4 ms·

Why just conspiracies ? Why not cults ? Political speeches ? Nutrition ? Science ? And who decide what's a conspiracy ? After all, we were regarded as paranoi

Why just conspiracies ? Why not cults ? Political speeches ? Nutrition ? Science ? And who decide what's a conspiracy ? After all, we were regarded as paranoid lunatics wearing tinfoil hats about the NSA surveillance, until PRISM came out and it became obvious we weren't.

dewey 9y ago
It's a first step to see if it's feasible according to the article: > Wojcicki did not specify how many conspiracies were on the company’s initial list, but suggested it would expand over time. “What I like about this unit is that it’s actually pretty extensible,” she said. The company could show additional alternate sources of information under controversial elements in the future, she said.
- thwarted 9y ago
  The company could show additional alternate sources of information under controversial elements in the future Part of the problem is that it's really trivial to make something appear to be controversial, especially in the age of "balanced reporting" where both (multiple?) sides are given equal exposure even if one is deep in crackpot realm. Even things like "10/10 scientists agree" are prone to foment controversy -- why are all these scientists agreeing, who's paying them?
  - soneil 9y ago
    Balance truly is a case of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". When we see a crackpot on TV, we see cheap amusement. A slow news day. A good idea (balance) gone horribly wrong. But for those who believe the crackpot, it's validation. He must be an authority on the subject, why else would the BBC be talking to him? We're so hell-bent on fairly representing both sides, that we start to forget that the counter to a fact, is a falsehood. Two political commentators may have contrasting viewpoints. Two sports pundits may have differing opinions on who the next transfer should be. But the counter-point to actual fact is fiction.
mirimir 9y ago
Before Bamford, there was little in public about the NSA. ECHELON was total conspiracy theory. So is the Israeli attack on USS Liberty during the Six-Day War still a conspiracy theory? I guess not, because there's a Wikipedia page. But it was denied for many years.
- MichaelGG 9y ago
  Even worse, Israeli false flag bombings in Egypt. They attempted to frame the Muslim Brotherhood. This was just a couple years after Israel got statehood. They denied it until 2000. "Lavon Affair" if you want to look it up. USS Liberty, Israel continues to deny they did it intentionally and that there was any pressure to cover up.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    I used USS Liberty because it's arguably no longer conspiracy theory, but still more controversial than NSA snooping. But alleged activities of Israelis during the early years? That remains highly controversial. I do see a Wikipedia article about Irgun (Zionists) bombing the King David Hotel, however.
- 0x4f3759df 9y ago
  People believe conspiracies because they have forecasting power. Example, next time something bad happens listen carefully to see if there was a drill happening at the same time and the same place of the same thing occurring. The conspiracy crowd is migrating to BitChute en masse, so this will add more fuel to the fire.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    Looks interesting. But anything on clearnet remains vulnerable.
- nitwit005 9y ago
  This is why I dislike the phrase conspiracy theory at times. Having a theory about a conspiracy due to some sort of evidence, is of course perfectly valid. The real "conspiracy theories" tend not only to be against evidence, but also aren't things real human organizations are capible of pulling off. I can tell you that if a UFO really landed at a US military base, it would be on 20 different Facebook pages within an hour, secrecy be damned. Let alone keeping the thing secret for decades.
chapill 9y ago
Why not indeed. Advertisers in general don't want to be associated with extremists of any stripe. From the linked opinion piece in the story: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-po... "YouTube leads viewers down a rabbit hole of extremism, while Google racks up the ad sales." So the big question is, why not demonetize them? Removing all ads probably has a pretty significant impact on the algorithm already. Why doesn't YouTube do the right thing? Stop making money on extremists? It seems like doing that would auto correct the problems.
- mtgx 9y ago
  How would you define an "extremist of any type"? Is someone who promotes a keto diet on YouTube an extremist following your logic? (considering they'd be pretty far outside the "common view" both of the population at large and of the medical community) I imagine the videos of that keto guy wouldn't look too "advertiser-friendly" to Coke or McDonalds. I, for one, hope YouTube actually follows your suggestion. The sooner the better. Then it can finally turn into GrandmaTV (its ultimate slow-motion goal, probably), and everyone will start leaving it, following their favorite creators to more decentralized and more censorship-free platforms like d.tube.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  They did that months ago. The whole 'adpocalypse'. You can not get ad money on anything even remotely controversial on youtube. Recently they've taken down tons of gun channels among other things.
  - chapill 9y ago
    I guess the devs tested with their adblock enabled, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHxHTPDrwVM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHxHTPDrwVM I see an ad for a video game beside the video on this page. https://i.imgur.com/eV5Vz5Z.jpg https://i.imgur.com/eV5Vz5Z.jpg I'm sure I could find plenty more examples.
    - 9y ago
euyyn 9y ago
I don't think you would have been able to find any information on Wikipedia about proofs that "the NSA spies on everyone" is false. Anti-vaxers conspiracies, though, to pick an example, has plenty of public info on why they're wrong.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
maxerickson 9y ago
I don't particularly recall the happenings around ECHELON circa 2000 being considered the stuff of paranoid lunatics. People in general didn't care much more than they care about PRISM, but they didn't think it was unlikely.
- roenxi 9y ago
  Maybe you have forgotten. "The government is reading all my emails and text messages" was 100% the sort of thing that only anti-government fringe groups, crazy people and the paranoid would have considered likely. Nowadays it seems more likely than not.
zanny 9y ago
> And who decide what's a conspiracy ? Well, Google. Its their website. They are going to do whatever they want with it.
- acct1771 9y ago
  No social responsibility, no responsibility to society. Sure. Try selling me that one.
staunch 9y ago
YouTube should add Wikipedia citations next to every video. It should be an information resource and not source of disinformation. YouTube also needs to fix search so that results are not full of computer-generated spam results. It's very surprising how poorly YouTube has been developed. The search is still embarrassingly bad after over a decade.
stankypickle 9y ago
I think you're a bit optimistic when you use the word "obvious". Some people still look at me as if I'm wearing a tinfoil hat whenever I bring up NSA surveillance.
Viliam1234 9y ago
> And who decide what's a conspiracy? Wikipedia admins with most patience and energy to participate in edit wars. Wikipedia admins also decide who else becomes a new Wikipedia admin and who gets banned, so once a group of people with same opinions gets a majority among the Wikipedia admins, their opinion becomes fixed as the official "truth". Automatically adding Wikipedia information to YouTube videos will only increase the importance of the edit wars.

dewey 9y ago

It's a first step to see if it's feasible according to the article: > Wojcicki did not specify how many conspiracies were on the company’s initial list, but suggested it would expand over time. “What I like about this unit is that it’s actually pretty extensible,” she said. The company could show additional alternate sources of information under controversial elements in the future, she said.

thwarted 9y ago
The company could show additional alternate sources of information under controversial elements in the future Part of the problem is that it's really trivial to make something appear to be controversial, especially in the age of "balanced reporting" where both (multiple?) sides are given equal exposure even if one is deep in crackpot realm. Even things like "10/10 scientists agree" are prone to foment controversy -- why are all these scientists agreeing, who's paying them?
- soneil 9y ago
  Balance truly is a case of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". When we see a crackpot on TV, we see cheap amusement. A slow news day. A good idea (balance) gone horribly wrong. But for those who believe the crackpot, it's validation. He must be an authority on the subject, why else would the BBC be talking to him? We're so hell-bent on fairly representing both sides, that we start to forget that the counter to a fact, is a falsehood. Two political commentators may have contrasting viewpoints. Two sports pundits may have differing opinions on who the next transfer should be. But the counter-point to actual fact is fiction.

mirimir 9y ago

Before Bamford, there was little in public about the NSA. ECHELON was total conspiracy theory. So is the Israeli attack on USS Liberty during the Six-Day War still a conspiracy theory? I guess not, because there's a Wikipedia page. But it was denied for many years.

MichaelGG 9y ago
Even worse, Israeli false flag bombings in Egypt. They attempted to frame the Muslim Brotherhood. This was just a couple years after Israel got statehood. They denied it until 2000. "Lavon Affair" if you want to look it up. USS Liberty, Israel continues to deny they did it intentionally and that there was any pressure to cover up.
- mirimir 9y ago
  I used USS Liberty because it's arguably no longer conspiracy theory, but still more controversial than NSA snooping. But alleged activities of Israelis during the early years? That remains highly controversial. I do see a Wikipedia article about Irgun (Zionists) bombing the King David Hotel, however.
0x4f3759df 9y ago
People believe conspiracies because they have forecasting power. Example, next time something bad happens listen carefully to see if there was a drill happening at the same time and the same place of the same thing occurring. The conspiracy crowd is migrating to BitChute en masse, so this will add more fuel to the fire.
- mirimir 9y ago
  Looks interesting. But anything on clearnet remains vulnerable.
nitwit005 9y ago
This is why I dislike the phrase conspiracy theory at times. Having a theory about a conspiracy due to some sort of evidence, is of course perfectly valid. The real "conspiracy theories" tend not only to be against evidence, but also aren't things real human organizations are capible of pulling off. I can tell you that if a UFO really landed at a US military base, it would be on 20 different Facebook pages within an hour, secrecy be damned. Let alone keeping the thing secret for decades.

chapill 9y ago

Why not indeed. Advertisers in general don't want to be associated with extremists of any stripe. From the linked opinion piece in the story: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-po... "YouTube leads viewers down a rabbit hole of extremism, while Google racks up the ad sales." So the big question is, why not demonetize them? Removing all ads probably has a pretty significant impact on the algorithm already. Why doesn't YouTube do the right thing? Stop making money on extremists? It seems like doing that would auto correct the problems.

mtgx 9y ago
How would you define an "extremist of any type"? Is someone who promotes a keto diet on YouTube an extremist following your logic? (considering they'd be pretty far outside the "common view" both of the population at large and of the medical community) I imagine the videos of that keto guy wouldn't look too "advertiser-friendly" to Coke or McDonalds. I, for one, hope YouTube actually follows your suggestion. The sooner the better. Then it can finally turn into GrandmaTV (its ultimate slow-motion goal, probably), and everyone will start leaving it, following their favorite creators to more decentralized and more censorship-free platforms like d.tube.
Houshalter 9y ago
They did that months ago. The whole 'adpocalypse'. You can not get ad money on anything even remotely controversial on youtube. Recently they've taken down tons of gun channels among other things.
- chapill 9y ago
  I guess the devs tested with their adblock enabled, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHxHTPDrwVM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHxHTPDrwVM I see an ad for a video game beside the video on this page. https://i.imgur.com/eV5Vz5Z.jpg https://i.imgur.com/eV5Vz5Z.jpg I'm sure I could find plenty more examples.
  - 9y ago

euyyn 9y ago

I don't think you would have been able to find any information on Wikipedia about proofs that "the NSA spies on everyone" is false. Anti-vaxers conspiracies, though, to pick an example, has plenty of public info on why they're wrong.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

maxerickson 9y ago

I don't particularly recall the happenings around ECHELON circa 2000 being considered the stuff of paranoid lunatics. People in general didn't care much more than they care about PRISM, but they didn't think it was unlikely.

roenxi 9y ago
Maybe you have forgotten. "The government is reading all my emails and text messages" was 100% the sort of thing that only anti-government fringe groups, crazy people and the paranoid would have considered likely. Nowadays it seems more likely than not.

zanny 9y ago

> And who decide what's a conspiracy ? Well, Google. Its their website. They are going to do whatever they want with it.

acct1771 9y ago
No social responsibility, no responsibility to society. Sure. Try selling me that one.

staunch 9y ago

YouTube should add Wikipedia citations next to every video. It should be an information resource and not source of disinformation. YouTube also needs to fix search so that results are not full of computer-generated spam results. It's very surprising how poorly YouTube has been developed. The search is still embarrassingly bad after over a decade.

stankypickle 9y ago

I think you're a bit optimistic when you use the word "obvious". Some people still look at me as if I'm wearing a tinfoil hat whenever I bring up NSA surveillance.

Viliam1234 9y ago

> And who decide what's a conspiracy? Wikipedia admins with most patience and energy to participate in edit wars. Wikipedia admins also decide who else becomes a new Wikipedia admin and who gets banned, so once a group of people with same opinions gets a majority among the Wikipedia admins, their opinion becomes fixed as the official "truth". Automatically adding Wikipedia information to YouTube videos will only increase the importance of the edit wars.