More Senators (from both parties) should be joining the named ones about cracking down on misinformation.
More Senators (from both parties) should be joining the named ones about cracking down on misinformation.
I don't see the equivalence. One of those has the potential of causing very immediate panic and potential injury or death as people rush to escape a non-existant fire. The other leads to people thinking dumb things about politics.
>For example, they typically refer to things like mail-in voting as "fraud" to begin with.
Ok, so wouldn't it be the people who seek out and watch these kinds videos that would be the ones that would be too afraid to use mail in ballots? Seems like the people who think those videos are nonsense won't believe them anyway.
>All of this has a chilling effect on democracy and people exercising their lawful right to vote by post
How? From what I understand, there was a record number of mail in ballots this year, seems like it did nothing of the sort.
>More Senators (from both parties) should be joining the named ones about cracking down on misinformation.
No, the government should not be allowed to decide what is or isn't real information, that's called propaganda.
Not to take too strong a stance until I understand your position better, but record number of mail-in ballots doesn't imply there wasn't significant voter suppression.
the implicit justification for censoring this idea is that it delegitimizes the democratic process; it is ridiculous on its face to assert that overt censorship is any less delegitimizing. this is an expression of ideological power upon an opponent.
I would assert that, collectively, we have a vested interest in determining what's knowable about the material world. We have a tradition of allowing particularly well suited people to spend the majority of their waking lives in the detailed study of difficult to understand phenomena.
We have experts, in other words.
We have a political process that encourages the cultivation of experts and even has rules allowing for personal consequences for when experts and politicians breach ethical standards.
Is it here where we disagree? Should there, indeed, be no ethical standards to which we hold out experts?
Asking honestly, bc I don't follow your argument. Maybe I'm completely off base.
We all have brains capable of thinking. The idea is to examine objective facts as best one can, this means yes overcoming personal bias, which can be difficult and assessing things from a variety of sources.
Personally, I find, if you can't find an objective source, about the best thing you can do is listen to the extreme voices and assume truth likely lies somewhere between them, whatever that truth may be.
>I would assert that, collectively, we have a vested interest in determining what's knowable about the material world. We have a tradition of allowing particularly well suited people to spend the majority of their waking lives in the detailed study of difficult to understand phenomena.
We have a vested interest in figuring out what is untrue in the world, it's the only thing we as a species are truly capable of doing and what the scientific method is based on. Silencing dissenting opinions has never worked well at that, compounding observation and evidence does.
>We have experts, in other words.
No, we have people who have spent a lot of time doing one thing, those people are often times extremely knowledgable and correct many times, but they're still human with the same fallibilities and humanness as the rest of us.
>We have a political process that encourages the cultivation of experts and even has rules allowing for personal consequences for when experts and politicians breach ethical standards.
That comes down to the same thing that plagues a lot of science reporting and other things and is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority.
A 'so called expert' is never correct over logic and facts. This may come down to an education, knowledge issue, I dunno.
>Is it here where we disagree? Should there, indeed, be no ethical standards to which we hold out experts?
>Asking honestly, bc I don't follow your argument. Maybe I'm completely off base.
Yes, but, a person posting videos on youtube isn't a expert just because they post things on youtube.
It's fairly easy to post a video on youtube. The issue of people assuming every video posted on youtube or every word someone says on the internet, is the word of an expert is something that again I think comes down to a lack of proper education on such things as psychology, marketing, written communications other things at maybe a younger age.
We live in a world where it's possible for anyone to say anything publicly. Censorship is not the solution to the problems that arise from that.
Every person has a brain, everyone's capable of being taught critical thinking. The world seems to push subservience, acquiescencing blindly to the authority of experts and assuming the average person has the intelligence of a child instead.
Thinking dumb things about politics is how you end up bringing your AR-15 to investigate a pizza parlor... or trying to kidnap the governor.
I don't understand your argument here. An astonishgly miniscule percent of the population commit crimes as a result of news stories.
Based on your argument, we also shouldn't report on police abuse because people may riot and burn down stores?
There is no "we".
The platform is YouTube. It is their prerogative (and indeed their right to freedom of speech) to host content as they see fit. The Senators are merely asking them to exercise their freedom to a very reasonable extent.
I don't think censorship is necessarily the right approach to mitigate this torrent of bullshit, but it's clearly out of control.
>Based on your argument
I was pointing out how "believing dumb things about politics" is a deliberate minimization of the effect of disinformation.
>An astonishgly miniscule percent of the population commit crimes as a result of news stories.
But an astonishingly large number of people are afraid of vaccines/black people/corona jihad/the deep state pedophile ring because they read something that isn't true. Can you think of any effects this might have had recently? Any you think of anything bad going on that isn't strictly a crime?
For those unfamiliar, telephone is a game in the US (maybe western countries) where 12 or so children sit in a circle and one whispers a phrase to another around the circle, something like “there’s a banana in the cabinet.” Then everyone has a big laugh at how ridiculous the story began and then ended up after going around the circle.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/facebook-resists-handin...
So in that vein, should incitements for violence against the opposing party be unfettered free speech? At what point does it go too far?
Wide scale misinformation about election fraud could result in a mini civil war. I don't see how you could be so sanguine about that.
At this point continuing to assert wide scale fraud escalates beyond "reasonable" and up to the level of "recklessness" that brings it into parity with "yelling fire".
I press a button on a screen when I vote. I don’t know what the hell it is actually doing and it’s shocking to me the mainstream consensus is we can’t even talk about now horrifically broken American voting is compared to sane countries like France.
You might want to look at what's going on in France right now before calling our democratic institutions sane :)
Only the swing states that Trump lost are being accused of fraud, but only in the presidential election. This is extremely disingenuous and lacks all credibility.
Now the GOP seems to be arguing in court that there wasn't even fraud, but they just don't like the outcome and want to reverse the will of the voters in swing states based on weird technicalities.
This entire thing is nonsense, and youtube should censor it because it is entirely just a scheme to subvert our democracy. That is extremely dangerous, more dangerous than yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Interesting, do you have a source for this?
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/944230517/supreme-court-rejec...
If our democratic systems were transparent, verifiable, and understandable, it wouldn't be possible to 'subvert' our democracy in this way. The fact is that our democracy has already been 'subverted' whether or not any fraud occurred (and surely some did, just as it does in every election in American history; the only question is the scale - was it late 1800s scale or late 1900s scale - most people on HN would agree it was probably late 1900s scale, that is, minimal.) But the system is set up in such a way that we cannot actually prove anything. We just have to accept what we're told, because democracy.
The election systems in each state have their own problems. In Georgia the problems are with the tabulation, with absentee ballots, with chain of custody. I am not saying fraud did occur. I am saying that because of the problems I just mentioned, it is impossible to prove if fraud occurred or not. And things should not be that way.
At any rate, all you mean by 'subverting democracy' is 'decreasing faith in our institutions.' And I honestly don't know how anyone can look at the past few years and trust any of our institutions.
Right. The faith is already gone, which is why allegations of election fraud immediately gained a large following. The cat is out of the bag, and nothing will be accomplished by censoring these videos except setting a bad precedent.
When NO fact finding court will back up any of your claims then how do you know there are "problems" with the ballots in Georgia? Your only source is partisans and the manipulated media they are releasing.
Just because trump has been working to blanket the airwaves with lies and half truths to sew doubt doesn't mean there is anything there. If there was they would be taking it to court and not losing 50+ cases.
There is no way to justify trying to overturn the vote based on technicalities while filling the airwaves with lies about fraud and that the election was stolen. If there is fraud they can prove it. If they can't prove it then they don't get to find loopholes to steal the election.
Can you actually not tell that trump is using marketing and con artist style manipulation to trick you into believing the election was stolen? There is no substance to these accusations.
To put it another way, regardless of the ruling I still doubt a person who walks into a the same theater every day repeatedly screaming "fire" and pulling the fire alarm with malicious intent to hurt the profits of the theater would have a 1st amendment case get very far against the theater when the theater decides to throw that person out.
Holmes' used the metaphor to equate criticism of the government during wartime to being so dangerous for society, specifically speaking against the draft during WWI, that it was akin to yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
Clearly, criticism of the government, especially regarding matters of war and public safety, are protected by the first amendment. Not only was the metaphor used to justify an unconstitutional ruling, but it also furthered gross misperceptions regarding limits on protected speech that are still referenced today.
If anything, the metaphor seems to have persisted because it's applicable in so many other scenarios, not because of that one case that rarely seems to get brought up in casual discussion.
Lies, falsehoods, misinformation and irrational statements are all protected by the first amendment. As is uttering insane and unintelligible thoughts in public.
If speech is used to further a crime or directly causes civil harm that result in damages (ex. assault or nuisance), there are existing applicable criminal and civil laws to either punish or provide a remedy.
If for example, the police were to execute a lawful warrant to search your property, it would not nullify or burden your fourth amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Similarly, civil remedies (i.e. tort law) allowing for compensation for damages due to negligence - say from getting trampled in a crowd that was spooked by someone yelling "fire" or "shooter" - would not place limitations on your protected right of freedom to assemble.
The biggest problem with the campaign to justify censorship or moderation of misinformation/disinformation under the guise that it causes harm, is that it removes the measurable injury element of tort law and replaces it with vague and abstract notions of either mass ethereal or psychic harm (which the Supreme Court has expressing found against).
Not "fraud." Illegal votes. In fact, there is a case brought to the Supreme Court by Texas and 17 other states (36% of the United States) alleging this exact thing: that many mail-in votes were illegal, due to unconstitutional rule changes which allowed them to take place[1]. That's not ok to talk about on YouTube?
[1]If you don't know what I'm talking about, just say so and I'll point you to a non-partisan, levelheaded explanation of the argument.
(Note that rejecting for procedural deficiencies doesn't mean that the court approves of the merits of the case, it just means that the court also doesn't want to decide the merits. Although if you piss it off hard enough, they will also go own to berate you on why your claims lack merit in addition to enumerating procedural deficiencies).
(You'll note that the examples I cite are not states that Texas is suing, and that should give you some indication of the likelihood of success.)
[Side note: that's one of the arguments. The actual brief is kind of a legally incoherent mess, so it kind of hops around from argument to argument a bit; the other main argument, which most of the amici seem to want to focus on, is that PA's Supreme Court improperly adjudicated PA law's propriety under the PA Constitution, and therefore Texas has right to settle that dispute in front of SCOTUS, despite SCOTUS dismissing an appeal alleging exactly that just yesterday.]
2) You should also explain more clearly why you think it could be rational to discount the decisions of state courts which rule on the laws passed by the state legislature on the basis that they aren't the state legislature... That is like saying the Supreme Court shouldn't have a say over how Federal laws are applied. It's their entire job.
And all this is ignoring the idea that the legal system ought to represent the democratic will of the people and the institutional processes they put in place, whether it's via upholding the laws of the legislature or the vote.
It’s a bad argument. The US Congress has delegated some of its power to the Executive Branch (FDA and IRS, among others), just like I’m sure some of these states have. If a state legislature passed laws allowing the governor to change election rules, then the legislature is still choosing the electors, not directly, but by having delegated that power to the executive branch of the state.
I’m not a lawyer but this argument sounds flimsy at best.
Firstly, this is a false equivalence. The kind of videos I am talking about are not ones discussing some frivolous lawsuit, they are the ones by wild-eyed zealots ranting about the Constitution that end up hatching plots to kidnap the Governor of their State [1]. The sort of videos that lead to people shooting up a pizza parlor because they believe it's the center of a Satanic organization [2].
But leaving that aside for a moment, restricting what's okay to talk about on YouTube is, by definition, YouTube's problem. They can restrict videos uploaded on the platform to be exclusively people wearing pink furry suits if they want.
Senators can ask YouTube to try and stop running videos peddling conspiracy theories on their platform, because they believe YouTube (despite the large number of complaints about them) is generally speaking, a responsible and fairminded platform; and they expect that YouTube is broadly trying to do the right thing – not be political, but also crack down on unreasonable crackpot theories being peddled on its platform.
Asking this of a less fair-minded source (say the vidoes on a Stormfront website) would be pointless, which is why the Senators don't do so. You will notice that the Senators aren't asking the creators of Gab to crack down on crackpot theories on their platform either.
-----------------------------
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-michigan-whitmer/militia-...
[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533941689...
As a matter of great irony to folks in the tech industry, this same argument was being used in the 1990s to ban violent video games. Of course it failed, because it was a terrible idea and was based on debunked science.
No one is taking away free speech in this case, that's where I think people are talking past each other.
Isn't not allowing videos on your platform also a form of freedom of speech? The senators are simply urging YouTube to exercise their freedom of speech to run fact-checked, non-crackpot videos on their platform. Why do you want to force YouTube to carry videos of bizarre conspiracy theorists on their (private) platform?
If the Senators ordered YouTube (or indeed, Fox News) to suppress specific videos, that would indeed be taking away free speech.
>Asking this of a less fair-minded source (say the vidoes on a Stormfront website) would be pointless, which is why the Senators don't do so. You will notice that the Senators aren't asking the creators of Gab to crack down on crackpot theories on their platform either.
That's an interesting theory. Someone else might argue they are targeting YouTube and Facebook because there are more swing voters on these platforms and because these platforms are far more viral than Gab or Storefront.
> In fact, there is a case brought to the Supreme Court by Texas and 17 other states ...
How do I put this delicately?
That case is bullshit.
Texas knows it, those 17 states know it, the Supreme Court knows it, and every single lawyer in the United States knows it.
And now you know it.
The Supreme Court will probably, like it did to the Pennsylvania Republicans, issue an order consisting of a single sentence rejecting their application:
"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7...
Examining what facts we have it’s very clear that the Republican Party has put forth a number of specious lawsuits with no grounds - all of which have been vehemently rejected by every court in the land - and that the goal of these lawsuits is either to overturn the legitimate election results and/or undermine people’s faith in the election.
Many or most Republican politicians know the lawsuits will fail and are on board because they know they have to keep their base riled up in Georgia to win those Senate runoff elections.
And also because Trump still has a vise-grip on the Republican base, so these politicians have made the calculation that they’d rather do what Trump wants (so they can win re-election) than reaffirm what is America’s most fundamental small-d democratic process: voting for our president, having our leader be elected by the people.
Considering how fundamental voting is to a democracy, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to call an attempt to undermine the electoral process itself seditious.
It’s not very patriotic to put the success of your own political party ahead of the good of the country. Both sides do it a lot but in this specific case it’s clearly the Republicans and it’s a pretty egregious breach of faith of our social contract. In America we expect our elected officials to respect the rules of the game, and acknowledge an electoral loss.
Do you agree that these lawsuits are un-patriotic and seditious? If not, why?
I look forward to your reasoned, cogent, and rational response so we can have a nice intellectual discussion about policy.
Please don’t share evidence or whatnot which the courts have already examined and rejected - it doesn’t seem like a very good use of time to cover old ground, unless of course you wish to disagree with the decision of the courts.
Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it! ;)
———-
My point, of course, is that not all of our political conflict is blind “tribal warfare” where blame can be equally distributed between the two sides. There really are some important issues where one side is wrong, and where it’s important to fight for what’s right.
That’s not to say all partisan conflict is good and necessary. But I do think the facts show that (and I don’t deny the many flaws of the Democratic Party) the Republican Party has embraced obstruction as a technique to achieve and maintain power and continues to inch closer to “If I can’t have it, well then nobody can.”
And that they’ve embraced a figure who is very comfortable with undermining democracy itself and would love to become an authoritarian leader.
This is incorrect. The other states' attorneys general, partisan elected officials that they are, filed amicus briefs. They didn't join the suit and aren't speaking for their states. The actual precedent that this case would set would be nightmarish for every state. Nobody wants this, it's a stunt.
This suit is going to be immediately rejected by the SC just like all the other frivolous lawsuits. The best way of predicting the future is to look at the past, and the past 50+ lawsuits have been dead on arrival.
I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm saying that the media do a deplorable job of reporting accurately.
(emphasis added) An amicus brief is also known as a 'brief.'
[1] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/missouri-16-other-states-fi...
A reminder that states are sovereign and don't run their elections according to the Federal Constitution. This whole idea that states can't determine the course of their elections because it's "unconstitutional" is farcical.
And private entities should go even further, at least to protect their brands. I will always think of Facebook as the place where the Rohingya genocide was organized and carried out, and Facebook is where violent protesters like Kyle Rittenhouse gathered before killing multiple people. I think about the platforms that allowed ISIS to radicalize people. Google doesn't want YouTube to be the video hosting site where you can watch the world burn. Reddit removed the sub where you could literally watch people die. You might see these actions as against some dearly held political beliefs but it's pretty clear to me that these are just adults trying to act with a modicum of responsibility.
They could also request (but not order) Russia Today, Fox News, One America News Network, and Stormfront to do some basic fact-checking on the videos they host; but that would be a complete waste of the Senators' time, so they don't bother with the request.
And I don't think there's any reason to believe that these YouTubers don't believe their allegations.
If things are backed by evidence is a whole different story (but it is not)
"For context, electoral fraud was and is more prevalent in Corsica than in the rest of the country. The article goes on to mention that in Ajaccio (the largest city in Corsica), one list had obtained 33.5% of the physical votes but 90% of the mail-in votes in the first round, and similar figures in the second round."
Doesn't it feel familiar?
> Here also — observers generally agree on this point — mail-in voting is one of the preferred methods for fraud. The idea of removing mail-in voting and replacing it by proxy voting has therefore been generally admitted in the [parliamentary] legal commission.
Also the counting from some distant area with opaque machines and the fact not everyone is authorized to check the count is ripe for abuse.
This feel vaguely concern troll-y, but I'll engage. I am sure that there are valid security concerns, and some possibilities for fraud with mail-in voting.
However the argument about "Oh look it's bad, there are so many possibilities for fraud" would look a little more okay if the President wasn't engaging in it [1] and his party wasn't also quietly pushing for more of it in areas where it benefits them. Of course they find some flimsy excuse to justify this “well, ours is called an absentee ballot because you have to request it”.
You can't have it both ways. If mail-in voting feels crazy, the 2016 election where like 25% of eligible voters voted by mail should also be considered invalid.
What is not okay is crying "Fraud" in nebulously defined ways for only the states you lost at the moment you start losing with the existing system. This is basic kindergarten stuff, so it's kind of funny that it has to be explicitly explained in such a big national event.
------------------------------------
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/19/903886567/trump-while-attacki...
[2] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/republicans-mail-in...
And those before. It's like most things are done in a way to make it possible to fudge results.