> We also disallow content alleging widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. Presidential election.
I'd be honestly curious if this includes the 1876 presidential election, in which 101% of eligible voters in South Carolina had their ballot counted, and the dispute over the proper way to count disputed electoral college votes was vigorous and deadlocked enough that the Democratic party got the end of Reconstruction as a concession in the Compromise of 1877 as compensation for allowing a Republican president.
If there was a giant disinformation campaign about that election claiming that the historically attested fraud did not occur, that Tilden was actually the legitimate 19th president, and this was directly weakening the fabric on which we've built our democracy? Sure, I guess.
Obviously it isn't, so no one cares. The point here is clearly to combat deliberate spreading of lies about an election. Now, you can argue that it won't work or will backfire, but there's no significant question about the purpose here.
If Trump was appointed President in a similar fashion to Hayes then we would suddenly care if YouTube or any other platform was censoring content that questioned whether this was legitimate or not.
I'd be honestly curious if this includes the 1876 presidential election, in which 101% of eligible voters in South Carolina had their ballot counted, and the dispute over the proper way to count disputed electoral college votes was vigorous and deadlocked enough that the Democratic party got the end of Reconstruction as a concession in the Compromise of 1877 as compensation for allowing a Republican president.