3 ms·

Professional news outlets will redact stories if they are deemed to be untrue most of the time, whereas the clickbait vlog-spam that overruns YouTube will defin

Professional news outlets will redact stories if they are deemed to be untrue most of the time, whereas the clickbait vlog-spam that overruns YouTube will definitely not do that. YouTube has a severe disinformation problem, so it's better to have this than what has been happening for years. Give them compliments for at least _trying_ to solve the problem

screye 3y ago
The alternative to professional new outlets is not a free for all. It is to establish granular sources whose reputations hinge on their ability to give multiple sides and report known facts instead of conjecture. NYT can't be held accountable, because they are 1000s of people under a big-tent; by-lines are hidden in small script. People like Derek Lowe, Stratchery, Sinocism and similar high-profile commentators/youtubers can be held accountable. If something goes wrong, it is their fault, and their fault only. Youtube should embrace what its biggest strength is : granular individualized rewards. Individuals whose rigor outstrips that of major organizations should be promoted far more than traditional media houses. Afterall, they're what makes Youtube unique. If nerds playing geoguesser are better at satellite intelligence and triaging than NYT, then so be it. Geoguesser dude gets my trust.
- jsbisviewtiful 3y ago
  > The alternative to professional new outlets is not a free for all. It is to establish granular sources whose reputations hinge on their ability to give multiple sides and report known facts instead of conjecture. Many of these outlets on the internet clearly do not agree with this principle. CNN's CEO recently said only 10% of the early Gaza footage they reviewed was usable and the rest was often disinformation garbage. Plenty of these sources you allude to posted the garbage as fact and did not redact.
renegat0x0 3y ago
Yeah, they removed thumbs down, do now its harder to identify incorrect content. First they remove users ability to moderator, then they introduce centrally controlled mechanisms.

screye 3y ago

The alternative to professional new outlets is not a free for all. It is to establish granular sources whose reputations hinge on their ability to give multiple sides and report known facts instead of conjecture. NYT can't be held accountable, because they are 1000s of people under a big-tent; by-lines are hidden in small script. People like Derek Lowe, Stratchery, Sinocism and similar high-profile commentators/youtubers can be held accountable. If something goes wrong, it is their fault, and their fault only. Youtube should embrace what its biggest strength is : granular individualized rewards. Individuals whose rigor outstrips that of major organizations should be promoted far more than traditional media houses. Afterall, they're what makes Youtube unique. If nerds playing geoguesser are better at satellite intelligence and triaging than NYT, then so be it. Geoguesser dude gets my trust.

jsbisviewtiful 3y ago
> The alternative to professional new outlets is not a free for all. It is to establish granular sources whose reputations hinge on their ability to give multiple sides and report known facts instead of conjecture. Many of these outlets on the internet clearly do not agree with this principle. CNN's CEO recently said only 10% of the early Gaza footage they reviewed was usable and the rest was often disinformation garbage. Plenty of these sources you allude to posted the garbage as fact and did not redact.

renegat0x0 3y ago

Yeah, they removed thumbs down, do now its harder to identify incorrect content. First they remove users ability to moderator, then they introduce centrally controlled mechanisms.