[newacct583]

> Let the Like/Dislike button do its job.

Community moderation has completely and totally failed. Giant, enormous lies are being told to half the population without barrier. People who want to believe in a completely fabricated story about election fraud have all their eyeballs can get.

Fine. I get the free speech angle. But... who cares about free speech when democracy is dying in front of us? Free speech was supposed to have prevented this. It made it worse.

I don't have the answer here. But all I can see is people trying to deny the problem.

[dukeofdoom]

Millions of people believe the election was rigged in the US. This is a total failure of building trust in elections, regardless weather its true or not.

I personally believe in "Trust but Verify". There is no way to verify this election. The process is made impossible, because signature check was not done on mail in ballots in any meaningful way. And has not been done now either in any of the recounts. We only know that currently 0.02% of ballots were rejected vs 6% previous elections.

To my common sense, this election could have been spammed with mail in ballots, and almost everything accepted. No meaningful signature match was performed, when only 0.02% of ballots were rejected.

[newacct583]

> This is a total failure of building trust in elections

Rather it's a success in tearing down that trust. And the tools used in that effort were lies like this one:

> We only know that currently 0.02% of ballots were rejected vs 6% previous elections.

See: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-georgia-rejecte...

It's lies. It's all lies. You're reading lies and choosing to believe them[1]. So is it any wonder that Youtube is thinking that maybe they shouldn't have a hand in spreading those lies?

[1] As proven by your reply that the link does not "prove a lie"! That's not the way the burden of proof works. You are choosing to believe this categorical statement given to you without support. That is a "lie" in the vernacular.

[dukeofdoom]

The fact check does not prove a lie. At most it proves that Trump is not making the statement based on publicly available data. Since the final rejection rate for 2020 have not yet been released.

From the fact check:

"Georgia rejected 6.42% of mail-in ballots in total in the 2016 general election "

"The higher percentage he mentions for past years is likely based off the total rejected ballots (here) which can not be compared with 2020, as this information is not available."

[dukeofdoom]

This site seem have the most up to date numbers. "Rejected absentee/mail-in ballots as a percentage of total absentee/mail-in ballots returned, 2016-2020"

Georgia 2016 6.42%

Georgia 2020 .60%

Source https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results,_2020:_Analysis_of_...

Which cites the official Georgia election website as source of the raw data.

[newacct583]

The Reuters link specifically addresses that: it's a tabulation error, the older data shows ballots rejected for all causes, the 2020 data is limited to those rejected for signature mismatches only, they haven't released the all-cause number yet. And the signature rejection numbers broadly match up, both being sub-1%.

[disgrunt]

It isn't just Georgia. The other states reporting have a order of magnitude drop in absentee ballot rejections. Seems like a problem?

[thefreeman]

I mean if you even tried to use logic you could understand why there would be drastically less rejected mail in ballots then normal years. There were massive information campaigns about how to correctly fill out ballots and the things to be careful of leading up to this election because millions of people were going to be voting by mail this year. In previous years there is 0 information about it at all. Also most people learned about the mistakes when their ballots got rejected in the primary.

[dukeofdoom]

I don't think you could get 99.98% of people to tie their shoes correctly. Let alone fill out a paper ballot, and match their signatures. Have you ever worked with below average intelligence people?

[refurb]

When we covered the 1st Amendment in school and talked about censorship I always thought “who could possibly be against the 1st Amendment?”.

Apparently a lot of people!

[iron0013]

It literally begins “Congress shall make no law...”

[refurb]

Oh don't try and weasel out of it. America's respect for freedom of speech is codified in the constitution, but goes far beyond that and is a core tenant of our social contract.

Yes, Google is entirely within their right to censor whatever they want on their platform. Does it make them look like anti-free speech goons? Yeah, it does.

[UncleMeat]

> America's respect for freedom of speech is codified in the constitution

Is it? Where is this implication that the constitution is simultaneously both a legal document and also a list of broad values held by the nation's people?

[refurb]

I mean, it's a founding document? It wouldn't be in there unless there was general agreement it is important?

That's a bit of a silly question.

[UncleMeat]

There are lots of things that I believe to be important for the government but not at all important for other contexts. I suspect that's true for you too.

You probably support democratic control over the government where each citizen gets one vote. But very few Americans support democratic control over private corporations (that would be socialism after all). There are enormous numbers of such examples.

I think it is unreasonable to claim that because the constitution limits the state's ability to restrict speech that Americans believe that other actors should not be able to restrict speech in places where they exhibit control. It certainly could be the case that Americans support free speech more broadly, but it definitely does not follow from just being in the constitution.