5 ms·

I think there are a few problems with this: 1. Definition of what is a conspiracy and what is not. There are some hot topics out there all the time (e.g. Trump

by bArray 9y ago

I think there are a few problems with this: 1. Definition of what is a conspiracy and what is not. There are some hot topics out there all the time (e.g. Trump and Russia collusion) - pointing out and not pointing out "conspiracies" is a statement within itself. You only have to think about Twitter and it's "verified accounts" hot water not so long ago [1]. 2. Adding fuel to the fire - for some conspiracies the idea of covering them up makes them more real for many people. There are many posts on various social media platforms with the tag line "share this before <X> takes it down" (e.g. Facebook videos [2]). 3. Videos that debunk theories could also get thrown into this automated mess they'll undoubtedly make and will probably incur demonetization. The result of that may be less debunking videos, actually poisoning the well further. 4. Generally squashing freedom of speech means that needed discussion on a particular topic can't happen. What I think they should do: 1. Have this as an opt-out feature which is mostly hidden, or an opt-in feature which is obvious. 2. Pick controversial topics of any kind and find for and against cases for them, allowing the user to investigate them both. Picking a side is dangerous. 3. Have smart humans go through and carefully select for and against cases - don't try to automate this as it will be gamed. 4. Don't use this information for classifying whether videos should be monetized. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/twitter-clamps-down-on-verified-accounts-2017-11?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/twitter-clamps-down-on-ve... [2] https://www.facebook.com/TaxationIsTheft2/videos/513176192385963/ https://www.facebook.com/TaxationIsTheft2/videos/51317619238...

soneil 9y ago
The most glaring problem is that it simply doesn't work. The only people who take conspiracy videos seriously, are people who have already decided they don't like the truth, and either want someone to agree with them, or want someone to invent the details/logic so they don't have to. You're not dealing with people who aren't aware of the moon landings. You're dealing with people who have already chosen, for whatever reason, not to believe it. Have you ever won an argument about a moon hoaxer with "yes, they did", or against a flat-earther with "no, it's round"? Embedding wiki summaries into youtube is simply taking the argument that never, ever works, and automating it. "You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into."
- ebcode 9y ago
  On the contrary, I reasoned myself into believing the moon landing was a hoax, and I have yet to be presented with acceptable evidence that contradicts my theory. Obviously, I have stricter criteria for "evidence" than what the general public accepts, but I nevertheless consider myself a rational person with excellent reasoning behind my theory. And I am willing to consider fresh evidence, if such were presented to me.
  - drewmate 9y ago
    Could you elaborate? Do you believe all moon landings were fake, or just some? What about unmanned landings?
    - ebcode 9y ago
      I do believe that China's unmanned lander is real. I don't believe that the US manned landings were real. Here is more elaboration than I had planned: I came to the conclusion that the landings were faked by my own reasoning. I grew up believing they were real, and only changed my mind in my 20s, after learning more about cosmic rays. Cosmic Rays weren't even on the radar for the Apollo missions; US states had only just begun banning shoe-fitting fluoroscopes in the 60s. That was the first inkling I had that something was suspect. Later I learned about Stanley Kubrick's alleged involvement in the documentary film, "Room 237". Every other recorded major scientific advance has been followed by more observed results in the same area. Yet the official story is that astronauts drove around in moon buggies and played golf on the moon in the 1970s. We just haven't been back because ... there's no reason to go back? Is it not funny that there was a huge reason to get to the moon in the 60s and 70s, but once we got there that reason just vanished? No, the official story is to me simply not plausible, whereas the alternative makes a ton of sense. The US had every intention of going, but the task itself was simply too difficult. Thankfully, existing trick camera technology, as evidenced in science fiction movies of the time, made the hoax appear entirely believable (to a gullible public). The last straw for me was around 2010, when I read one of Buzz Aldrin's accounts of the moon landing in "The Week"[0], and I thought, "wait a minute, I've heard that story before", and sure enough, went and found approximately the exact same story of the "last-minute, running out of fuel, manual take-over moon landing" in a novel by Heinlein called "Rocket Ship Galileo"[1]. I would encourage anyone interested to compare the landing story told by Aldrin with the landing story told by Heinlein and judge for themselves whether or not the official story is what actually happened in reality[2], and not just a really great (and wonderfully written, I might add) piece of sci-fi. [0] https://theweek.com/articles/503621/last-word-eagle-landedbarely https://theweek.com/articles/503621/last-word-eagle-landedba... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ship_Galileo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ship_Galileo [2] I also believe in an objective reality, where things either did or did not happen.

by bArray 9y ago

soneil 9y ago

The most glaring problem is that it simply doesn't work. The only people who take conspiracy videos seriously, are people who have already decided they don't like the truth, and either want someone to agree with them, or want someone to invent the details/logic so they don't have to. You're not dealing with people who aren't aware of the moon landings. You're dealing with people who have already chosen, for whatever reason, not to believe it. Have you ever won an argument about a moon hoaxer with "yes, they did", or against a flat-earther with "no, it's round"? Embedding wiki summaries into youtube is simply taking the argument that never, ever works, and automating it. "You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into."

ebcode 9y ago
On the contrary, I reasoned myself into believing the moon landing was a hoax, and I have yet to be presented with acceptable evidence that contradicts my theory. Obviously, I have stricter criteria for "evidence" than what the general public accepts, but I nevertheless consider myself a rational person with excellent reasoning behind my theory. And I am willing to consider fresh evidence, if such were presented to me.
- drewmate 9y ago
  Could you elaborate? Do you believe all moon landings were fake, or just some? What about unmanned landings?
  - ebcode 9y ago
    I do believe that China's unmanned lander is real. I don't believe that the US manned landings were real. Here is more elaboration than I had planned: I came to the conclusion that the landings were faked by my own reasoning. I grew up believing they were real, and only changed my mind in my 20s, after learning more about cosmic rays. Cosmic Rays weren't even on the radar for the Apollo missions; US states had only just begun banning shoe-fitting fluoroscopes in the 60s. That was the first inkling I had that something was suspect. Later I learned about Stanley Kubrick's alleged involvement in the documentary film, "Room 237". Every other recorded major scientific advance has been followed by more observed results in the same area. Yet the official story is that astronauts drove around in moon buggies and played golf on the moon in the 1970s. We just haven't been back because ... there's no reason to go back? Is it not funny that there was a huge reason to get to the moon in the 60s and 70s, but once we got there that reason just vanished? No, the official story is to me simply not plausible, whereas the alternative makes a ton of sense. The US had every intention of going, but the task itself was simply too difficult. Thankfully, existing trick camera technology, as evidenced in science fiction movies of the time, made the hoax appear entirely believable (to a gullible public). The last straw for me was around 2010, when I read one of Buzz Aldrin's accounts of the moon landing in "The Week"[0], and I thought, "wait a minute, I've heard that story before", and sure enough, went and found approximately the exact same story of the "last-minute, running out of fuel, manual take-over moon landing" in a novel by Heinlein called "Rocket Ship Galileo"[1]. I would encourage anyone interested to compare the landing story told by Aldrin with the landing story told by Heinlein and judge for themselves whether or not the official story is what actually happened in reality[2], and not just a really great (and wonderfully written, I might add) piece of sci-fi. [0] https://theweek.com/articles/503621/last-word-eagle-landedbarely https://theweek.com/articles/503621/last-word-eagle-landedba... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ship_Galileo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ship_Galileo [2] I also believe in an objective reality, where things either did or did not happen.