so it wasn't really believable.
1 high_side 2020-12-09
I mean, what's more believable, a miscommunication or people smuggling 300 lb of ballots into a secure area?
1 jubbergun 2020-12-09
There wasn't any "miscommunication," they sent everyone home and said they were stopping for the night. If the 300 lbs. of ballots were legit why hide them underneath a tablecloth? Why weren't they moved out with the rest of the ballots when counting started after the polls closed?
1 high_side 2020-12-09
I mean, if you're going to cheat an election, why not Epstein the cameras?
I'm glad you're confident that OAN's take is accurate. Seems like the kind of thing that could be cleared up one way or the other. It's not like these people have secret identities. Have they been subpoenaed?
It's dumb to make conclusions when a small amount of diligence is so easy.
3 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
So do you think that the policy will in fact only apply to false claims like those and won't apply to true claims?
2 high_side 2020-12-09
Claims or evidence?
4 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
Do you read "Content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of any past U.S. presidential election" as excluding evidence somehow?
2 high_side 2020-12-09
Evidence is by definition not false. Your own words describe "video proof", which would make the content not a false claim.
5 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
Evidence of voter fraud advances false claims that voter fraud happened. This is not allowed.
Of do you read the "false claims" not as claiming that all claims are false, but as promising not to censor true claims and good supporting evidence, LMAO? Maybe you have managed to read between the lines a couple of paragraphs describing a special internal commission that decides which evidence is admissible and whether claims have merit too?
2 high_side 2020-12-09
That is the most literal read after all. Could be (((weasel words))), but that'd do them more harm than good, it's not like liveleak and buttchute don't exist. I guess you know their intentions better than anyone.
3 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
Listen, I can present a sympathetic steelman of their position, understanding what they are trying to do and why. I'd start with assuaging the rightoids by appealing to Law and Order and say that important questions should be settled in courts, all the way up to the SCOTUS that currently properly respects the Constitution, and not based on what twitter mobs might do to youtube likes.
Furthermore, Youtube is not just a content hoster but also has the advising algorithm and while we can continue to host whatever videos we exclude these particular categories from being advised because they are too easily hijacked by motivated mobs. We provide hosting for everyone but we let the actual courts instead of courts of twitter opinion to do the justice.
What they did is the exact fucking opposite! There's no provision for some sort of a body deciding that some evidence or some claim is not false. Take YT at their words, entirely literally. Because it will be enforced entirely literally! So they just went and declared themselves to be the final arbiter of truth with regards to any possible future evidence: if it supports the false claims that the election was stolen, then it goes. It will be gone. Yeah maybe you'll be able to see it on liveleak, but Youtube just committed to censoring any evidence of vote fraud in the US. Literally.
This is fucking insane, I don't get why you don't freak out.
1 high_side 2020-12-09
This is that r-slurred millennial definition of 'literally'. It's funny how confident you are in understanding their motivations. I guess we'll have to wait for liveleak to host a 'smocking gun' election fraud vid and we'll see what youtube does.
3 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
No, it's literally literally.
Evidence of voter fraud advances false claims that voter fraud happened. This is not allowed.
You're doing the trumpoid thing "it's not what they said, it's what they meant" but you're too ashamed to state what you think they meant by that. Tfu, tfu.
1 high_side 2020-12-09
Evidence of voter fraud validates claims of voter fraud so it's permitted. Simple stuff.
2 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
This is how it would work if youtube were sane and unbiased. It is not.
Which word or letter in "Content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of any past U.S. presidential election" makes you think that good evidence of voter fraud will be permitted?
Like, how do you imagine it to work, procedurally? Ten users report a video of people stuffing ballots or whatever according to this new rule, an overworked Indian jannie reviews the reports and then what? He remembers the invisible paragraph he read between the lines of the rules and elevates the issue to his superior and so on?
1 high_side 2020-12-09
You know youtube isn't a person, right?
The "content that advances false claims" part. The falsehood of the claim is determined by the existence/lack evidence. In the case of Rudy's star witnesses, they don't even claim to have evidence, so it's hard to suppress that.
Considering we're a month past the election, any evidence of widespread voter fraud would immediately become newsworthy and not be left to a pajeet jannie. Worst case, he takes it down and every other media source shows it. Oh, right, the (((globalists))) control everything - although they're pro-Trump, so that's weird. Anyway, OANN will show it and everyone else will be scooped.
1 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
The evidence can't make sounds. The evidence can't determine anything, in a declaring that this is so and so way. There must be a person who interprets the evidence somehow. And there's no mechanism implied by the new Youtube policy that can possibly determine that any video that provides evidence for the voter fraud is legit. None. They have publicly committed to erasing all voter fraud evidence on their service.
Maybe we can see the evidence on liveleak, maybe after it is accepted by the courts YT would allow it, but as far as it stands now YT is leading the way with a straight up ban on evidence.
2 high_side 2020-12-09
What about a video of George Soros walking into a polling place and burning ballot boxes?
2 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
Deleted by Youtube. Next?
2 high_side 2020-12-09
Is that an example of evidence that "makes sounds"?
2 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
It's a hypothetical example of evidence that would be deleted because the policy as stated "makes deleting sounds" when implemented by people.
Dude, what's your point?
2 high_side 2020-12-09
Well no shit. The evidence doesn't exist, so all we have are hypotheticals. To summarize:
You: this policy prevents evidence from being posted
Me: no, it prevents rants from being posted, actual evidence would not be removed, per this policy
You: evidence must have a rant attached, there's no such thing as self-evident video evidence
Me: *provides one such example
You: nooooo! Reeeeeee! It doesn't matter youtube would take it down and would ignore their own policy if they have to!
Me: *wonders why we're discussing this policy if they'd ignore it anyway
1 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
How does removing a video of George Soros walking into a polling place and burning ballot boxes violate Youtube policy? The policy is very clear about that, this is content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches changed the outcome of any past U.S. presidential election, and as such shall be removed.
Nowhere in the policy there's an allowance for the possibility that the claims aren't false. Nowhere it hints at any sort of a procedure that can admit any evidence that proves that claims are true. It's very straightforward: the claims are false, therefore any evidence that supports them is not allowed. An Indian jannie can understand this.
What you're doing here is introducing an extra unspoken axiom, that Youtube is good guys and so they wouldn't do anything obviously evil like that, so the contradiction of that with the clear letter of the rule means that we misunderstand the rule. But "one man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens", so I look at this bastard child of "1984" and "Catch 22" that establishes truth by decree and makes it impossible to challenge it by outlawing any evidence to the contrary, and conclude that Youtube is not good guys at all.
To make an analogy that you might find more relatable, consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity that makes cops immune to lawsuits unless they violate someone's rights in exactly the same way as some earlier cop was convicted of. You in this analogy are a very naive person who says that surely this must not be what the law means, because otherwise it would get the cop off the hook every single time, so no way the judge would apply it in a case where the cop is clearly in the wrong. Yep, that's exactly what they do and what it does lol.
1 high_side 2020-12-09
It's funny that you're seizing the ambiguity of "false claims" to insist they're condemning all hypothetical claims of election fraud. In reality they're just describing the types of claims they'll remove. It won't change your mind, because Youtube is an evil, jew-controlled organization bent on destroying Daddy.
It doesn't matter, they have discretion over content and don't have to follow their own rules. If they're evil, this announcement is moot. Luckily you have Tucker Carlson and bitchute.
I really didn't.
1 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
For that to work, when discussing the policy changes
someone should've asked, but guys, what if Biden actually stole the election?
and most people in the room should've been like, oh, that's a very good question, in such a case our civil duty is to make sure that American people know the truth.
and then they went and make a secret amendment to the rules that explained to the Indian jannies how to notice if some evidence of election fraud might be legit and to escalate the issue in that case.
and then established a provisional committee that would consider such cases and decide if the content in question deserves to stay.
Nothing of that happened and could've possibly happened. Therefore in the unlikely scenario where there is a smoking gun, it would be removed from Youtube and all discussion of it will be kept banned until there's an actual court judgment legitimizing it. And that the best, optimistic scenario.
Bslur please, I'm a radical centrist. I already explained that I'm actually sympathetic towards the steelman of what YT might be trying to do: in their shoes I too would ban (or better delist) election conspiracy videos, based on the fact that people are dumb and truth should not be determined by likes on YT videos. And crucially YT should not be an arbiter of what is plausible evidence so it must be a blanket ban, sorry.
What I'm pointing out is that they decided on the worst possible optics. The optics are transcendentally bad, they are bad on the meta-level of not giving a fuck about them being bad and all meta-meta-levels above it. It's as if the point was to slap trumpoids in the face: yes, we have decided that Orange Man lost, all your objections will be banned, we are glad that the unfairness of it upsets you so.
Well then the same people would cry about the plebs losing all trust in, like, everything and how we live in the post-truth world and what could've caused it and who could've predicted it. I could, I'm predicting it.
1 high_side 2020-12-09
Based on your parsing of the policy and your fanscript about how the decision came about 😂 Take this assumption away and you're left with nothing.
1 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
Why should I take this assumption away?
4 GeauxHouston22 2020-12-09
I'm no 'toid but idk if I disagree on that one mi amigo
5 UpvoteIfYouDare 2020-12-09
Tech is as much "the enemy" as religion is. In other words, it has little to do with the tech itself and everything to do with the Bay Area assholes. By the way, "tech" encompasses so much more than Silicon Valley.
2 high_side 2020-12-09
Business is inherently good. Please read more Ayn Rand and Sam Harris sweaty.
1 shitpersonality 2020-12-09
They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can't make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.
4 ironicshitpostr 2020-12-09
Preach it Uncle Ted
6 Corporal-Hicks 2020-12-09
You know, theyll say this is going to fuck over the righties. but the lefties have been saying for years bernie got cheated, twice, in the primaries. All that shit cant be posted now too.
10 TaysSecondGussy 2020-12-09
And whatever happened in Iowa with Bussy Judge. I wasn’t paying attention at the time but it prob qualifies for this if anyone still cares.
1 MoreSpikes 2020-12-09
I mean, it let me know that my team is still the Generals of the two. But then again that would imply team R is the Globetrotters, and that ain't it...
1 grungebot5000 2020-12-09
Well, it wasn't an election, and people were satisfied with the final vote count anyway
-1 employee10038080 2020-12-09
Accusations of booty judge cheating are about as credible as Biden cheating
2 TaysSecondGussy 2020-12-09
I mean I didn’t follow any of it.
Stupidpol would prob tell me to say “Cope”, I’m guessing, if my interpretation of theory is correct.
1 grungebot5000 2020-12-09
i mean he didn't personally cheat, a campaign rep cheated a coin toss but that's it lol, he still got fewer votes
7 watermark1917 2020-12-09
The Iowa results were totally legit guys, just all of the sudden it was impossible to produce the Iowa results in a way that magically left Bernie slightly behind in state level delegates for that media cycle.
5 preserved_fish 2020-12-09
Bernie was the r-slur who insisted on keeping it a caucus instead of turning it into a real primary. He has only himself to blame.
4 UpvoteIfYouDare 2020-12-09
Bernie was never going to win the Democratic nomination, regardless of what the DNC did.
3 The_Dramanomicon 2020-12-09
My favorite is "if the moderates hadn't dropped out Bernie would have won" like the moderates are obligated to stay in the race so their opponent can win
3 JeanPeuplu 2020-12-09
Cоре
0 employee10038080 2020-12-09
Stay mad
2 SandorClegane_AMA 2020-12-09
The primaries/superdelegates etc. don't fall under these new rules.
#RONPAUL2024
1 tHeSiD 2020-12-09
Oh they will definitely allow bernard cope because it's not a conspiracy
1 RedPillDessert 2020-12-09
But what incentive do Google have to remove evidence of fraud? Surely they'll be impartial when it comes to what sort of evidence they'll censor and what info stays.
Big nothing burger.
1 grungebot5000 2020-12-09
Depends how they say it
Some of them think actual votes were changed/thrown out, if primaries count as "American elections" to YT then yeah that's banned
But most of them just say he was blacked out when in mattered in 2016, and that there were coordinated efforts to specifically stop him by major media orgs and groups of other candidates in 2020
edit: well, coordinated among the candidates, but probably mostly uncoordinated in the media
-1 kermit_was_wrong 2020-12-09
Good.
2 aqouta 2020-12-09
This will drive traffic to youtube either way.
2 -M-o-X- 2020-12-09
Perhaps people should stop using YouTube
1 THE_LANDLORD_MESSIAH 2020-12-09
It’s not YouTube’s job to cater to the mentally ill
1 Leylinus 2020-12-09
Are they out if touch morons, or Chad Balkanization Instigators?
I'm actually leaning towards the former, but I was thrilled to hear about this escalation.
7 LedinToke 2020-12-09
This is such a horrendous idea lmao, this shit's gonna backfire super hard
4 high_side 2020-12-09
Surely this will be the end of google!
1 LedinToke 2020-12-09
in my dreams
1 Giga-Kant 2020-12-09
Lmao it's gonna be well beyond youtube reminder you were still warm in the balls of your daddy and didn't care much
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
6 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
What about content that advances true claims? 😉😏
Or is Youtube a higher authority than the courts now, having preemptively decided that all such claims past present and future are false?
And then the same people will make the pickachu face: why so much distrust in mainstream media, expert opinion, fact checking and all that shit?
17 trexmundi 2020-12-09
Unironically and with absolute sincerity, yes.
13 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
This cyberpunk future is very lame.
9 trexmundi 2020-12-09
Just wait until Google, Amazon and Microsoft realize that they now own 'off' switches for governments.
6 UpvoteIfYouDare 2020-12-09
When that happens, they will quickly realize that bullets, on the other hand, have no off switch.
2 Detective_Fallacy 2020-12-09
I don't know how that will help them as long as the government owns an off-switch for Jeff Bezos.
2 -Kite-Man- 2020-12-09
do they?
1 Leylinus 2020-12-09
Everyone owns an off switch for everyone, it's just a matter of whether you're willing to pay the price of using it.
For a government, the price is much lower.
In Hobbes, the ability of men to kill one another is the basis of equality.
4 watermark1917 2020-12-09
The courts don't have any authority at all on this specific issue, so yes actually.
1 -Kite-Man- 2020-12-09
I wish i understood pikachu face sometimes
1 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/surprised-pikachu ? Or do you mean why they do that?
1 -Kite-Man- 2020-12-09
both?
2 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
I'm becoming very cynical about politics. It's, like, suppose you're a hunter-gatherer, why do you believe in true things? It's because your ancestors who didn't believe in true things about where antelopes were died without reproducing.
But if you're in a large tribe your chances of reproducing depend on entirely different things like supporting the opinion of the person who wins and then gets to split the spoils, and also of the father of the uncle who you want to borrow a fishing net from, and importantly this algorithm runs in a way hidden from the consciousness so that you can make a heartfelt plea to go hunting downriver wholly believing that you believe it because of facts, not because of social consequences. And also that everyone who is against you is an evil person.
You triggered me to spergout with five characters.
5 TheColdTurtle 2020-12-09
America wins again mother fuckers
4 high_side 2020-12-09
Lot of praise for a leftoid writer. Actually the post on the rightoid sub is basically all "1984 this, Orwell that". Poor kids think their telescreens can only be set to youtube.
5 Corporal-Hicks 2020-12-09
Orwell is such a great drama starter because righties who quote him dont know he wrote "homage to Catalina" documenting his time fighting with the communists and lefties hate that he wrote "road to wigan pier" which is quite possibly the most scathing rebute of buorgeoise socialists.
2 high_side 2020-12-09
I do like that the rightoids in this story are ignorant and the leftoids are educated but mad.
It doesn't stop there though. Porkcels are on suicide watch because he wrote Animal Farm, which demonized bipedal pigs. And traditional marriagoids are mad af because he wrote You and the Atomic Bomb, which addressed human-nuclear ordnance relationships.
3 Corporal-Hicks 2020-12-09
dont forget that natzeecels are super mad that he wrote a favorable review of mein Kampf
3 high_side 2020-12-09
Did he? What was it?
8 Corporal-Hicks 2020-12-09
oh you sweet summer child
8 MinerHornet 2020-12-09
I disagree that it is necessarily positive. In fact he calls it clumsy. I think he is more making a commentary on Hitler's ability to use his sheer power of persona to bring about his goals and how he feels that is a trait worthy of acknowledgement rather than the actual content of Mein Kampf. From what I've read of Orwell he was not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater so this passage makes sense if viewed from that perspective. Hitler was, of course, a master of imagery and pagentry. I don't think any serious student of that time period would disagree with that.
4 Corporal-Hicks 2020-12-09
Thats a yikesarino from me, y'all
4 MinerHornet 2020-12-09
I'm struggling to see your point other than a lame attempt at reverse trolling.
4 Corporal-Hicks 2020-12-09
You would struggle
2 Tobyghisa 2020-12-09
Hicks this is a blue checkmark with pronouns in their bio level retort.
1 Corporal-Hicks 2020-12-09
U
2 high_side 2020-12-09
I hope this is used ironically. It's a very srdiney line. Otherwise, pardon me for not reading Orwell's entire catalogue.
Was there more context? That passage is basically, "David Koresh is extremely charismatic." It's not meant to sanction his beliefs, it's an examination of his attractiveness. Orwell was shot in the neck by fascists.
1 Corporal-Hicks 2020-12-09
That was just one paragraph of the review, he expands on how hitler's policies made sense at the time as well. Simple Google search brings it up.
1 high_side 2020-12-09
I might check it out. Not expecting anything along the lines of what you imply based on the except you chose.
1 aqouta 2020-12-09
Man, Orwell really can paint an image.
2 UpvoteIfYouDare 2020-12-09
"Educated" in the same way that a NEET who curates TVTropes has an encyclopedic knowledge of anime.
2 high_side 2020-12-09
Lawlz on suicide watch.
2 zergling_Lester 2020-12-09
Oh, it turns out that you are a man of culture after all! Surely fooled me Hicks =)
Anyways, have you read the review of "1984" by Isaac Asimov? It's quite blackpilly:
5 Corporal-Hicks 2020-12-09
Bruh
5 TaysSecondGussy 2020-12-09
Or perhaps he was wondering why you would shoot an elephant, after he has already calmed down.
3 pepperouchau 2020-12-09
Orwell's politics have the slightest bit of nuance and are thus inscrutable to them. You're either an American patriot or a Stalinist degenerate, didn't you know?
10 trexmundi 2020-12-09
What kind of world would this be if people formed their political beliefs on the basis of their experiences, sought out contradictory information and deeply examined their closely held beliefs?
A world without sufficient drama. That's what it would be.
1 UpvoteIfYouDare 2020-12-09
The loss of drama would be a small price to pay for the demise of Twitter.
3 aqouta 2020-12-09
I wish Orwell was more obscure. So much shit happening today is basically people doing exactly what the bad guys were doing in 1984 but the reference is such a cliche that it's brushed off.
4 lickedTators 2020-12-09
YT just wants people to the shut the fuck up and get back to making makeup tutorials or post dogs doing things
3 Pepperglue 2020-12-09
4 years too late.
3 JanetYellensFuckboy 2020-12-09
You mean exclusively from rightoids?
3 UnexpectedLizard 2020-12-09
🚨This is not a drill.🚨
Massive rightoid cope in this thread. 😂
2 ironicshitpostr 2020-12-09
Could it possibly be any other way
2 SandorClegane_AMA 2020-12-09
Do we know who won?
BTW this means YT has certified G W Bush 2000 win despite the 'Brooks Brothers Riot.'
2 ExtremelyOnlineG 2020-12-09
this post is just rightoid cope
google is simply putting out a statement announcing that they aren't going to host trumpoid propaganda for free
1 aqouta 2020-12-09
Burn it all the fuck down.