Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2020/12/09/youtube-will-remove-videos-that-allege-biden-won-through-fraud.html
…
2 Likes
So they could have done this at any time…but decide to allow a month to pass before taking ant action.
16 Likes
1/ Our goal this election
[After Ad: YouTubeInsider]
was to connect people
[After Ad: YouTubeInsider]
Could we just have buffering back? 
7 Likes
This is really important. It’s normally for members-only, but I’m copying the full text here (use the “Full Text” button below to expand):
You Were Right to Worry SCOTUS Would Steal it For Trump
December 9, 2020 11:22 a.m.
A growing number of opinioners and editorialists are now arguing that those who warned that the corrupt Supreme Court majority was ready to steal the election on behalf of Donald Trump were simply wrong. As evidence they point to the federal judiciary’s general refusal to entertain basically any of the Trump legal team’s increasingly outlandish court challenges and examples like yesterday when the Supreme Court rejected without dissent or comment a challenge to the results of the election in Pennsylvania. But this opinion is wrong.
Full Text
Federal judges and the Supreme Court showed prior to the election that they were ready and eager to get President Trump over the finish line. At least four Justices (prior to Barrett being confirmed, now likely five) showed they were willing to concoct new legal theories and even routinely overrule state courts in their interpretation of their own laws to promote restrictive voting measures and specifically to assist Donald Trump and Republican candidates. One particular theory has it that state legislatures, unbound by state law or state constitutions, have total, unrestricted and exclusive authority to run elections and choose presidential electors.
The simple truth is that Donald Trump didn’t do his part. It wasn’t close. Trump lost Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Three of those states were quite close – near or under 20,000 votes. But none were close enough to be susceptible to the kind of aggressive disqualification of votes that might have saved Trump. None came into the window of available legal theories or already litigated disputes. One key example was votes post-dated on or before election day but received after election day. There was another question about ballots that simply didn’t receive any post-date at all. What happens to those ballots? But none of these six states ended up relying on ballots which federal courts or the Supreme Court had signaled in advance they might disqualify.
The ground had been plowed in advance of the election for multiple paths for the courts to take to hand the election to President Trump.
The simple reality is that it wasn’t close enough – precisely why many of those raising warnings said how critical it was that the result not be close. It wasn’t close and there were just too many states. Even non-corrupt judges are sensitive to public opinion and the context outside the four walls of the legal questions they are called to review. No judge wants to go out on a limb or betray their oath for Pennsylvania when there’s still Arizona and Georgia, or Michigan and Wisconsin or whatever other mix of states that will make Joe Biden the next President anyway.
Another sign of this came from the President’s campaigns own lawyers. Trump didn’t start out with Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis. His campaign had lined up a small army of lawyers from prestigious white shoe law firms. They were willing and eager to do the work. Indeed, they’d set the table for the litigation in advance of the elections. But within days of Trump’s defeat they all withdrew from the litigation. Part of this was concern for reputational damage to the law firms in question. But the main reason was that the close decision they were preparing for didn’t materialize. The result wasn’t close in the popular vote or the electoral college. Setting aside fraud, the kind of chaos, confusion and irregularities that were possible because of the pandemic weren’t there either. The lawyers bailed out for the same reason the judges did: it just wasn’t close.
It was and is simply too heavy a lift. The credit goes to Joe Biden’s 80 million-plus voters who made sure of that. The federal judiciary and the corrupt high court majority are a present and continuing threat to voting rights and free and fair election now and into the future. It’s foolish to deny or forget that just because Donald Trump couldn’t live up to his end of the bargain – to get it close enough for the Supreme Court to do the rest.
Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) is editor and publisher of TPM.
Tired of sending money to the NYT for Dapper Nazi puff profiles? Take a look at Talking Points Memo.
Google is doing this because the coup has failed, but not a moment before it was certain that it had failed.
There will be another coup. Will it fail?
10 Likes
Have they taken down videos claiming Obama’s birth certificate is fake?
Because it’s the same thing: interpreting tea leaves to “prove” the president you don’t like doesn’t deserve to be president. Then you are justified in any measure necessary to oppose him and thwart his actions, even if it means more people suffer and no legislation gets passed.
11 Likes
The MAGA crowd: Quick! Everyone to ParlerTube! We can be free there!!
13 Likes
Well, yes and no. It’s the same instinct - to delegitimize the president, but they at least acknowledged that people voted for Obama. Now they’re trying to delegitimize our democracy as well.
8 Likes
I don’t know if it matters.
The sane people who weren’t effected by this drivel aren’t hurt either way if this content stays or is removed.
The people who are already committed or susceptible are already influenced by it. Removing it now just confirms the conspiracy that big tech is against Trump. Removing it Nov 4th would just confirm the conspiracy that big tech is against Trump.
How will “big tech” subvert these wackadoodle theories in the future? What safe guards will be in place to make sure such measures aren’t abused. Sure, right now most sane people are ok with this. What about, say, discussion for a future media bill which if passed would negatively effect youtube, and thus they want to curb its support?
1 Like
I think it’s pronounce “Library”
1 Like
I’m wondering if this timing is not coincidental:
Although:
“We will still rigorously enforce our ads policies, which strictly prohibit demonstrably false information that could significantly undermine trust in elections or the democratic process, among other forms of abuse,” Google said in a statement today.
…I still wonder if it’s also a drive to monetize. “Can’t put your crazy on youtube any more? Buy a google ad!”
2 Likes
I would love to know at what rate the election denialists buy stuff from ad-click throughs relative to other demographics.
I would think more, but I could be completely wrong.
1 Like
Please, block Epoch Times. They are literally the propaganda arm of an actual goddamn cult.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
