This may affect Glen Greenwald's System Access, and several videos produced
regularly on The Grayzone. And Consortium News, which regularly uses You
Tube, along with other articles, has been off line for several days now.
Miriam
Discussion of Wikileaks or any "Hacked Information" Banned Under New YouTube
Rules
YouTube's decision to ban discussion of hacked information on its platform
is unlikely to improve election integrity in the US, it will, however,
continue to tilt the balance in favor of established corporate-funded
outlets like Fox News and CNN.
by Alan Macleod
August 14th, 2020
By Alan Macleod
Social media giant YouTube announced yesterday a host of new measures it
says are aimed at preventing any interference in the upcoming presidential
elections. Chief among the list it wrote on its blog, is "removing content
that contains hacked information, the disclosure of which may interfere with
democratic processes, such as elections and censuses." An example it gives,
would be deleting "videos that contain hacked information about a political
candidate."
It also promised to "raise up authoritative voices" when it comes to current
events and politics by changing its algorithm to show users more credible
channels and "reduce the spread of harmful misinformation and borderline
content." Example channels that produce authoritative content, it tells
readers, includes Fox News and CNN. It also noted it would expand
information panels underneath videos.
There are a number of reasons this new policy could concern users of its
platform. Firstly, the great majority of leaked information - the lifeblood
of investigative journalism - is anonymous. Often, like in the cases of
Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning or Reality Winner, whistleblowers face
serious consequences if their names become attached to documents exposing
government or corporate malfeasance. But without a name to go with a
document, the difference between leaked data and hacked data is impossible
to define. Thus, powerful people and organizations could claim data was
hacked, rather than leaked, and simply block all discussion of the matter on
the platform. Hearing the news, some feared already existing content from
investigative journalists would be subject to removal under the new
guidelines.
YouTube's choice of Fox News and CNN as reliable sources might also raise
eyebrows in some quarters. According to the latest Reuters Institute Digital
News Report, fewer than half of all Americans trust the two networks (Fox at
42 percent and CNN at 47 percent). And a new study from Gallup/Knight
Foundation finds that fewer than a third of the country has a favorable view
of the media more generally, including only 19 percent of those under thirty
(YouTube's prime demographic). Many go to the platform precisely because it
offers alternative and more diverse opinions to corporate-dominated radio,
print and television. But YouTube is now funneling them back towards those
same sources.
The 2016 presidential election was colored by Wikileaks' release of the
Podesta emails, discussion of which would be banned under YouTube's new
rules. The Hillary Clinton campaign alleges the emails were hacked from
Podesta's computer. The published communications, the authenticity of which
is not in doubt, informed the country of the machinations of the Democratic
Party, how it tipped the electoral scales in favor of Clinton and against
Bernie Sanders in the primary, how Clinton stated to Wall Street that she
had a "public" and a "private" position on regulation, insinuating she was
lying to the nation, how representatives of Qatar wanted to meet with her
husband Bill for "five minutes" to present him with a $1 million check for
his birthday, and how her own staff held her in contempt. The emails,
Clinton contends, swung the election from her to Trump. If this is the case,
the decision to ban all discussion of them would have fundamentally altered
the democratic process.
If YouTube's actions seem drastic, the Australian state of Queensland
introduced laws yesterday that made it illegal to publish allegations of
corruption against any politician during election season. Those found guilty
would be punished with a six-month jail sentence and a fine of nearly
U.S.$5,000. After a public outcry, the law was overturned after only 24
hours.
While misinformation online is a problem, there exist other, more serious
threats to electoral integrity. President Trump, who said that Republicans
would never get into power again if everybody voted, told Fox Business this
week that he is actively withholding funds from the U.S. Postal Service in
order to undermine the election to his benefit. "They need that money in
order to make the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and
millions of ballots," he said. "But if they don't get those two items, that
means you can't have universal mail-in voting, because they're not equipped
to have it." Add decades of gerrymandering and a campaign of voter
suppression that has seen over 1,200 polling stations across the South,
primarily in black neighborhoods, and Trump might be able to overcome his
polling deficit and beat Biden.
YouTube's decision to ban discussion of hacked information on its platform
is unlikely to significantly improve political discourse or election
integrity in the United States. It will, however, continue to tilt the
balance in favor of established corporate-funded outlets, to the detriment
of new, alternative voices.
Feature photo | Posters of Edward Snowden,