3 ms·

The problem is that, in my experience, the most nefarious of these disinformation videos are those who are the most plausible and skirt reality enough to be com

by simias 6y ago

The problem is that, in my experience, the most nefarious of these disinformation videos are those who are the most plausible and skirt reality enough to be complicated to debunk in a simple sentence. If you seriously believe that the Earth is flat or that lizard people control the world, then frankly a Youtube disclaimer won't really change anything. But take this random video I found earlier on PeerTube: https://peer.tube/videos/watch/7b5faff9-1752-4eba-be37-beeb0d28e72d https://peer.tube/videos/watch/7b5faff9-1752-4eba-be37-beeb0... It's in French but basically it's one of these videos against the banking system that simplify and caricature the situation to the point of meaninglessness. Coming up with a proper fact-check for something like that would be incredibly difficult, and I'm sure extremely controversial. It would also take a lot of time and money to get economists and physicists to weigh in on these videos. That's how these conspiracy theories manage to remain relevant in the first place: overwhelm the opposition with thousands upon thousands of hours of content, and claim that they take things out of context or that they don't get it if they don't bother to sink months of their lives watching all that garbage.

jrnichols 6y ago
That's something I have noticed as well and it's concerning - the vast amount of fringe/conspiracy/right wing content that's showing up on things like Peertube. it's like the unhinged days of Usenet again in many ways. Edit: And I've noticed the downvotes, yet what I have said is still accurate. It is true that Gab moved to mastodon, for example, and there is evidence of their mindset spreading to other properties in the Fediverse.
- TremendousJudge 6y ago
  If you have something that's "just like youtube, but we don't delete your stuff" it shouldn't be surprising that the vast amount of content is stuff that was deleted from youtube
  - liability 6y ago
    I think this effect becomes a strategic defensive moat for established social media websites. Anybody who tries to compete with established players will find that their earliest adopters are the most unsavory sort, banned by other sites looking for a new home. This is the more insidious side of 'network effects.'
    - jrnichols 6y ago
      This was exactly my point and I am disappointed to see that I was downvoted for saying so. I am still surprised at just how swiftly Gab, for example, spread into the Fediverse. Some of the early adopters are definitely unsavory, yet that content is what new users are going to see. Peertube/etc are still too small to protect against it, I fear.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      Founding cohorts matter. Early online worlds were (often, not always), academics and techies. Even that was often hard going to generate larger appeal. Facebook was Literally Harvard. Random malcontents have an even higher social hill to climb. An elite founding cohort tends to regress to the mean. An unsavory cohort ... tends to further radicalise or collapse entirely. Fandom/hobby groups are more sustainable and often avoid pathological evolution, but rarely seem to develop mass appeal. And all this before adding financial or business pressures.

by simias 6y ago

jrnichols 6y ago

That's something I have noticed as well and it's concerning - the vast amount of fringe/conspiracy/right wing content that's showing up on things like Peertube. it's like the unhinged days of Usenet again in many ways. Edit: And I've noticed the downvotes, yet what I have said is still accurate. It is true that Gab moved to mastodon, for example, and there is evidence of their mindset spreading to other properties in the Fediverse.

TremendousJudge 6y ago
If you have something that's "just like youtube, but we don't delete your stuff" it shouldn't be surprising that the vast amount of content is stuff that was deleted from youtube
- liability 6y ago
  I think this effect becomes a strategic defensive moat for established social media websites. Anybody who tries to compete with established players will find that their earliest adopters are the most unsavory sort, banned by other sites looking for a new home. This is the more insidious side of 'network effects.'
  - jrnichols 6y ago
    This was exactly my point and I am disappointed to see that I was downvoted for saying so. I am still surprised at just how swiftly Gab, for example, spread into the Fediverse. Some of the early adopters are definitely unsavory, yet that content is what new users are going to see. Peertube/etc are still too small to protect against it, I fear.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Founding cohorts matter. Early online worlds were (often, not always), academics and techies. Even that was often hard going to generate larger appeal. Facebook was Literally Harvard. Random malcontents have an even higher social hill to climb. An elite founding cohort tends to regress to the mean. An unsavory cohort ... tends to further radicalise or collapse entirely. Fandom/hobby groups are more sustainable and often avoid pathological evolution, but rarely seem to develop mass appeal. And all this before adding financial or business pressures.