Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Friday August 14 2020, @04:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the who-picks-what-gets-banned? dept.

YouTube bans videos containing hacked information that could interfere with the election:

As Democrats and Republicans prepare to hold their national conventions starting next week, YouTube on Thursday announced updates to its policies on deceptive videos and other content designed to interfere with the election.

The world's largest video platform, with more than 2 billion users a month, will ban videos containing information that was obtained through hacking and could meddle with elections or censuses. That would include material like hacked campaign emails with details about a candidate. The update follows the announcement of a similar rule that Google, which owns YouTube, unveiled earlier this month banning ads that contain hacked information. Google will start enforcing that policy Sept. 1.

YouTube also said it will take down videos that encourage people to interfere with voting and other democratic processes. For example, videos telling people to create long lines at polling places in order to stifle the vote won't be allowed.

[...] YouTube has also tried to secure its platform from foreign actors. Last week, the company said it banned almost 2,600 channels linked to China as part of investigations into "coordinated influence operations" on the site. YouTube also took down dozens of channels linked to Russia and Iran that had apparent ties to influence campaigns.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 14 2020, @07:44PM (2 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday August 14 2020, @07:44PM (#1036704) Journal

    [CITATION NEEDED]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @10:00PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 14 2020, @10:00PM (#1036785)

    Tulsi Gabbard Files $50M Lawsuit Against Google for Post-Debate Ad Ban [pjmedia.com]
    Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate, Sues Google for $50 Million [nytimes.com]

    Judge dismisses Tulsi Gabbard’s $50 million ad lawsuit against Google [engadget.com]:

    ...US District Judge Stephen Wilson rejected the case, explaining that the campaign "fails to state a claim that is legally sufficient to implicate the First Amendment" and failed to show "how Google's regulation of its own platform is in any way equivalent to a governmental regulation of an election."

    Google originally explained that it suspended the Tulsi Now, Inc. ad account for suspicious activity. There was a sudden increase in spending after the first Democratic debate, and Google's system automatically flagged the account, which was reinstated shortly....

    As Wilson pointed out, it's common for tech companies to have some sort of automated system to detect cybercrime, and under Gabbard's argument, "every media organization that took steps to prevent foreign cybercrimes could potentially implicate the First Amendment."

    Does not sound like shadowbanning.

    Wilson, Stephen Victor [fjc.gov]:

    Nominated by Ronald Reagan on September 9, 1985, to a new seat authorized by 98 Stat. 333. Confirmed by the Senate on October 16, 1985, and received commission on October 17, 1985.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by progo on Saturday August 15 2020, @12:22AM

      by progo (6356) on Saturday August 15 2020, @12:22AM (#1036847) Homepage

      The same day this happened, you could not find any videos published by Tulsi Gabbard on YouTube, unless you searched from a non-USA IP address.

      This is shadow banning and election meddling, and I don't believe for one minute that the multiple times they suspended her adwords account for suspicious spending that they really suspected a problem on her end. They didn't want her to spend lots of money to bid on ad spots while she was a hot media story for a day.