"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:

"An overwhelming 70% of Americans think President Donald Trump’s request to a foreign leader to investigate his political rival... was wrong..."

ABC News reports on its new poll.

A slim majority of Americans, 51%, believe Trump’s actions were both wrong and he should be impeached and removed from office. But only 21% of Americans say they are following the hearings very closely.

IN THE COMMENTS: Quayle asks the skeptical question "What was the survey question? Was it '....investigate a political rival...'? Or was it '...investigate potential or alleged illegal corruption....'?"

You can see how the question was asked, here. It's like the way I write polls for this blog. There's a set up question that's neutral: "When it comes to the recent impeachment hearings, which one of the following statements comes closest to your point of view?" Then the answers give an array of options:

President Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House and removed from office by the Senate 51

President Trump’s actions were wrong and he should be impeached by the House but NOT removed from office by the Senate 6

President Trump’s actions were wrong, but he should NOT be impeached by the House or removed from office by the Senate 13

President Trump’s actions were NOT wrong 25

Now, was "wrong" the right word to use? You could have just asked if the President's actions were "impeachable," but I think separating the judgment about wrongness from the question of what Congress ought to do about it is good. There's no ability to say anything about the degree of wrongness other than through your opinion about what ought to be done.

"I'm amused that right after 'potato, my penis droops' up pops Quayle."

I say, in the laughing-in-bed first-post-of-the-morning. 

Quayle is a regular commenter here, but — who knows, on the internet? — it might be Dan Quayle.



Quayle responds: "I carry the blood of polygamists in my veins. So one should expect that sort of thing, I guess." He adds: "I took the name from my great grandfather, pictured here surrounded by some new friends."



That's a photograph of taken at the Utah Penitentiary in 1889, showing men arrested under the Edmunds-Tucker Act, explained here. Included in the photo is John C. Bennett, who "taught a doctrine of 'spiritual wifery'":

He and associates sought to have illicit sexual relationships with women by telling them that they were married "spiritually," even if they had never been married formally, and that the Prophet approved the arrangement.

That wasn't the correct doctrine, and Bennett got excommunicated, and then he "toured the country speaking against the Latter-day Saints and published a bitter anti-Mormon exposé charging the Saints with licentiousness."

Here's John C. Bennett in happier days...



... posing like Napoleon:

Warren Buffet has "devoted the vast majority of his wealth to those around the world who are suffering, or sick, or in need of help."

President Obama writes for Time Magazines "100 Most Influential People" list (which, of course, he also appears on).

Is it really true? The vast majority of his wealth? The majority would be >50%, but what's the vast majority? That would have to be something upwards of 90%, right? Buffet's given that much of his money away? Or does the truth of the statement depend on the meaning of the word "devoted"? A big old capitalist could claim that investing in your own burgeoning business is devoting your wealth to the greater good. And there's also room to maneuver inside the phrase "those... in need of help." Your friends and family and you yourself need help, right?

ADDED: Based on the comments to this post and a quick read of the "Philanthropy" section of Buffet's Wikipedia bio, I can see that the "devotion" to which our President refers is Buffet's announced plans for what will happen to his money after he dies. Buffet doesn't "believe in dynastic wealth." And there's also the "Gates-Buffett Giving Pledge," which is a pledge — not a legal obligation — to give at least 50% — the majority, possible not the vast majority — to charity. But Buffet has made statements of intent to leave 99% of his wealth to charity.

In the comments, Hoosier Daddy says: "Anyone ask Warren why he's not donating his wealth to the IRS rather than some private charity?" Quayle says: "So if Buffet voluntarily devoted his wealth, why do we need the government to take wealth by force?"

"I can't tell the difference between Whizzo Butter and a dead crab."

This came up...



... back here (where we talking about the contrived outrage over the "Whooper Virgins" taste test).

Of course, it was our wonderful Bissage again.

Surely, you can tell the difference between Bissage...

... and Quayle...

I hate [when people say something is just so wrong on so many levels that they can't even begin to explain why] because people that say that all the time always try to imply that they deal with multitudes of levels all the time.

But seriously – how many levels are there?

Two? Maybe three, tops?

I actually know a guy that commonly dealt with five levels, but he was from Bayonne, New Jersey.

But this idea that there are so many levels is pure post-modern, crit-studies rubbish.

It is all an urban myth that has its origins in a particular budget fight in the humanities department of an well-known Ivy League University.

... and Chip Ahoy...

The contrived outrage is ridiculous on so many levels I must put down my game of multi-dimensional chess and set aside my 3-D puzzle for the moment and stop multi-tasking this four-course luncheon while responding to this blog entry while doing laundry while simultaneously playing with my puppy to respond to this while keeping open ten other windows and holding three conversations through instant messaging and solving this crossword puzzle.

1) the contrived outrage is ridiculous on the psychological level

2) the contrived outrage is ridiculous on the political level

3) the contrived outrage is ridiculous on the sociological level

4) the contrived outrage is ridiculous on the economic level

4) the contrived outrage is ridiculous on the international level

5) the contrived outrage is ridiculous on the sexual level

6) the contrived outrage is ridiculous on the contrivance level