6 ms·

YouTube Unleashed a Conspiracy Theory Boom. Can It Be Contained?

40 points by tysone 8y ago

rsynnott 8y ago
YouTube doesn't want to contain it, I don't think. Practically any "watch next" loop from, say, any video about video games will bring you in short order to a Jordan Peterson thing, and from there it is generally no more than a jump or two to a man embodying the concept of a fedora lecturing viewers on the grand feminist conspiracy. Google presumably knows that this happens, and are okay with it. And that's from a review of a video game, say. If you start on a video about politics you'll be seeing complete insanity within minutes if you just do "watch next".
- bdcravens 8y ago
  I often get sucked in for entertainment value on those videos, even when I don't agree with anything they are saying.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I wonder if that is sometimes their intent. Sort of the "oh it's just a joke" situations you see, but the intent may be just normalization of it / a gateway to keep planting these ideas and doubts.
    - 52-6F-62 8y ago
      There was a quote on that effect (which I can't recall right now, sorry)—one from pre-WWII USA pro-nazi groups. Not that anyone who uses the techniques are necessarily pro-nazi, but that it's a technique with an established history of [attempted] use, IIRC, in the popularization of presently unpopular ideas.
      - bdcravens 8y ago
        In my most cynical moments, I've wondered if the recent "growth" of extreme right-wing movements in the US, and the response, is a long game with regard to civil liberties.
- gipp 8y ago
  https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/01/continuing-our-work-to-improve.html?m=1 https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/01/continuing-our-work-t... YouTube and Google have put out tons of comms lately indicating that it's at least something top of mind
  - truculent 8y ago
    The problem is that it's a direct result of their business model & environment. I would think they could fix it (or at least put a big dent in it) immediately if they ditched the recommendation engines, autoplay and other tricks to keep people watching. But they can't to do that, because of the choices they made 2-5 years ago.
  - gscott 8y ago
    Mostly because this hoopla makes it hard to monetize those videos. But even conspiracy theorists need toothpaste and skin cream. YouTube needs to create an education program for advertisers that people who consume these videos are people too. Maybe sell prepper supply ads.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Because Jordan Peterson is the same as conspiracy theory? Or it's the usual default of labelling as such anything one doesn't agree with?
srkmno 8y ago
Conspiracy theories are fiction which is protected speech, it's interesting how newspapers are thumbing their noses at the first amendment and smearing competitors who also enjoy it's protection as perhaps they sense an opportunity at regaining gatekeeper status. It also can be said that "conspiracy theories" are part of internet culture as no one really believes the earth is flat, it's just attention seeking behavior and trolling.
- bargl 8y ago
  It is impossible to say what people do or don't believe, but I worked with a guy who would argue the earth was flat. His massive knowledge into the conspiracies and complete lack of knowledge about physics was a constant issue. Oh, we worked on a project computing link budgets for geo stationary communication satellites. So the company made all of their money off of satellites, and he could completely disconnect from that.
  - srkmno 8y ago
    Supposing that's true where's the harm there? why should we restrict "speech" because of your colleague's beliefs?
    - bargl 8y ago
      I am in no way shape or form advocating for restricting speech. I speaking strictly to whether or not he believes it. I believe he believes it. But it's impossible for me to know. I make no assertion other than that.
      - lowdose 8y ago
        Does he have a youtube channel?
- Mc_Big_G 8y ago
  as no one really believes the earth is flat, it's just attention seeking behavior and trolling. You're underestimating the stupidity of a vast portion of the population. There are plenty of people who believe not only that the earth is flat but many other conspiracy theories as well. Dismissing it as trolling is naive.
whatislovecraft 8y ago
Is this really YouTube's fault? The President of the USA thinks China invented climate change as a hoax to reduce the economic output of the USA. Who can expect youth or anyone really to be okay in an age where the ruling parties are themselves the ones creating and pushing the wildest conspiracies?
- duxup 8y ago
  >Is this really YouTube's fault? At some point aren't they responsible for hosting it? If I were hosting it, I'd feel somewhat responsible.
  - whatislovecraft 8y ago
    All the TV news networks then as well, right? Everyone who plays video of the Republicans spouting lies about the world, without directly commenting how wrong it is, would be equally guilty? More guilty? This stuff starts with Authority. on Live TV. Not some rando youtube channels.
    - duxup 8y ago
      The responsible news networks really do put some effort into verifying claims and confronting politicians, sometimes the moment they claim it, and they do filter who gets on... I have no idea what you mean by "More guilty".
- johmue 8y ago
  and Youtube is a breeding and feeding ground for those conspiracies. More and more extreme content creates emotional reactions, clicks and binds attention therefore it is recommended frequently to optimise the only metric that matters for youtube: the time you spent on their platform - no matter what.
inherentFloyd 8y ago
>Mr. Dawson unspooled a series of far-fetched hypotheses. Among them: that iPhones secretly record their owners’ every utterance Yeah, but that's true.
- coldtea 8y ago
  Even if not true, very far from "far fetched". Totally plausible, and in some cases (certain malicious apps etc, on Android or jailbroken iPhone) totally true.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
duxup 8y ago
In the early days of the internet I thought all this "information" being available / soon to be available as a positive. I had no idea what the negatives would be at that point, let alone the scale.
- doktrin 8y ago
  I don't personally know (or know of) anyone who truly saw this coming 20+ years ago. It's a bit humbling to have been blindsided so thoroughly.
IWeldMelons 8y ago
It appears that dem party (and its mouthpiece NyTimes) has become a complete opposite of itself. Their obviously want to limit free speech to their liking.
- duxup 8y ago
  Posting on YouTube =/ free speech. That's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding you've got there.
  - dx87 8y ago
    Free speech isn't something that was created by the US Constitution, it's a right that everyone has by default. It doesn't matter if it's a private company or a government, restricting what people are allowed to say is still restricting free speech.
    - duxup 8y ago
      How does that idea work in your mind with private companies? They should be required to host it / anything?
    - fzeroracer 8y ago
      So you're saying that I'm entitled to sticking a bunch of signs on your lawn and utilizing my right to free speech to protest on your property? If you don't agree, why are you pro-censorship?
      - IWeldMelons 8y ago
        It is not like this. It is as if I come and stick some signs to your lawn, and you would not seem to object. But then NYTimes comes and tries to coerce you to remove my signs, because THEY do not like them.
        duxup 8y ago
        You could argue there's a lot of content on "NYT doesn't like" but it's still there.... I think your narrative is pretty far off the ball here. It still doesn't answer the question posed.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
Our society is premised on the idea of free exchange of ideas. Some will freely choose to think/do/believe things we find insane (some cults/religions/jobs). The premise of this article is that these videos are going to brainwash/hypnotize poor fools into believing crazy things. Newspapers need to win not be being the only voice in the room, but by being the most relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased voice in the room.
- EliRivers 8y ago
  Newspapers need to win not be being the only voice in the room, but by being the most relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased voice in the room. But being relevant, clear, researched, reliable and unbiased doesn't get as much attention as feeding people's biases and fears and all the rest of that. Is it possible to win if all you have to offer is relevance, clarity, research, reliability and lack of bias?
  - rjf72 8y ago
    But is this really the case? For decades there were things like the National Enquirer and other such rags sitting by the checkout counter with all sorts of sensationalized, hyperbolic, and often fake articles. Yet people, somehow, understood that taking things from it as more than entertainment as not a great idea. I think a big part of the reason for this is because there were other, much more stable, sources of information that consistently provided reliable information in a clear, objective, and well considered manner. Today it's increasingly difficult to point to any particularly stable source of information. The media has become ubiquitously driven by partisanship, agenda, and sensationalism. And reporting of falsifiable facts has been replaced with opinion, conjecture, speculation, and leading statements. And one of the biggest issues is that this is all happening during the era of the internet. In times past if you wanted to read older news articles you needed to go to a library and hope they had the paper scanned onto film, and then dig through the paper to try to find whatever you looking for. Now when a paper engages in shoddy reporting, it can be instantly referenced and used as an example to all. The lowest common denominator always wins the short game in society. Offer somebody a sensational[ized] and poorly researched story, or a well researched, considered, and frankly somewhat boring story. The sensationalized story will almost always win in a one-off. It's fun to read light weight trash when you're just going for a taste. Who didn't occasionally flick through that National Enquirer at the checkout stand? It was fun! But in the long game, the trash loses. It may be fun to read a trashy story here and there, but it's not fun when that's all you have because it's ultimately meaningless. The big problem is that I think the media was very late to react to the internet, and then overreacted by trying to compete with social media. And that inevitably meant becoming trash. I'm going to conclude with a very high hanging target, The Intercept. In my opinion The Intercept remains arguably the most reputable media outlet today. Nonetheless, especially in recent times have also started to go down the path of partisanship and it always ends the same way. --- [1] - This is an archive of an article The Intercept ran some time back suggesting it was absurd and unimaginable for the president to suggest that some bomb threats against Jewish community centers might be driven by something other than anti-semitism. The outrage driven article focused on his suggestion that attacks can, in lieu of anti-semitism, sometimes by done because "Someone’s doing it to make others look bad." The paper suggested such thoughts were "white supremacist conspiracy theories." [2] - This is an article The Intercept ran two days later after it was revealed that one of their former reporters had been the person executing the bomb threats. He was an extremely liberal black individual who reported almost exclusively on social justice and racial issues. He had been calling in the hoaxes in a convoluted attempt to frame his ex-girlfriend (whom had recently broken up with him) for calling in the bomb threats. [3] - This is how the article was updated given #2. ---- [1] - https://archive.fo/DwZLx https://archive.fo/DwZLx [2] - https://theintercept.com/2017/03/03/statement-on-the-arrest-of-former-intercept-reporter-juan-thompson/ https://theintercept.com/2017/03/03/statement-on-the-arrest-... [3] - https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/trump-suggests-anti-semitic-acts-might-faked-make-movement-look-bad/ https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/trump-suggests-anti-semi...
Ambroos 8y ago
There's been an uptick in conspiracy theories lately, I kinda blame the whole "mainstream media lies" movement. Some people are starting to believe that if almost everyone believes something, it has to be a conspiracy. My favourite one right now is "5G is bad and will kill us all and microwave birds". There is not a single article on 5G without the Facebook comments being full of people shouting about the extreme dangers (even when it's just about enabling the fake 5G on frequencies previously used for LTE). No matter what you say, they will keep linking you vague YouTube videos by people who claim to be doctors and misinterpreted documents from the 80s. I don't get it at all.
- duxup 8y ago
  It's very attractive in an unpredictable world if you're feeling vulnerable, scared, disenfranchised. Someone out there has the answer, and oh man it's great because someone's answer are these things I'm inclined to belive and reinforces / validates my values.
- daxorid 8y ago
  Your premise is reasonable, but the "mainstream media lies" movement is rooted firmly in reality, so root cause analysis points elsewhere. From the Russian collusion narrative, to the Avenatti client claims, to the Covington school coverage, to the recent Jesse Smolett coverage. Western media increasingly does not bother to check facts before running with stories. It's fair to blame the "msm lies movement", but that movement itself has a root cause.
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  the whole 5G radiation conspiracy thing has been going for a long time. I think it's as old as mobile technology itself. Surprising they haven't blamed RF for the disappearance of insects yet. Fwiw probably healthy to be skeptical about blanket statements claiming RF has 0 risks (they do cause brain tumors in rats). Off-topic: David Dees has some funny (to me hilarious) artwork on his site that describes these conspiracy theories better than words: http://ddees.com/new-art/ http://ddees.com/new-art/ The ones about "blockchain" and 5G are so friggin good I've set them as desktop wallpapers :) http://ddees.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/clown.jpg http://ddees.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/clown.jpg http://ddees.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Sheeple-42.jpg http://ddees.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Sheeple-42.jpg
xiphias2 8y ago
Some of the conspiracy theories have been proven true already by Wikileaks and Edward Snowden. Just because something is a theory doesn't mean that it's true or false. What we know already is that powerful organizations have secrets that they spend big money on protecting. The difference now is that with the internet the time for which a secret can be kept shortened significantly.
Justsignedup 8y ago
The problem faced is unprecedented soapboxing. Insane ideas have been around as long as humanity. Usually you stand on a soapbox and preach, people ignore you. Some might even disuade others from listening. The problem with online opinions is that while the "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one" adage is true, online nobody is there to tell you "stop watching this stupid thing". And we all know YT comments are a heap of garbage. Also YT/Instagram comments are fully moderated by the author, so removing all disagreements is easy. Easy to give the appearance of consensus. And worse, once you watch one, YT's algos want to keep you watching so suddenly you are flooded with related vides. This leads to a problem.
- DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
  I've found it almost impossible to remove a specific feed or ideology from my YT recommendations. As an example I once watched Yanis Varoufakis speak at the Oxford Union. He has appeared on panels with Slavoj Zizek who is a person I personally can't stomach. Almost immediately after the Yanis video I had YT recommend me to watch a panel with Zizek and Varoufakis discuss in 2016. I didn't watch it - but since then I get Zizek constantly recommended in my feed. Note I don't use google for searches and my YT is running pretty much isolated in Chrome while I use Firefox/Tor for all other browsing. So google doesn't know me and YT knows me only via my handle that is otherwise not connected to anything (outside YT). I have countless examples like this. YT keeps pushing me down a specific ideological path without any action on my part. Sometimes it's great but in those cases where it's not it's not just bad but outright dangerous. I don't think YT has the effect on my since I'm way past a point (age) where my behavior can easily be formed. But I can see how this sends somebody over the cliff who is still figuring out who they are. People like rockstar2016 (aka the MAGA killer) or the woman who went into Youtube HQ and starting shooting the place up were probably a good examples of how social media can radicalize those that are the most vulnerable. EDIT: “All but one of 30 Flat Earthers interviewed said they hadn't considered the Earth to be flat until watching videos promoting the theory on YouTube” https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/18/researchers-blame-youtube-for-the-rise-in-flat-earthers/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/18/researchers-blame-youtub...
bellerose 8y ago
I don't think the article is even fact based to assume youtube has created a conspiracy theory boom. I remember the dial-up age and people typically knew some corner on the web for reading conspiracy theories to get some laughs. When 9/11 happened there were those conspiracy documentaries and this was before youtube was what it is today. My guess if a boom is being created. The reason is from people being crafter at getting people absorbed in the conspiracy theories. Maybe the health & happiness of society has decreased and where people are now easily absorbed into conspiracy theories. Misery is a beast that pulls people into time sink holes to escape reality.
shortform 8y ago
tl;dr: - several Youtube channels have gained popularity promoting conspiracy theories, like the idea that iPhones are recording at all times or that the California wildfires were started intentionally - Youtube and other platforms like Facebook are now under pressure to clean up misinformation, especially that which can lead to "real-world harm" - "clean up" has meant changing recommendation algorithms to reduce endless serving of conspiracy theory videos to people who like watching them. Theoretically this means saving them from falling into conspiracy theory rabbit holes - "clean up" could also mean pending regulation to make platforms legally liable for the algorithmic recommendations they make - distinguishing content that is "harmful" vs "innocent entertainment" will be tricky for platforms like Youtube - but the real issue could be deeper - many young people reject mainstream sources in favor of individual voices. The popularity of conspiracy theory videos may be a symptom of a generational shift in what information is trustworthy == This tl;dr was brought to you by Shortform, an upcoming product summarizing the best content in books and articles. Check it out at https://www.shortform.io https://www.shortform.io
equalunique 8y ago
Should it be contained? The answer is no.
faitswulff 8y ago
I have to wonder how much of the uptick in conspiracy theories and extreme perspectives are nation state actors attempting to sow discord. I don't think people need help being crazy, but social and new media are the equivalent of getting to drop millions of flyers into enemy territory for a small fee and little to no risk.
- gigabates 8y ago
  A meta conspiracy theory!
qwerty456127 8y ago
Just don't allow stupid and crazy people to buy guns and you won't have to care much about what do they believe.
- neaden 8y ago
  They still vote, or fail to vaccinate their children.
FlowNote 8y ago
It is a conspiracy theory to suggest YouTube has a conspiracy theory problem. If you don't like people's opinion, stop spending your time in places where the sole activity is people spreading their opinions. Is the national narrative of Nigeria a conspiracy theory when it doesn't meet all of your "facts"? Are large swaths of Indian religions conspiracy theory because they don't align with Silicon Valley's agenda? Humans are storytellers, not hard drives that blindly repeat experience. Get over yourselves.
- FlowNote 8y ago
  The parent post will be downvoted and I blame a conspiracy theory. This is what you literally sound like.
acd 8y ago
My favorite YouTube is the rainbow conspiracy it appears the person is not aware of the color spectrum. That said filter bubbles and ai feeding us more what we “want” is probably increasing conspiracy theories and making us less tolerant of different views. There has been little talk of the morality of ai algorithms. Personally I was recommended “hot” dating sites advertisement when having relationship issues. Not what I needed but surely what most likely pays the best. The issue is lack of ai moral or for that sake profit first. Obectivivly the ai was right but morally not I am a parent. Ads probably should be regulated at least you should be able to say no to ai algorithm and behavioral psychologist maximizing profit for private companies.
modeless 8y ago
This is like all those politicians and journalists lamenting the rise in violence, when both war and violent crime are actually at historically low levels. We are today in a golden age of science, where people's beliefs are on average the most fact-based they have ever been. You wouldn't believe the ridiculous things people believed in the past. Yes, we have a long way to go and we should continue to seek improvement, but don't try to tell me that things are getting worse when that's clearly not the case. Or at least provide some evidence that's not anecdotal.
ortusdux 8y ago
Annoyingly, conspiracy theorists are great consumers. They are primed to reject the status quo and try new things. Look at Alex Jones' merchandise. I am not saying that his supplements are snake oil, but he definitely profits from curating an audience that is skeptical or outright rejects modern medicine.
olefoo 8y ago
The most relevant and interesting aspect of any conspiracy theory is the fears it exposes. Whether its fear of environmental degradation ( Chemtrails ), fear of loss of agency ( anti-vaccination, anything mentioning the Federal Reserve, most political conspiracy theories ), racial identity fears ( anti-semitism, "White Genocide", Islamophobia, etc. ). One underappreciated aspect of the rise of conspiracy theories in the last 20 years is the fact that more people are insecure financially and have lost trust in institutions, often justifiably so. So conspiracy theories meet less resistance than they would have from people who are not worried about their survival in the face of a society that seems determined to immiserate and impoverish them if not destroy them. Additionally we have a number of examples of institutions being subverted to malign ends, from Wells Fargo to Wikileaks, we consistently see dishonest behavior from organizations that claim to have the publics interest at heart...

40 points by tysone 8y ago

YouTube doesn't want to contain it, I don't think. Practically any "watch next" loop from, say, any video about video games will bring you in short order to a Jordan Peterson thing, and from there it is generally no more than a jump or two to a man embodying the concept of a fedora lecturing viewers on the grand feminist conspiracy. Google presumably knows that this happens, and are okay with it. And that's from a review of a video game, say. If you start on a video about politics you'll be seeing complete insanity within minutes if you just do "watch next".

bdcravens 8y ago
I often get sucked in for entertainment value on those videos, even when I don't agree with anything they are saying.
- duxup 8y ago
  I wonder if that is sometimes their intent. Sort of the "oh it's just a joke" situations you see, but the intent may be just normalization of it / a gateway to keep planting these ideas and doubts.
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    There was a quote on that effect (which I can't recall right now, sorry)—one from pre-WWII USA pro-nazi groups. Not that anyone who uses the techniques are necessarily pro-nazi, but that it's a technique with an established history of [attempted] use, IIRC, in the popularization of presently unpopular ideas.
    - bdcravens 8y ago
      In my most cynical moments, I've wondered if the recent "growth" of extreme right-wing movements in the US, and the response, is a long game with regard to civil liberties.
gipp 8y ago
https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/01/continuing-our-work-to-improve.html?m=1 https://youtube.googleblog.com/2019/01/continuing-our-work-t... YouTube and Google have put out tons of comms lately indicating that it's at least something top of mind
- truculent 8y ago
  The problem is that it's a direct result of their business model & environment. I would think they could fix it (or at least put a big dent in it) immediately if they ditched the recommendation engines, autoplay and other tricks to keep people watching. But they can't to do that, because of the choices they made 2-5 years ago.
- gscott 8y ago
  Mostly because this hoopla makes it hard to monetize those videos. But even conspiracy theorists need toothpaste and skin cream. YouTube needs to create an education program for advertisers that people who consume these videos are people too. Maybe sell prepper supply ads.
coldtea 8y ago
Because Jordan Peterson is the same as conspiracy theory? Or it's the usual default of labelling as such anything one doesn't agree with?

srkmno 8y ago

Conspiracy theories are fiction which is protected speech, it's interesting how newspapers are thumbing their noses at the first amendment and smearing competitors who also enjoy it's protection as perhaps they sense an opportunity at regaining gatekeeper status. It also can be said that "conspiracy theories" are part of internet culture as no one really believes the earth is flat, it's just attention seeking behavior and trolling.

bargl 8y ago
It is impossible to say what people do or don't believe, but I worked with a guy who would argue the earth was flat. His massive knowledge into the conspiracies and complete lack of knowledge about physics was a constant issue. Oh, we worked on a project computing link budgets for geo stationary communication satellites. So the company made all of their money off of satellites, and he could completely disconnect from that.
- srkmno 8y ago
  Supposing that's true where's the harm there? why should we restrict "speech" because of your colleague's beliefs?
  - bargl 8y ago
    I am in no way shape or form advocating for restricting speech. I speaking strictly to whether or not he believes it. I believe he believes it. But it's impossible for me to know. I make no assertion other than that.
    - lowdose 8y ago
      Does he have a youtube channel?
Mc_Big_G 8y ago
as no one really believes the earth is flat, it's just attention seeking behavior and trolling. You're underestimating the stupidity of a vast portion of the population. There are plenty of people who believe not only that the earth is flat but many other conspiracy theories as well. Dismissing it as trolling is naive.

whatislovecraft 8y ago

Is this really YouTube's fault? The President of the USA thinks China invented climate change as a hoax to reduce the economic output of the USA. Who can expect youth or anyone really to be okay in an age where the ruling parties are themselves the ones creating and pushing the wildest conspiracies?

duxup 8y ago
>Is this really YouTube's fault? At some point aren't they responsible for hosting it? If I were hosting it, I'd feel somewhat responsible.
- whatislovecraft 8y ago
  All the TV news networks then as well, right? Everyone who plays video of the Republicans spouting lies about the world, without directly commenting how wrong it is, would be equally guilty? More guilty? This stuff starts with Authority. on Live TV. Not some rando youtube channels.
  - duxup 8y ago
    The responsible news networks really do put some effort into verifying claims and confronting politicians, sometimes the moment they claim it, and they do filter who gets on... I have no idea what you mean by "More guilty".
johmue 8y ago
and Youtube is a breeding and feeding ground for those conspiracies. More and more extreme content creates emotional reactions, clicks and binds attention therefore it is recommended frequently to optimise the only metric that matters for youtube: the time you spent on their platform - no matter what.

inherentFloyd 8y ago

>Mr. Dawson unspooled a series of far-fetched hypotheses. Among them: that iPhones secretly record their owners’ every utterance Yeah, but that's true.

coldtea 8y ago
Even if not true, very far from "far fetched". Totally plausible, and in some cases (certain malicious apps etc, on Android or jailbroken iPhone) totally true.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

duxup 8y ago

In the early days of the internet I thought all this "information" being available / soon to be available as a positive. I had no idea what the negatives would be at that point, let alone the scale.

doktrin 8y ago
I don't personally know (or know of) anyone who truly saw this coming 20+ years ago. It's a bit humbling to have been blindsided so thoroughly.

IWeldMelons 8y ago

It appears that dem party (and its mouthpiece NyTimes) has become a complete opposite of itself. Their obviously want to limit free speech to their liking.

duxup 8y ago
Posting on YouTube =/ free speech. That's a pretty fundamental misunderstanding you've got there.
- dx87 8y ago
  Free speech isn't something that was created by the US Constitution, it's a right that everyone has by default. It doesn't matter if it's a private company or a government, restricting what people are allowed to say is still restricting free speech.
  - duxup 8y ago
    How does that idea work in your mind with private companies? They should be required to host it / anything?
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    So you're saying that I'm entitled to sticking a bunch of signs on your lawn and utilizing my right to free speech to protest on your property? If you don't agree, why are you pro-censorship?
    - IWeldMelons 8y ago
      It is not like this. It is as if I come and stick some signs to your lawn, and you would not seem to object. But then NYTimes comes and tries to coerce you to remove my signs, because THEY do not like them.
      - duxup 8y ago
        You could argue there's a lot of content on "NYT doesn't like" but it's still there.... I think your narrative is pretty far off the ball here. It still doesn't answer the question posed.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

Our society is premised on the idea of free exchange of ideas. Some will freely choose to think/do/believe things we find insane (some cults/religions/jobs). The premise of this article is that these videos are going to brainwash/hypnotize poor fools into believing crazy things. Newspapers need to win not be being the only voice in the room, but by being the most relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased voice in the room.

EliRivers 8y ago
Newspapers need to win not be being the only voice in the room, but by being the most relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased voice in the room. But being relevant, clear, researched, reliable and unbiased doesn't get as much attention as feeding people's biases and fears and all the rest of that. Is it possible to win if all you have to offer is relevance, clarity, research, reliability and lack of bias?
- rjf72 8y ago
  But is this really the case? For decades there were things like the National Enquirer and other such rags sitting by the checkout counter with all sorts of sensationalized, hyperbolic, and often fake articles. Yet people, somehow, understood that taking things from it as more than entertainment as not a great idea. I think a big part of the reason for this is because there were other, much more stable, sources of information that consistently provided reliable information in a clear, objective, and well considered manner. Today it's increasingly difficult to point to any particularly stable source of information. The media has become ubiquitously driven by partisanship, agenda, and sensationalism. And reporting of falsifiable facts has been replaced with opinion, conjecture, speculation, and leading statements. And one of the biggest issues is that this is all happening during the era of the internet. In times past if you wanted to read older news articles you needed to go to a library and hope they had the paper scanned onto film, and then dig through the paper to try to find whatever you looking for. Now when a paper engages in shoddy reporting, it can be instantly referenced and used as an example to all. The lowest common denominator always wins the short game in society. Offer somebody a sensational[ized] and poorly researched story, or a well researched, considered, and frankly somewhat boring story. The sensationalized story will almost always win in a one-off. It's fun to read light weight trash when you're just going for a taste. Who didn't occasionally flick through that National Enquirer at the checkout stand? It was fun! But in the long game, the trash loses. It may be fun to read a trashy story here and there, but it's not fun when that's all you have because it's ultimately meaningless. The big problem is that I think the media was very late to react to the internet, and then overreacted by trying to compete with social media. And that inevitably meant becoming trash. I'm going to conclude with a very high hanging target, The Intercept. In my opinion The Intercept remains arguably the most reputable media outlet today. Nonetheless, especially in recent times have also started to go down the path of partisanship and it always ends the same way. --- [1] - This is an archive of an article The Intercept ran some time back suggesting it was absurd and unimaginable for the president to suggest that some bomb threats against Jewish community centers might be driven by something other than anti-semitism. The outrage driven article focused on his suggestion that attacks can, in lieu of anti-semitism, sometimes by done because "Someone’s doing it to make others look bad." The paper suggested such thoughts were "white supremacist conspiracy theories." [2] - This is an article The Intercept ran two days later after it was revealed that one of their former reporters had been the person executing the bomb threats. He was an extremely liberal black individual who reported almost exclusively on social justice and racial issues. He had been calling in the hoaxes in a convoluted attempt to frame his ex-girlfriend (whom had recently broken up with him) for calling in the bomb threats. [3] - This is how the article was updated given #2. ---- [1] - https://archive.fo/DwZLx https://archive.fo/DwZLx [2] - https://theintercept.com/2017/03/03/statement-on-the-arrest-of-former-intercept-reporter-juan-thompson/ https://theintercept.com/2017/03/03/statement-on-the-arrest-... [3] - https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/trump-suggests-anti-semitic-acts-might-faked-make-movement-look-bad/ https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/trump-suggests-anti-semi...

Ambroos 8y ago

There's been an uptick in conspiracy theories lately, I kinda blame the whole "mainstream media lies" movement. Some people are starting to believe that if almost everyone believes something, it has to be a conspiracy. My favourite one right now is "5G is bad and will kill us all and microwave birds". There is not a single article on 5G without the Facebook comments being full of people shouting about the extreme dangers (even when it's just about enabling the fake 5G on frequencies previously used for LTE). No matter what you say, they will keep linking you vague YouTube videos by people who claim to be doctors and misinterpreted documents from the 80s. I don't get it at all.

duxup 8y ago
It's very attractive in an unpredictable world if you're feeling vulnerable, scared, disenfranchised. Someone out there has the answer, and oh man it's great because someone's answer are these things I'm inclined to belive and reinforces / validates my values.
daxorid 8y ago
Your premise is reasonable, but the "mainstream media lies" movement is rooted firmly in reality, so root cause analysis points elsewhere. From the Russian collusion narrative, to the Avenatti client claims, to the Covington school coverage, to the recent Jesse Smolett coverage. Western media increasingly does not bother to check facts before running with stories. It's fair to blame the "msm lies movement", but that movement itself has a root cause.
DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
the whole 5G radiation conspiracy thing has been going for a long time. I think it's as old as mobile technology itself. Surprising they haven't blamed RF for the disappearance of insects yet. Fwiw probably healthy to be skeptical about blanket statements claiming RF has 0 risks (they do cause brain tumors in rats). Off-topic: David Dees has some funny (to me hilarious) artwork on his site that describes these conspiracy theories better than words: http://ddees.com/new-art/ http://ddees.com/new-art/ The ones about "blockchain" and 5G are so friggin good I've set them as desktop wallpapers :) http://ddees.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/clown.jpg http://ddees.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/clown.jpg http://ddees.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Sheeple-42.jpg http://ddees.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Sheeple-42.jpg

xiphias2 8y ago

Some of the conspiracy theories have been proven true already by Wikileaks and Edward Snowden. Just because something is a theory doesn't mean that it's true or false. What we know already is that powerful organizations have secrets that they spend big money on protecting. The difference now is that with the internet the time for which a secret can be kept shortened significantly.

Justsignedup 8y ago

The problem faced is unprecedented soapboxing. Insane ideas have been around as long as humanity. Usually you stand on a soapbox and preach, people ignore you. Some might even disuade others from listening. The problem with online opinions is that while the "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one" adage is true, online nobody is there to tell you "stop watching this stupid thing". And we all know YT comments are a heap of garbage. Also YT/Instagram comments are fully moderated by the author, so removing all disagreements is easy. Easy to give the appearance of consensus. And worse, once you watch one, YT's algos want to keep you watching so suddenly you are flooded with related vides. This leads to a problem.

DyslexicAtheist 8y ago
I've found it almost impossible to remove a specific feed or ideology from my YT recommendations. As an example I once watched Yanis Varoufakis speak at the Oxford Union. He has appeared on panels with Slavoj Zizek who is a person I personally can't stomach. Almost immediately after the Yanis video I had YT recommend me to watch a panel with Zizek and Varoufakis discuss in 2016. I didn't watch it - but since then I get Zizek constantly recommended in my feed. Note I don't use google for searches and my YT is running pretty much isolated in Chrome while I use Firefox/Tor for all other browsing. So google doesn't know me and YT knows me only via my handle that is otherwise not connected to anything (outside YT). I have countless examples like this. YT keeps pushing me down a specific ideological path without any action on my part. Sometimes it's great but in those cases where it's not it's not just bad but outright dangerous. I don't think YT has the effect on my since I'm way past a point (age) where my behavior can easily be formed. But I can see how this sends somebody over the cliff who is still figuring out who they are. People like rockstar2016 (aka the MAGA killer) or the woman who went into Youtube HQ and starting shooting the place up were probably a good examples of how social media can radicalize those that are the most vulnerable. EDIT: “All but one of 30 Flat Earthers interviewed said they hadn't considered the Earth to be flat until watching videos promoting the theory on YouTube” https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/18/researchers-blame-youtube-for-the-rise-in-flat-earthers/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/18/researchers-blame-youtub...

bellerose 8y ago

I don't think the article is even fact based to assume youtube has created a conspiracy theory boom. I remember the dial-up age and people typically knew some corner on the web for reading conspiracy theories to get some laughs. When 9/11 happened there were those conspiracy documentaries and this was before youtube was what it is today. My guess if a boom is being created. The reason is from people being crafter at getting people absorbed in the conspiracy theories. Maybe the health & happiness of society has decreased and where people are now easily absorbed into conspiracy theories. Misery is a beast that pulls people into time sink holes to escape reality.

shortform 8y ago

tl;dr: - several Youtube channels have gained popularity promoting conspiracy theories, like the idea that iPhones are recording at all times or that the California wildfires were started intentionally - Youtube and other platforms like Facebook are now under pressure to clean up misinformation, especially that which can lead to "real-world harm" - "clean up" has meant changing recommendation algorithms to reduce endless serving of conspiracy theory videos to people who like watching them. Theoretically this means saving them from falling into conspiracy theory rabbit holes - "clean up" could also mean pending regulation to make platforms legally liable for the algorithmic recommendations they make - distinguishing content that is "harmful" vs "innocent entertainment" will be tricky for platforms like Youtube - but the real issue could be deeper - many young people reject mainstream sources in favor of individual voices. The popularity of conspiracy theory videos may be a symptom of a generational shift in what information is trustworthy == This tl;dr was brought to you by Shortform, an upcoming product summarizing the best content in books and articles. Check it out at https://www.shortform.io https://www.shortform.io

equalunique 8y ago

Should it be contained? The answer is no.

faitswulff 8y ago

I have to wonder how much of the uptick in conspiracy theories and extreme perspectives are nation state actors attempting to sow discord. I don't think people need help being crazy, but social and new media are the equivalent of getting to drop millions of flyers into enemy territory for a small fee and little to no risk.

gigabates 8y ago
A meta conspiracy theory!

qwerty456127 8y ago

Just don't allow stupid and crazy people to buy guns and you won't have to care much about what do they believe.

neaden 8y ago
They still vote, or fail to vaccinate their children.

FlowNote 8y ago

It is a conspiracy theory to suggest YouTube has a conspiracy theory problem. If you don't like people's opinion, stop spending your time in places where the sole activity is people spreading their opinions. Is the national narrative of Nigeria a conspiracy theory when it doesn't meet all of your "facts"? Are large swaths of Indian religions conspiracy theory because they don't align with Silicon Valley's agenda? Humans are storytellers, not hard drives that blindly repeat experience. Get over yourselves.

FlowNote 8y ago
The parent post will be downvoted and I blame a conspiracy theory. This is what you literally sound like.

acd 8y ago

My favorite YouTube is the rainbow conspiracy it appears the person is not aware of the color spectrum. That said filter bubbles and ai feeding us more what we “want” is probably increasing conspiracy theories and making us less tolerant of different views. There has been little talk of the morality of ai algorithms. Personally I was recommended “hot” dating sites advertisement when having relationship issues. Not what I needed but surely what most likely pays the best. The issue is lack of ai moral or for that sake profit first. Obectivivly the ai was right but morally not I am a parent. Ads probably should be regulated at least you should be able to say no to ai algorithm and behavioral psychologist maximizing profit for private companies.

modeless 8y ago

This is like all those politicians and journalists lamenting the rise in violence, when both war and violent crime are actually at historically low levels. We are today in a golden age of science, where people's beliefs are on average the most fact-based they have ever been. You wouldn't believe the ridiculous things people believed in the past. Yes, we have a long way to go and we should continue to seek improvement, but don't try to tell me that things are getting worse when that's clearly not the case. Or at least provide some evidence that's not anecdotal.

ortusdux 8y ago

Annoyingly, conspiracy theorists are great consumers. They are primed to reject the status quo and try new things. Look at Alex Jones' merchandise. I am not saying that his supplements are snake oil, but he definitely profits from curating an audience that is skeptical or outright rejects modern medicine.

olefoo 8y ago

The most relevant and interesting aspect of any conspiracy theory is the fears it exposes. Whether its fear of environmental degradation ( Chemtrails ), fear of loss of agency ( anti-vaccination, anything mentioning the Federal Reserve, most political conspiracy theories ), racial identity fears ( anti-semitism, "White Genocide", Islamophobia, etc. ). One underappreciated aspect of the rise of conspiracy theories in the last 20 years is the fact that more people are insecure financially and have lost trust in institutions, often justifiably so. So conspiracy theories meet less resistance than they would have from people who are not worried about their survival in the face of a society that seems determined to immiserate and impoverish them if not destroy them. Additionally we have a number of examples of institutions being subverted to malign ends, from Wells Fargo to Wikileaks, we consistently see dishonest behavior from organizations that claim to have the publics interest at heart...