YouTube channels making false claims about the U.S. election will now get a stri...
source link: https://www.neowin.net/news/youtube-channels-making-false-claims-about-the-us-election-will-now-get-a-strike
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Google has announced that YouTube channels that post videos containing false claims about the results of the United States presidential election, which made Joe Biden President-elect, will now be met with a strike. Back in December, the online video platform had announced that it would start removing these videos with false claims, but the channels posting them would not see any punishment as a result.
Initially, this grace period was set to last until Inauguration Day, on January 20. However, following the violent events at the Capitol building in Washington D.C. yesterday, and with Joe Biden being confirmed as the next U.S. President by the Electoral College, the company has decided to enforce the new rules immediately.
YouTube claims to have removed "thousands" of videos with false claims since it made the announcement a month ago, including some videos posted by President Trump's own channel. The new measure applies to any channel that uploads false claims, reinforcing that, "We apply our policies and penalties consistently, regardless of who uploads it." This should mean the company won't hold back from taking action against the President, if necessary.
Strikes are YouTube's form of punishment for violating community rules, and three strikes in a 90-day period will result in the offending account being deleted. YouTube joins Facebook in taking tougher action against the U.S. President, who encouraged protesters to rally at the Capitol prior to the security breach yesterday.
61 Comments - Add comment
Let's exclude every topic around it and let's talk only about how some politics asked for 10 days to investigate this matter. Only 10 days and they were denied.
ps: I will enjoy the show đżbecause things will not get any better.
let's talk only about how some politics asked for 10 days to investigate this matter. Only 10 days and they were denied.
There's nothing to investigate. Every court in every state threw out the lawsuits because of a complete and utter lack of evidence supporting any claims of any widespread voter irregularities. etc. Every state that needed to do an audit because the vote was close did an audit (Georgia did THREE audits!) and certified their results. It's already been investigated by all of the states and the results have been certified.
The "10 days" thing was a political stunt by craven and cynical political flacks trying to kiss up to Trump's ignorant, gullible, cowardly base for future elections. National politicians have no legal right to block a state's certified votes and even SCOTUS told these lying, corrupt sycophants to ###### off.
Trump lost.
The facts don't care if people understand them or not. It's true regardless.
let's talk only about how some politics asked for 10 days to investigate this matter. Only 10 days and they were denied.
There's nothing to investigate. Every court in every state threw out the lawsuits because of a complete and utter lack of evidence supporting any claims of any widespread voter irregularities. etc. Every state that needed to do an audit because the vote was close did an audit (Georgia did THREE audits!) and certified their results. It's already been investigated by all of the states and the results have been certified.
The "10 days" thing was a political stunt by craven and cynical political flacks trying to kiss up to Trump's ignorant, gullible, cowardly base for future elections. National politicians have no legal right to block a state's certified votes and even SCOTUS told these lying, corrupt sycophants to ###### off.
Trump lost.
The facts don't care if people understand them or not. It's true regardless.
^ Basically this, a number of GOP reps found the chance to pander to Trumps base for future support and votes. Nothing more and nothing else. Instead of people questioning the claims of voter fraud from the start, they're buying into the idea. I mean Trump was talking up and started the idea going well before we even got to election day. Hows that old saying go? If you tell a lie over and over long enough people will start to think it's the truth.
Let's exclude every topic around it and let's talk only about how some politics asked for 10 days to investigate this matter. Only 10 days and they were denied.
ps: I will enjoy the show đżbecause things will not get any better.
They had over 60 days, and lost over 60 court cases. I think that's more than enough.
Let's exclude every topic around it and let's talk only about how some politics asked for 10 days to investigate this matter. Only 10 days and they were denied.
ps: I will enjoy the show đżbecause things will not get any better.
Its been way longer than 10 days but hey they just wanted more and more time to keep banging the drum. Me I'm totally shocked that this 'massive voter fraud' doesn't have evidence everywhere and even the GOP are in on it too!, what with signing off on the votes and you know certifying the election results multiple-times by GOP officials.
Let's exclude every topic around it and let's talk only about how some politics asked for 10 days to investigate this matter. Only 10 days and they were denied.
ps: I will enjoy the show đżbecause things will not get any better.
I'm sorry, but investigation would only be necessary if there is sufficient evidence to warrant investigating it. There isn't. There is simply no evidence of widespread fraud that would warrant the accusation of fraud, let alone mandate an investigation. As proven by every court in the land rejecting the claims out of hand.
Conspiracy theories from nut jobs, or signed affidavits from MAGA idiots that Trump lawyers dragged in and got to sign a piece of paper is not evidence. It is delusional to think otherwise.
Let's exclude every topic around it and let's talk only about how some politics asked for 10 days to investigate this matter. Only 10 days and they were denied.
ps: I will enjoy the show đżbecause things will not get any better.
I'm sorry, but investigation would only be necessary if there is sufficient evidence to warrant investigating it. There isn't. There is simply no evidence of widespread fraud that would warrant the accusation of fraud, let alone mandate an investigation. As proven by every court in the land rejecting the claims out of hand.
Conspiracy theories from nut jobs, or signed affidavits from MAGA idiots that Trump lawyers dragged in and got to sign a piece of paper is not evidence. It is delusional to think otherwise.
In what backward world does evidence come before an investigation?
Isn't investigation the means of producing evidence?
Americans are weird. They think in media narratives, not critical thought.
Let's exclude every topic around it and let's talk only about how some politics asked for 10 days to investigate this matter. Only 10 days and they were denied.
ps: I will enjoy the show đżbecause things will not get any better.
Its been way longer than 10 days but hey they just wanted more and more time to keep banging the drum. Me I'm totally shocked that this 'massive voter fraud' doesn't have evidence everywhere and even the GOP are in on it too!, what with signing off on the votes and you know certifying the election results multiple-times by GOP officials.
It just shows the need for voter ID. There shouldn't have to be court cases at all to ensure all votes are legal. Voter ID would help massively.
And yet, channels promoting quack cures, anti-vaccine, flat earth, holocaust denial, and any number of other conspiracy theories are allowed to remain.
And yet, channels promoting quack cures, anti-vaccine, flat earth, holocaust denial, and any number of other conspiracy theories are allowed to remain.
That's youtubes bread and butter, bulk of the videos are of the above I'd say. The rest are made up of music/games and cats.
And yet, channels promoting quack cures, anti-vaccine, flat earth, holocaust denial, and any number of other conspiracy theories are allowed to remain.
Any of those result in a riot and break in at the Capitol?
And yet, channels promoting quack cures, anti-vaccine, flat earth, holocaust denial, and any number of other conspiracy theories are allowed to remain.
Any of those result in a riot and break in at the Capitol?
No, but some of them have resulted in countless deaths and injuries.
And yet, channels promoting quack cures, anti-vaccine, flat earth, holocaust denial, and any number of other conspiracy theories are allowed to remain.
Any of those result in a riot and break in at the Capitol?
No, but many of them resulted in Chaz
And yet, channels promoting quack cures, anti-vaccine, flat earth, holocaust denial, and any number of other conspiracy theories are allowed to remain.
I think there is a valid argument to make regarding anti-vaccine channels due to the ability to spread disinformation that can and prob already has hurt others.
China and Russia approve, because banning doubters is simple and actually works. Of course, there are side effects and you can end up with regime like they have, but I guess it it's a sacrifice YoutTube is willing to make 
.
China and Russia approve, because banning doubters is simple and actually works. Of course, there are side effects and you can end up with regime like they have, but I guess it it's a sacrifice YoutTube is willing to make
Yep. Only having one side of a story being allowed to be discussed is never a good thing.
China and Russia approve, because banning doubters is simple and actually works. Of course, there are side effects and you can end up with regime like they have, but I guess it it's a sacrifice YoutTube is willing to make
Yep. Only having one side of a story being allowed to be discussed is never a good thing.
Having a moderation, free for all, that spreads misinformation like wildfire is also never a good thing as well.
China and Russia approve, because banning doubters is simple and actually works. Of course, there are side effects and you can end up with regime like they have, but I guess it it's a sacrifice YoutTube is willing to make
China and Russia do not care about ######ing YouTube. They do like our society is unraveling and our democracy is at risk.
China and Russia approve, because banning doubters is simple and actually works. Of course, there are side effects and you can end up with regime like they have, but I guess it it's a sacrifice YoutTube is willing to make
Yep. Only having one side of a story being allowed to be discussed is never a good thing.
False equivalence.
China and Russia approve, because banning doubters is simple and actually works. Of course, there are side effects and you can end up with regime like they have, but I guess it it's a sacrifice YoutTube is willing to make
China and Russia do not care about ######ing YouTube. They do like our society is unraveling and our democracy is at risk.
What democracy is that? The US is a Republic.
China and Russia approve, because banning doubters is simple and actually works. Of course, there are side effects and you can end up with regime like they have, but I guess it it's a sacrifice YoutTube is willing to make
China and Russia do not care about ######ing YouTube. They do like our society is unraveling and our democracy is at risk.
What democracy is that? The US is a Republic.
The best kind of correct. The US is a democratic republic.
China and Russia approve, because banning doubters is simple and actually works. Of course, there are side effects and you can end up with regime like they have, but I guess it it's a sacrifice YoutTube is willing to make
Yep. Only having one side of a story being allowed to be discussed is never a good thing.
To be fair, videos are one-sided to begin with. They are not a natural form of discussions like say, an actual forum.
So, I agree this whole situation is ridiculous and that Trump is basically asking to be called every name in the book, but blocking people's rights of speech is a very slippery slope.
So, I agree this whole situation is ridiculous and that Trump is basically asking to be called every name in the book, but blocking people's rights of speech is a very slippery slope.
Except that if you own the platform those people's rights of speech are being displayed on, the owners of that platform have the right to allow or not allow it.
So, I agree this whole situation is ridiculous and that Trump is basically asking to be called every name in the book, but blocking people's rights of speech is a very slippery slope.
They don't want their sevice to contribute to the unrest and violence. Not a free speech issue... Is this stance really that hard to understand?
So, I agree this whole situation is ridiculous and that Trump is basically asking to be called every name in the book, but blocking people's rights of speech is a very slippery slope.
They don't want their sevice to contribute to the unrest and violence. Not a free speech issue... Is this stance really that hard to understand?
Yeah I understand that part too.
blocking people's rights of speech is a very slippery slope.
No it's not. You don't have a right to free speech on Youtube or any other business.
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, or that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."
"Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors,[1] there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities."
The first amendment only prohibits a state actor (a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body) from limiting someone's ability to speak freely.
blocking people's rights of speech is a very slippery slope.
No it's not. You don't have a right to free speech on Youtube or any other business.
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, or that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."
"Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors,[1] there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities."
The first amendment only prohibits a state actor (a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body) from limiting someone's ability to speak freely.
Exactly! It's funny how these people don't know laws of their own countries. In america, the only place you are allowed to have 'free speech' is in a specifically set-aside zone like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_amendment_zone1.jpg which can be thought of as a "shut the **** up" zone which are placed to make people think they can have an impact when really they can't.
blocking people's rights of speech is a very slippery slope.
No it's not. You don't have a right to free speech on Youtube or any other business.
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, or that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."
"Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors,[1] there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities."
The first amendment only prohibits a state actor (a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body) from limiting someone's ability to speak freely.Exactly! It's funny how these people don't know laws of their own countries. In america, the only place you are allowed to have 'free speech' is in a specifically set-aside zone like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...:First_amendment_zone1.jpg" rel="external nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_amendment_zone1.jpg which can be thought of as a "shut the **** up" zone which are placed to make people think they can have an impact when really they can't.
And yet people push the idea that we need more restrictions on speech. đ¤ˇââď¸
So, I agree this whole situation is ridiculous and that Trump is basically asking to be called every name in the book, but blocking people's rights of speech is a very slippery slope.
Except that if you own the platform those people's rights of speech are being displayed on, the owners of that platform have the right to allow or not allow it.
Then they should also be held liable for stuff they allow to be posted. Either allow everything and be immune from liability or pick and choose and be held liable.
blocking people's rights of speech is a very slippery slope.
No it's not. You don't have a right to free speech on Youtube or any other business.
"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, or that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."
"Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors,[1] there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities."
The first amendment only prohibits a state actor (a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body) from limiting someone's ability to speak freely.Exactly! It's funny how these people don't know laws of their own countries. In america, the only place you are allowed to have 'free speech' is in a specifically set-aside zone like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_amendment_zone1.jpg" rel="external nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...:First_amendment_zone1.jpg" rel="external nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_amendment_zone1.jpg which can be thought of as a "shut the **** up" zone which are placed to make people think they can have an impact when really they can't.
And yet people push the idea that we need more restrictions on speech. đ¤ˇââď¸
You're only free of restrictions in that the government can't restrict your speech. That's it. Anywhere else is fair game. Don't like it, don't participate.
Censorship at its finest.
Censorship at its finest.
Where can non-censoring stuff and blindly following idiots can take you? to the capital ? wait that actually happened...
When people are very narrow minded throwing misinformation can do damaging stuff, they should have just banned the accounts tbh
Censorship at its finest.
lol. YouTube isn't the only name in the game... if people truly have a problem with it, they'll move to another platform and they'll fall by the wayside, looks like most people don't mind the garbage being taken out.
Censorship at its finest.
Don't like their policies, don't use their services.
Censorship at its finest.
Don't like their policies, don't use their services.
Suddenly that logic doesnât apply when youâre in the wedding cake baking business.
Censorship at its finest.
Where can non-censoring stuff and blindly following idiots can take you? to the capital ? wait that actually happened...
When people are very narrow minded throwing misinformation can do damaging stuff, they should have just banned the accounts tbh
Why itâs OK to have protests in Hong-Kong and Belarus, and not in the US? Whatâs so different?
Censorship at its finest.
Where can non-censoring stuff and blindly following idiots can take you? to the capital ? wait that actually happened...
When people are very narrow minded throwing misinformation can do damaging stuff, they should have just banned the accounts tbh
Why itâs OK to have protests in Hong-Kong and Belarus, and not in the US? Whatâs so different?
I think the cracking down on the freedoms in Hong Kong via a strict 'security' laws is a bit different than a bunch of self serving idiots inciting a coup based on lies. If you cannot really actually see that it says more about yourself then anything else
Censorship at its finest.
Don't like their policies, don't use their services.
Suddenly that logic doesnât apply when youâre in the wedding cake baking business.
that's the sad part. my business, I sweat to build but I don't really have the right to do business to who i choose to. rubbish
Censorship at its finest.
Don't like their policies, don't use their services.
Suddenly that logic doesnât apply when youâre in the wedding cake baking business.
that's the sad part. my business, I sweat to build but I don't really have the right to do business to who i choose to. rubbish
Ah, there it is. The wedding cake business bit. Right on cue.
You can't refuse to do business with someone based on race, gender, orientation, etc. unless they come in and start destroying the place. Basically, you can refuse service for the right reasons. Note: Don't go on the "But who determines what the right reasons are?!" slippery slope BS. I won't entertain it.
If you don't see any issue with that, then you're the reason those laws exist.
Censorship at its finest.
Don't like their policies, don't use their services.
Suddenly that logic doesnât apply when youâre in the wedding cake baking business.
that's the sad part. my business, I sweat to build but I don't really have the right to do business to who i choose to. rubbish
Ah, there it is. The wedding cake business bit. Right on cue.
You can't refuse to do business with someone based on race, gender, orientation, etc. unless they come in and start destroying the place. Basically, you can refuse service for the right reasons. Note: Don't go on the "But who determines what the right reasons are?!" slippery slope BS. I won't entertain it.
If you don't see any issue with that, then you're the reason those laws exist.
If you're an artist, you can refuse to create a piece of art that goes against your values. Nobody should ever be forced to create something that goes against his or her values.
Censorship at its finest.
Don't like their policies, don't use their services.
Suddenly that logic doesnât apply when youâre in the wedding cake baking business.
that's the sad part. my business, I sweat to build but I don't really have the right to do business to who i choose to. rubbish
Ah, there it is. The wedding cake business bit. Right on cue.
You can't refuse to do business with someone based on race, gender, orientation, etc. unless they come in and start destroying the place. Basically, you can refuse service for the right reasons. Note: Don't go on the "But who determines what the right reasons are?!" slippery slope BS. I won't entertain it.
If you don't see any issue with that, then you're the reason those laws exist.
if you are a muslim no problem. lol
I must be one of the few who could give a sh*t if all social networks disappeared tomorrow. Seriously, if it bothers people that much, just stop using them. They donât control me and I am not reliant on them. I donât see why anyone else should be.
I must be one of the few who could give a sh*t if all social networks disappeared tomorrow. Seriously, if it bothers people that much, just stop using them. They donât control me and I am not reliant on them. I donât see why anyone else should be.
you are here in neowin discussing about tech and tech news... that's how people discuss about stuff in youtube or social media as well. but now the problem is the one-sided censorship that is going on. i really don't mind if facebook, twitter and google are dead though.
I must be one of the few who could give a sh*t if all social networks disappeared tomorrow. Seriously, if it bothers people that much, just stop using them. They donât control me and I am not reliant on them. I donât see why anyone else should be.
you are here in neowin discussing about tech and tech news... that's how people discuss about stuff in youtube or social media as well. but now the problem is the one-sided censorship that is going on. i really don't mind if facebook, twitter and google are dead though.
Herpaderp. My comment remains.
Should Neowin follow suit?
YouTube channels making claims "WE DISAGREE WITH" will now get a strike.
FIFY.
Evidence is abundant. It was just ignored.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google choose Presidents now. Voting is futile. Game over.
YouTube channels making claims "WE DISAGREE WITH" will now get a strike.
FIFY.
Evidence is abundant. It was just ignored.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google choose Presidents now. Voting is futile. Game over.
And yet all those right leaning GOP appointed judges didn't think there was "abundant" evidence. So they either all decided to cover it up on both sides and toss Trump under the bus, or, and this could be crazy I know, there actually wasn't enough evidence.
YouTube channels making claims "WE DISAGREE WITH" will now get a strike.
FIFY.
Evidence is abundant. It was just ignored.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google choose Presidents now. Voting is futile. Game over.
Nope. The American people chose the President.
YouTube channels making claims "WE DISAGREE WITH" will now get a strike.
FIFY.
Evidence is abundant. It was just ignored.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google choose Presidents now. Voting is futile. Game over.
Are you talking about the evidence that Trump's own team couldn't produce?
YouTube channels making claims "WE DISAGREE WITH" will now get a strike.
FIFY.
Evidence is abundant. It was just ignored.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google choose Presidents now. Voting is futile. Game over.
By an entire country's legal system? Please. Democrats aren't that smart and I'd like to think most Republicans aren't that stupid.
YouTube channels making claims "WE DISAGREE WITH" will now get a strike.
FIFY.
Evidence is abundant. It was just ignored.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google choose Presidents now. Voting is futile. Game over.
Disagree on the evidence part, but you are correct that these major corporations are controlling a lot of what you get to see or hear.
Reality of it is that even if these social media networks and search algorithms went away, people would still find media to confirm their bias. That's why Google's worked so hard to just regurgitate what you want to see/hear... because it works. People aren't going to be diligent information seekers just because social media died.
YouTube channels making claims "WE DISAGREE WITH" will now get a strike.
FIFY.
Evidence is abundant. It was just ignored.
Facebook, Twitter, and Google choose Presidents now. Voting is futile. Game over.
Globalists are choosing Presidents, not big tech. Big tech are just puppets.
It's owned by Google, they can do whatever they want with it.
It's owned by Google, they can do whatever they want with it.
Suddenly that logic doesnât eork when youâre in the wedding cake baking business. âSuddenlyâ. âThat time it was differentâ, I know.
It's owned by Google, they can do whatever they want with it.
Suddenly that logic doesnât eork when youâre in the wedding cake baking business. âSuddenlyâ. âThat time it was differentâ, I know.
Protected classes, how do they work?
It's owned by Google, they can do whatever they want with it.
Suddenly that logic doesnât eork when youâre in the wedding cake baking business. âSuddenlyâ. âThat time it was differentâ, I know.
Protected classes, how do they work?
You can't prevent someone from buying something off the shelf based on who they are, but you can (or should be able to) refuse to create a custom piece of art that has a message you disagree with.
It's owned by Google, they can do whatever they want with it.
Suddenly that logic doesnât eork when youâre in the wedding cake baking business. âSuddenlyâ. âThat time it was differentâ, I know.
Protected classes, how do they work?
You can't prevent someone from buying something off the shelf based on who they are, but you can (or should be able to) refuse to create a custom piece of art that has a message you disagree with.
Feel free to create all the art you want, as a sole proprietor with absolutely zero corporate legal or financial protection. You want the advantages that society gives you, you play by the rules society sets.
My thoughts and prayers go to peaceful protesters, just like in Hong-Kong, Belarus and Ukraine.
More like... "Google has announced that YouTube channels that post videos containing "false claims" (i.e. the truth) about the results of the United States presidential election will now be met with a strike."
or one could sort of put it like this... if you don't bow down to Joe Biden and his corrupt leftists, they will destroy you like a bunch of commies they are.
because if they had nothing to hide why would they try so hard to stop people from talking about it etc? ; it's not like there is no evidence, it's just people don't want to hear it is all because they are so blinded by their hatred of Trump and those who are honest don't want to get involved because of the blow-back from the leftists etc. but at least Thomas/Alito wanted to hear the case in the supreme court which they should have since we are talking about the integrity of the election system here in the USA which is clearly quite corrupted which probably would have not been brought to the light if it where not for Trump's major popularity with the common person as people are passionate about him. he gets MILLIONS of more votes from the previous election in 2016 and 'somehow' Biden "wins". presidents just simply do no lose with that kind of vote increase from a previous election. then you got Trump clearly ahead by a lot going into the night and into the am Biden 'magically' pulls ahead. they did the same thing with the senate election in Georgia recently as you could see they where counting, and pretty much stopped at 99% and sure enough they somehow won again through the night. a pattern is emerging here and will continue unless stuff is put in place to ensure elections are legit but you can be damn sure the democrats will fight against having honest elections because they know they can't win over the common person with their radical agenda. bottom line... if they don't do something very soon to ensure the integrity of future elections, democracy is pretty much dead here in the USA and is a illusion. but it's always the leftist who want to keep things less secure because it benefits them. if the elections were truly honest, it's pretty safe to say Trump won big in 2020.
Report Comment
ClosePlease enter your reason for reporting this comment.
BBCode Helper
CloseThe following codes can be used in comments.
- [b]bold[/b]
- [i]italics[/i]
- [u]underline[/u]
- [s]strikethrough[/s]
- [url]link[/url]
- [img]imageurl[/img]
- [quote]text[/quote]
Recommend
-
10
Join the conversation! Login or Sign Up to post a comment. I just read this on IGN. Shame shame. Hope it doesn't go b...
-
4
Ford Pays Millions Over False Claims About Its 2013 Hybrid's Fuel Economy Slashdot is powered by
-
4
Home ...
-
6
Living in denial â YouTube algorithm pushed election fraud claims to Trump supporters, report says Researchers analyzed real recommendations to hundreds of YouTube users.
-
5
Dominion's defamation lawsuit â Judge slams Fox News for false election claims as Dominion wins key ruling Judge rules Fox statements false; jury will decide on "actual mal...
-
11
An Australian mayor may sue OpenAI for false claims that ChatGPT has made against him...
-
4
Government defends fact-checking, claims false information can cause conflict
-
6
YouTube will stop removing false presidential election fraud claims / âThe ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial or based on disproven assumptions, is core to a functioning democr...
-
10
YouTube Will Stop Removing False Presidential Election Fraud Claims Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the
-
4
TechYouTube will stop removing false claims about 2020 election fraud
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK