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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Informative) by HiThere on Friday August 14 2020, @08:11PM (2 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 14 2020, @08:11PM (#1036725) Journal

    But didn't the Supreme Court decide that corporations were people? I think it was the legal clerks decision in Santa Clara vs. Union Pacific, but the Supreme Court upheld it. So that's about 150 years of legal precedent you want to overthrow. (Not a bad idea in my view, but unlikely to be successful.)

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @06:29PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 15 2020, @06:29PM (#1037184)

    they decided that money = speech. no money, no speech.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 16 2020, @01:14AM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 16 2020, @01:14AM (#1037299) Journal

      That was a much later decision. Also a bad one, but not the one I referred to.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.