"YouTube to Forbid Videos Claiming Widespread Election Fraud."

The NYT reports. 

The company said it was making the change because [this past] Tuesday was the so-called safe harbor deadline — the date by which all state-level election challenges, such as recounts and audits, are supposed to be completed.

Why does reaching the "safe harbor" deadline make any difference? Is there no free-speech interest in talking about something you think is going wrong because it might be too late to do anything? 

YouTube’s announcement is a reversal of a much-criticized company policy on election videos. Throughout the election cycle, YouTube, which is owned by Google, has allowed videos spreading false claims of widespread election fraud under a policy that permits videos that comment on the outcome of an election.

That makes it sound as though YouTube wanted to change the policy and is using the "safe harbor" date as an excuse, to make it seem as though they didn't think their policy was wrong or that they wanted to appease critics without needing to say that the critics were right all along. 

They're not, however, taking down videos uploaded before the "safe harbor" date, which makes me think the motivation is to appease critics. People can still watch the already-uploaded videos. What's the point of preventing more of the same? All I can think is that there's a concern that as the legal options for challenging the election become closed off, there will be a new and more desperate expressions about what possibly could be done.

Here's YouTube's statement, which went up on Wednesday. It says its policy was violated all along by misleading allegations of "widespread fraud or errors" that "changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election," but that they are going to "begin enforcing" the policy now. The "safe harbor" date just seems to work as a milestone. It seems as though it might work to make some people believe that YouTube didn't change anything, but that date arrived.

Here's YouTube's last paragraph — projecting friendly corporate responsibility while repelling any effort to actually read it:

We understand the need for intense scrutiny on our elections-related work. Our teams work hard to ensure we are striking a balance between allowing for a broad range of political speech and making sure our platform isn't abused to incite real-world harm or broadly spread harmful misinformation. We welcome ongoing debate and discussion and will keep engaging with experts, researchers and organizations to ensure that our policies and products are meeting that goal. And as always, we'll apply learnings from this election to our ongoing efforts to protect the integrity of elections around the world.

I have tried 10 times to read that and still cannot read straight through it. It's the Teflon of writing. Your eyes roll right off it. 

IN THE COMMENTS: Quayle said:

After 30 years in business, I speak the PR language of business and would be happy to translate:

"We understand the need for intense scrutiny on our elections-related work."

Translation: Oh, boy! We're getting a lot of unwanted attention.

"Our teams work hard to ensure we are striking a balance between allowing for a broad range of political speech and making sure our platform isn't abused to incite real-world harm or broadly spread harmful misinformation."

Translation: We're having very intense and sometimes heated conversations about how we should respond to the unwanted attention, and a lot of us are worried that if we get this wrong, we'll be shut out of social circles. The CFO also gave the directive to find the path that keeps the topline healthy, and doesn't impact the financials.

"We welcome ongoing debate and discussion and will keep engaging with experts, researchers and organizations to ensure that our policies and products are meeting that goal."

Translation: Some of our entry level employees who are reviewing the content don't know what to tag and not tag, but a lot of them are just tagging anything that even comes close to the topic. The discrepancy in standards from one entry-level employee to another, and with how our algorithms are tagging, creates a risk of looking inconsistent and shoddy. We need to create the appearance that this is a very considered and deliberate balancing by august experts, rather than just whim by minimum wage workers. Let's bring in the "experts" and diffuse some of the heat.

"And as always, we'll apply learnings from this election to our ongoing efforts to protect the integrity of elections around the world."

Translation: This is getting exhausting trying to balance the message that we are just a friendly, benign, helpful enabler of human contact and social good will throughout the world, with the glaring fact that we are a massive, global, unchecked capitalist monster with more power than any for-profit monopoly has ever amassed in the history of mankind. Must not let the mask slip.