YouTube Alters Algorithm To Promote News, Penalize Vegas Shooting Conspiracy Theories (usatoday.com)

An anonymous reader quotes USA Today: YouTube has changed its powerful search algorithm to promote videos from more mainstream news outlets in search results after people looking for details on the Las Vegas shooting were served up conspiracy theories and misinformation. YouTube confirmed the changes Thursday... In the days after the mass shooting, videos abounded on YouTube, some questioning whether the shooting occurred and others claiming law enforcement officials had deceived the public about what really happened...

Public outcry over YouTube videos promoting conspiracy theories is just the latest online flap for the major U.S. Internet companies. Within hours of the attack, Facebook and Google were called out for promoting conspiracy theories... Helping drive YouTube's popularity is the "Up next" column which suggests additional videos to viewers. The Wall Street Journal found incidents this week in which YouTube suggested videos promoting conspiracy theories next to videos from mainstream news sources. YouTube acknowledged issues with the "Up next" algorithm and said it was looking to promote more authoritative results there, too.
At least one video was viewed over a million times, and Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein writes that "I've received emails from Google users who report YouTube pushing links to some of those trending fake videos directly to their phones as notifications." He's suggesting that from now on, YouTube's top trending videos should be reviewed by actual humans.

Comments

Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[ShanghaiBill]

The problem with suppressing conspiracy theories, and promoting "authoritative" sources, is that it makes real conspiracies even easier for the authorities to cover up.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to propose a hypothesis, but Google is compromised.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[mijj]

problem? .. or a feature.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[serviscope_minor]

Yeah but the problem with not is there are about an infinite number of conspiracies, compared to what actually happened.

If you simply go by numbers, you'll wind up with nothing but conspiracies.

Actually scratch that, it's a simpler, bigger problem. Ever since the mid 90s the job of search engines had been to find relevant stuff in a sea of junk. If you don't suppress irrelevant stuff, you get overwhelmed with utter irrelevancies. You know like when porn sites simply copied the dictionary on to every page so that whatever you searched for, the porn site would match.

Same problem. No one wants naive string matching since it's far too easily gamed.

So, search engines have the incredibly difficult task of finding more or less what users want out of a sea of bullshit. They aren't going to be perfect, but if you don't suppress anything, you'll get nothing but porn like the bad old days.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Mostly a lurker]

The problem with suppressing conspiracy theories, and promoting "authoritative" sources, is that it makes real conspiracies even easier for the authorities to cover up.

It is a difficult problem. I think the suggestion in the article that top ranking posts be reviewed by a human (while that is no guarantee) is good. Theories that challenge the official narrative (usually false, but occasionally true) are nothing new, predating the Internet age. The main difference is the speed at which such theories can be disseminated (and challenged).

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Hal_Porter]

The American revolution was started by memes like this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

If the British Empire had had the ability to censor memes and political speech that Google/FB etc have, they'd have been able to stop that.

You can see they're very keen to keep people in their walled garden by the way gab.ai got pulled from Google Play for 'promoting hate speech'. Aka 'allowing speech Google can't control'.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"makes real conspiracies even easier for the authorities to cover up"

Muddying the waters with fake conspiracies achieves almost the same.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember when the idea that the government was spying on everyone, recording all their phone calls, cataloging everything, and going above and beyond the constitution with impunity was just a conspiracy theory?

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Opportunist]

And a stopped clock is right even twice a day.

If I keep making insane claims, at some point in time it's likely that I'll even be right. An easy proof: Think of a number between 1 and 1000. Is it 344? No? Ok, let's try again. Think of a number...

If we play that game often enough, I will guess it. Ain't that amazing? I knew what your number was!

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with suppressing conspiracy theories, and promoting "authoritative" sources, is that it makes real conspiracies even easier for the authorities to cover up.

On the other hand, if there is a conspiracy theory with legitimacy behind it then YouTube isn't the place to discuss it.
The video format is best at sensational and skewed bullshit and the YouTube comment section is arrange in a way that continuous discussion where new information can be brought in is discouraged.

I don't really see a problem with the intent given here. It will only harm trolls trying to push crap conspiracy theories, not anyone who has legit concerns since they will use other services or roll their own pages with mainly text content.

What I do see a problem with is YouTubes implementation. It seems to cause problems for all small content creators in favor of larger or corporate content creators.
YouTube have been heading in a direction I don't like for a long time and I find myself not enjoying it as much as I sued to.
Not that I'm that bitter about it.
They are clearly targeting a demographic I'm not part of and I'll just move on to something I find suits me better.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Calydor]

No, conspiracy theories lack evidence, period. There is no requirement that they are FALSE theories, since without evidence you have no way of knowing. You know, like it was before Snowden showed us how deep the rabbit hole went.

"The government is listening to everything!" was a conspiracy theory until that exact point - when we got the evidence. It wasn't false.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[K. S. Kyosuke]

is that it makes real conspiracies even easier for the authorities to cover up.

Because Watergate was made public by conspiracy theorists, right?

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

I find that most conspiracy theories not only have a lack of evidence but they also ignore lots of contrary evidence. Or they start to delve into increasing complex scenarios to try to explain away any contrary evidence.

For example, the leading conspiracy about Vegas is that it is a false flag operation perpetrated my multiple shooters from multiple locations. Their evidence: multiple points of light from a few videos and what sounds like multiple gun shots sources.

Common sense would say multiple shooters, multiple locations would require multiple rooms. Yet the next morning only 2 windows were shot out from adjoining rooms. Not multiple rooms that had their windows shot out. Their explanation: they were replaced in the middle of the night secretly. Replacing windows that are 150-200 lbs each that required people to cling to the outside of the building in the middle of the night while avoiding being detected by law enforcement is a far more likely to them. Also the hotel and staff are in on the conspiracy because they are hiding the "other rooms" which would be full of gun powder smoke and smell and shell casings.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

And how is Google no longer promoting a video the same as them controlling free speech? You can still find the videos if you search for them. Google is no longer advertising them at the top of their list. If they blocked them, then you might have a point .

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[HermMunster]

There's a purpose behind placing videos on YouTube besides the daily headlines.

YouTube is as good a place as any other as all others could do the same as google. Google is demonstrating a pattern, a history, of manipulating results.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Reverend Green]

Google's soft censorship move does suggest that Google thinks the conspiracy theories may be true. Look throughout history - loony wingnuts don't get censored. Censorship is reserved for political dissidents.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[MysteriousPreacher]

Given Google's recent behaviour, I find it difficult to accept their stated intentions. While this is a very high profile story, think of how many other less public stories they can suppress. Look at the media take on the Boston free speech event and how they claimed it was brave anti-fascists saying no to white supremacists. In fact it was a small free speech group, which had a black speaker and an audience of various races, being surrounded by a braying mob who did such charming things as throwing bottles of piss at the police.

I simply do not trust Google to act as arbiters of truth, and mainstream media as a source is no guarantee of accuracy.

This is the kind of shit that Google will push; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what it's like... At all...

You are afraid of people having opinions and information which conflicts with your narrative. You'd like to suppress them in any way possible rather than make an honest assessment of what they're saying, because your own positions are weak.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Pseudonym]

Are there any real conspiracies for which the whistle was blown by a non-mainstream outlet and the story was not very quickly picked up by a mainstream news source?

Honestly curious about this. I can't think of any offhand, but it may be possible.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[johannesg]

The problem with policing ideas is that once you start, you will never be able to stop. And once youtube decides to become a podium for just the enlightened elite, rather than everyone, it will lose all value, and become just another controlled medium, like television or the newspapers.

Of course most of us already predicted this back when the phrase 'fake news' was first heard...

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[spire3661]

It most certainly was not. Snowden confirmed that stuff for normies, but every network tech in the world knew what was possible. I have been preparing for this era for a very long time. I knew we would eventually be here when i first heard of CALEA in 1994.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for fuck's sake. Enough with the "my ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge" bullshit.

REALITY is not a matter of your fucking "opinion".

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

The other shooters would not have to be in other hotel rooms they could be on roof tops or other elevated places.

The shots from the videos that the conspiracists cite allege other rooms in the Mandalay not the rooftop or other hotels.

Are the number shell casings found in hotel consistent with the shots fired.

The number would have to be in the hundreds from each room. So far only 1 room with hundreds of casings has been found.

Authorities are trying to identify the number of shots fired including the ones that missed their human targets. There will be a through search to recover shell casings from other possible shooting sites.

There are no other sites unless you want to believe that the hotel and law enforcement are hiding them. Unless you want to believe that heavy windows were replaced secretly in the middle of the night.

In the end, why would someone lie about one vs multiple shooters? What is accomplished by diminishing the number of shooters?

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

Then you need to scroll up.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[SirSlud]

Conspiracy theorists are guessing a number between 1 and 500 trillion. So no, they never get it right before they die, and they don't co-ordinate to make sure they never pick the same number twice.

Sheesh, what a terrible argument.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[SirSlud]

Manipulating results? They made the results, invented out of whole cloth. Are you under the impression there is some kind of laws of physics in web searches?

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Ol Olsoc]

And how is Google no longer promoting a video the same as them controlling free speech? You can still find the videos if you search for them. Google is no longer advertising them at the top of their list. If they blocked them, then you might have a point .

Here on Slashdot, we get into the same thing here when they claim that mod points are censorship.

And who wants to be interrupted by notifications about kooky end of the world/NASA moon landing hoax/perpetual motion/heat your house with 1 tea candle and a flowerpot/ bullshit except other kooks?

This is just an attempt to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons effect, where the lowest and least destroy the commons.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Mashiki]

"The government is listening to everything!" was a conspiracy theory until that exact point - when we got the evidence. It wasn't false.

Except that wasn't a conspiracy theory. 5-eyes, STASI, KGB all did that and it was well known back in the 1970's.

Conspiracy theories aren't the lack of evidence to make it true. A conspiracy theory is whether or not multiple people have conspired to make it happen "outside of the norm" of what's expected. Let's look at pizzagate which is a favorite of some people as a "but it's alll fake, all the way down". It's not that pedophilia doesn't happen(it does), it's not that there haven't been massive rings(there are), it's not that politicians have been caught in it(they have), it's not that media and entertainers haven't been caught in it(they have and do), it's not that police, prosecutors/crown and media have covered it up(it has and does happen), it's not that various symbols, code-words, phrases, etc aren't used(they are).

It was whether or not specific people lined up to do these things, and there were ties to particular people and places. That in itself is still questionable with the terms, phrases, and so on. Whether or not they were tied to particular places is doubtful, whether they're tied to particular people is possible. Whether or not it has happened by those particular people is unknown. In pizzagate's case, it's not a lack of evidence but a whole pile of very circumstantial evidence that fits other profiles. That's what makes people go "well wait a second..." You can look in the past and know that they have happened before, and there were massive coverups for things exactly along those lines in the past and terminology used then and now are similar.

If you need an example? Ol'Jimmy Savile is probably the best known, people screeched it was all a conspiracy theory. There was lots of circumstantial evidence going back 40 years in the public, and the media, police, and government bodies covered it up.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[elrous0]

I wonder if this algorithm would have labelled Watergate a conspiracy theory, or a story of the CIA helping overthrow the Iranian government in 1953, or Iran Contra, or stories about the CIA forcing local law enforcement to look the other way for cocaine lords who were funding right-wing dictators in South America, or a story about Muslims training in secret to fly planes into the World Trade Center.

Conspiracy theories are always nutters until some turn out to be true (or at least have a basis in truth). And since no algorithm can possibly distinguish between the real ones and the bullshit ones, then any algorithm will inevitably stop some VERY important real stories from ever getting noticed.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

Here on Slashdot, we get into the same thing here when they claim that mod points are censorship.

That's not what the word "censorship" means I would say. All posts are visible if you want to see them. If you don't want to see them, that's a preference. It's not censorship.

And who wants to be interrupted by notifications about kooky end of the world/NASA moon landing hoax/perpetual motion/heat your house with 1 tea candle and a flowerpot/ bullshit except other kooks?

Yes, people who want to believe in them can still find them. I'm surprised no one has alleged that it must have been a reverse false flag. That Google wants you to believe a conspiracy by promoting, thus you shouldn't believe. Or that Google promoted it then removed it to encourage you believe so you shouldn't believe. "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[elrous0]

Muddying the waters with fake conspiracies achieves almost the same.

Yeah, but at least without some algorithm blocking all of them, I can decide for myself which sources are more reliable than others and which stories seem plausible. And, as an experienced and knowledgeable human, I can make these choices much better than any algorithm ever could.

I hope they will at least allow the option to turn this filtering off. I don't need Google or anyone else telling me what news I'm allowed or not allowed to see, thank you very much.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[epyT-R]

How do you define "good and fair common sense"?

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Ol Olsoc]

No, conspiracy theories lack evidence, period. There is no requirement that they are FALSE theories, since without evidence you have no way of knowing. You know, like it was before Snowden showed us how deep the rabbit hole went.

"The government is listening to everything!" was a conspiracy theory until that exact point - when we got the evidence. It wasn't false.

It did not take conspiracy minded folk to understand what any technology was capable of what. It dies not take a paranoid mind to understand that a system that is insecure in nature and by design, like the internet, is going to be of interest to authorities when stupid people think it is somehow secure. Snowden just gave details.

I suppose a good example of this inability of people to understand the implications of actions was Sputnik. Most Americans and the world were busy worried about national prestige, it took some years for them to understand that the satellites in orbit meant the capability of delivering warheads to your doorstep. Meanwhile people who understood the implications of actions knew.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Ol Olsoc]

I find that most conspiracy theories not only have a lack of evidence but they also ignore lots of contrary evidence. Or they start to delve into increasing complex scenarios to try to explain away any contrary evidence.

Cherry picking the evidence. Conspiracy theories are full of that. You can see both of these in the moon landing hoaxer's arguments.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[AmiMoJo]

I wasn't there. The only way I have to determine what happened is from reports by other people who were there.

I have to evaluate each source. Some have a history of being reliable and publishing corrections when they get it wrong. Those sources don't support your narrative.

In fact, the only sources that do take the position you do are notoriously unreliable. Brietbart, for example, publishes articles that get debunked in their own comments and almost never post corrections.

If you want people to accept your version of events you will need to provide some compelling evidence that established, proven reliable sources are wrong. Sorry, that's reality.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[AmiMoJo]

You might have suspected before Snowden, but he provided the proof that was necessary to take it from conspiracy theory to urgent threat.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

This is what I mean. None of the allegations so far are that the other shooters were on the lowest floors. But to explain the fact that there were only 2 windows shot out, you are trying devise an increasing complex scenario. Also where is your source that "only the higher level floors of the Mandalay Bay hotel have windows that dont open." One look at the Mandalay Bay says otherwise. They are all uniform and fit snugly next to each other. They don't appear to open. They have to be replaced from the outside.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[slashrio]

Or in the WTC 7... oh wait, Silverstein admitted it himself.
"And then we decided to... pull it."

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[epyT-R]

what about idiotic left wing conspiracies? ..or are those considered "good and fair common sense" and therefore allowed?

Regardless of what bias they'll end up peddling, I'd rather not have Oracles of "good and fair common sense" controlling discourse.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately - what most people think is "reality" or "fact" is actually opinion.

One from Trump election days - "Trump campaign manager assaults female reporter".

This was reported as fact for weeks. It was definitely not a fact. Etc.

I didn't vote for Trump and think he's terrible.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[spire3661]

No, i KNEW. I saw what was possible in the commercial space, reviewed history and extrapolated. You can comfort yourself by thinking otherwise if you choose.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[slashrio]

Yes, this will inevitably lead to an analogue of the Volkswagen conspiracy.
It started with a legitimate algorithm to stop the engine from making a loud banging noise at cold start by adding more fuel at cold start only, and it ended in a conspiracy to defraud the testers.
This will do exactly the same.
First it seems legitimate to spare people the countless lunatic (as opposed to realistic) conspiracy hypotheses, but soon the filter will grow and will be used for political and other purposes.
Probably during the next election...

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[dbreeze]

" The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom."

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[AmiMoJo]

That's not what "knew" means. You strongly suspected, to the point where you were convinced it was certainly happening, but you did not have proof.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

I just did a search of "Vegas Shooting Coverup" on YouTube. All the videos are the ones alleging conspiracy and cover up so I'm not sure that your point is valid.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[epyT-R]

For some, though I question that premise.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[tinkerton]

The weakness is in the use of 'conspiracies'. You can call every 'discrete' (as opposed to open) powerplay a conspiracy and then there are an awful lot of conspiracies, because wherever you look there are powers sneakily scheming and competing to get their way.
What is clear is that the mainstream messages are now promoted at the expense of the independent/alternative sources. This happens with youtube, google, facebook and will happen with every major player.

If you look at conspiracies as typically structured in a very centralized manner: a tight core which monopolizes knowledge and power, then there are a lot less conspiracies. I don't think Google is a driving force behind the algorithms which downgrade alternative sources, it is mainly responding to pressure from many players. Maybe they're a bit more enthusiastic about spying on people.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever since the mid 90s the job of search engines had been to find relevant stuff in a sea of junk. If you don't suppress irrelevant stuff, you get overwhelmed with utter irrelevancies.

Well Google is slipping backwards fast. I need a search engine to search Google search results to find anything that is remotely connected to my search terms. "Verbatim" needs to be the default, but even then its very bad.

We really need a flag "No, I don't want to buy anything at all today. Take your ads and fuck off. then MAYBE i will search for what I want to buy another day".

Angry old fogey.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Your agument against isn't much better.

Consider that even though the odds of winning a large lottery is something on the odds of 1:127,000,000* yet people still win the big jackpots fairly often.

So claiming that the odds are against something happening are astronomically against it occurring doesn't mean that it doesn't happen surprisingly often.

* last probability I remember hearing, it's probably even worse for some, better for others.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[tinkerton]

I don't know what 'conspiracies' are really but I think I can make the sweeping statement that most of what the mainstream reports about official enemies(Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Trump, Venezuela , Brazil, and other southern american countries) is always heavily compromised(it's usually plain rubbish), and the best way to find out is alternative sources. It can appear in the mainstream, but in such a low key manner that it passes unnoticed. The joke, or should I say the rule is that you have to read the third to last paragraph in a mainstream article to find the meat.

I suppose 9/11 could be called a conspiracy that has been covered up because of heavy Saudi involvement. Because as a rule conspiracy theorists lack imagination I'll point out that it's not because there is heavy Saudi involvement that it's a Saudi conspiracy against the US. Maybe the Saudi involvement could be described as 'heavy inviltration gone wrong', or maybe the Saudis and Al-Qaeda are so intertwined even they don't know the difference. Once everything is in the open the mainstream will report on it, but their contribution is minimal.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[tinkerton]

Watergate is heavily overrated. Nixon had so much enemies that it didn't require any courage to go up against him. Proof is that Bob Woodward was part of it. You can't get any more establishment than that.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Ol Olsoc]

Here on Slashdot, we get into the same thing here when they claim that mod points are censorship.

That's not what the word "censorship" means I would say. All posts are visible if you want to see them. If you don't want to see them, that's a preference. It's not censorship.

We see a lot of this these days, when people have a one way version of free speech, where they will say any old outrageous thing they want, then get much butthurt when people disagree with them.

Free speech does not mean that only the biggest asshole is allowed to talk, and everyone else is forced to listen. reading slashdot a level 2 and up is the only thing that makes it useable at times. But the people who have the severe psychosexual hangups about anal sex and intercourse with somoene's mother can still have their say.

And who wants to be interrupted by notifications about kooky end of the world/NASA moon landing hoax/perpetual motion/heat your house with 1 tea candle and a flowerpot/ bullshit except other kooks?

Yes, people who want to believe in them can still find them. I'm surprised no one has alleged that it must have been a reverse false flag. That Google wants you to believe a conspiracy by promoting, thus you shouldn't believe. Or that Google promoted it then removed it to encourage you believe so you shouldn't believe. "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."

Just give it time. Someone will. Conspiracy theorists that have conspiracy theories about other conspiracy theorists and on and on.

We are going through a transition time, as the internet has allowed stupid and loud people to have equal weight with reasoned and thinking people. Where kooks of all stripes, left and right leaning spout the most ridiculous things, and use each other's spouting to broadly paint everone they don't agree with as "the other". Unless we get a hold on this stupidity, the next step will be calling for the death of the others.

And if one doesn't agree, they will want them dead as well, because you are interfering with their free speech.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[AmiMoJo]

Do you have any examples of idiotic left wing conspiracy theories that get less harsh treatment from Google, or are you just posting a right wing conspiracy theory?

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Hal_Porter]

Google can manipulate the balance of political speech in a whole variety of ways

1) They can demonetize content they dislike, which will lead to people producing less of it

2) They can delete the video, or the whole channel.

3) They can take it blacklist individual videos or whole channels to stop them trending.

4) They can can make it impossible to search for videos or channels, or to comment on them

https://www.engadget.com/2017/...

All of which enables them to promote memes that agree with their politics and hide ones that disagree with their politics.

Given that Google/FB etc employ mostly young people in blue states it's fair to assume that the politics their employees agree with will be heavily left of centre. And we know they fired James Damore for essentially criticizing Google's left wing echo chamber.

As someone here puts it

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08...

"By these standards, if YouTube existed previous to the Emancipation Act, they'd be censoring videos criticizing slave owners, since being anti-slavery wasn't popular ... at all," he added. "The popular opinion isn't always the right opinion."

Funnily enough the Democrats would have objected to people who were anti slavery then and are also the ones censoring political speech now via the likes of YouTube and FB where they are the majority of employees. In fact both slavery then and illegal immigration now are a way to get a load of cheap, biddable labour that isn't able to organize itself and demand better conditions.

A lot of the 'extremists' Youtube is trying to silence are simply people pointing stuff like that out. Meanwhile memes that Democrats approve of - Jimmy Kimmel crying and demanding more government intervention - nationalising health care or banning guns, 'Hands Up Don't Shoot', and the notion that anyone who opposes open borders migration is a bigot are promoted all over the media.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Ian A. Shill]

what did people think five eyes was for?

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[phantomfive]

Unless we get a hold on this stupidity, the next step will be calling for the death of the others.

It's basically already happening.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[zieroh]

The problem with suppressing conspiracy theories, and promoting "authoritative" sources, is that it makes real conspiracies even easier for the authorities to cover up.

Taken as a whole, there are far more conspiracy theories than there are actual conspiracies. Probably by many orders of magnitude. I'd say the side they erred on is probably correct.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[allcoolnameswheretak]

The problem with suppressing conspiracy theories, and promoting "authoritative" sources, is that it makes real conspiracies even easier for the authorities to cover up.

No it isn't. Despite what many right-wing conspiracy theorists say, we have a good, functioning and critical press in practically all of the western world.
I would we worried if we were living in Russia or China, where all local search engines forward you to the next state-sponsored propaganda news channel anyway. But we should quit selling ourselves short and over-criticizing the mainstream press in our parts of the world. It is much, much better than most people give it credit for, especially compared to what much of the non-western world is served on a daily basis.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Ol Olsoc]

Unless we get a hold on this stupidity, the next step will be calling for the death of the others.

It's basically already happening.

While that seems a little tongue in cheek, I'll accept it. I'll note that it calls for arrests, not killing deniers. Regardless, it is monumentally stupid. Just so we are completely fair and balanced balanced I'll give a link on the other end. http://www.danablankenhorn.com...

Or conservative touchstone and purveyor of truth Andrew Breitbart: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmo...

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[zieroh]

You are afraid of people having opinions and information which conflicts with your narrative.

Bullshit. I want people to be informed, with actual facts. I don't care whether the facts agree with my "narrative". This post-fact bullshit will be the end of us all.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[epyT-R]

incomplete list that comes to mind..

1. trump and russia (even if it turns out being true, 40+ years of cold war soviet marxist apologetics makes this laughably hypocritical)
2. 1/5 (or was it 1/4?) rape statistics
3. 77/100 wage gap
4. class warfare/'oppression = power+privilege'/only whites can be racist/check your privilege propaganda
5. patriarchy theory
6. equivocating ideological disagreement with bigotry.
7. the 'noble savage' mythos
8. science "decolonization"

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[AmiMoJo]

So basically a mixture of stuff you wish wasn't true and total bullshit.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[epyT-R]

Not at all.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Anne Thwacks]

what about idiotic left wing conspiracies?

They are so idiotic, only left wing nut jobs can believe them.

Oh, wait ...

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

Some years before people realized that Sputnik would be a problem? What? The first and immediate fears caused by Sputnik to the US was that the USSR had superior technology. It wasn't a vague afterthought. President Eisenshower had to address it in what he termed the Sputnik crisis. He stated that due to the size and weight of Sputnik, it meant that the USSR did not have the a huge advance in technology. But he did acknowledge that the USSR had leapfrogged the US in ballistic missile technology and that the US had to catch up.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[thinkwaitfast]

Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

- Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam, Dune, Frank Herbert

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Rujiel]

"Actually scratch that, it's a simpler, bigger problem. Ever since the mid 90s the job of search engines had been to find relevant stuff in a sea of junk" Not really. What was available in 1995 was nothing in light of what exists today. You were grateful for the avenues that you had to "search" anything. Not all of us want to make the internet into your safe space. Way to endorse censorship though

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Ol Olsoc]

Some years before people realized that Sputnik would be a problem? What? The first and immediate fears caused by Sputnik to the US was that the USSR had superior technology.

Note that I wrote that some people knew what it meant, and most didin't.

Here's a bit from a really nice and in-depth history that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. the link is https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office..., but the whole history piece is excellent, give it a read.

"American response to the Russian triumph varied considerably, depending on its source. The alarm exhibited by large sections of the public did not materialize immediately. In New York City, on "Sputnik night," phone calls poured into the offices of the Hayden Planetarium and the American Museum of Natural History. Practically all were from people seeking more information than the Soviet bulletin to the American press had provided-mostly amateur astronomers and ham radio operators eager to get down to the happy business of trying to acquire and track the world's first man-made satellite. At central police headquarters, a spokesman at the big switchboard, the activity of which is regarded as an index to public anxiety, reported no inquiries whatsoever. On the following day a Newsweek correspondent in Boston wrote that the "general reaction here indicates massive indifference." From Denver another Newsweek writer wired his home office that there "is a vague feeling that we have stepped into a new era, but people aren't discussing it the way they are football and the Asiatic flu.""

and a little later....

"Most Americans were aware that Russia had created an atom bomb more quickly than American authorities had considered likely. They knew that Soviet work on the hydrogen bomb had kept pace with that of the United States. As recently as August 1957, the U.S.S.R. had claimed a successful intercontinental ballistic missile test. None of these facts, however, had registered deeply in this country. Nor had the occasional story in the press hinting at an upcoming space breakthrough by the Soviet Union."

I'll stick with the concept that it took some time to actually register with most people that Sputnik and the ability to put a rocket in space meant that they could do the same with bombs.

Just like it still hasn't registered with most people that the internet was not designed with privacy - indeed the opposite is true. Just a fact that no amount of wishful thinking can change. You can do some things to make it a little better, but it will never be secure. Anyhow, whether you agree with me or not, that history of Vanguard is just delicious reading. Here's the index page. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office...

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[drinkypoo]

Let me just open by saying I don't think there were multiple shooters. However:

The number would have to be in the hundreds from each room. So far only 1 room with hundreds of casings has been found.

You can recover casings, if you plan ahead. There's equipment you can just buy off the shelf for the purpose.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[drinkypoo]

You might have suspected before Snowden, but he provided the proof that was necessary to take it from conspiracy theory to urgent threat.

We'd had leaks about some of this stuff before Snowden, for example Carnivore (in 2000) and ECHELON (in 2001). So while Snowden did provide some revelations, he did not reveal to the public that essentially all communications were being monitored. He didn't let us know that all snail mail may be monitored, or that the address information from each and every piece of mail scanned is handed to the feds for collation.

I'm not trying to diminish what Snowden did, but pretending we didn't know that our communications were generally government-monitored before Snowden is nonsense. Maybe you didn't, but much of this stuff was general knowledge to anyone who cared.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Viros]

Those who've actually BEEN to Vegas know that very few, if any, hotel rooms have windows that actually open. I've stayed in the Mandalay Bay and several other hotels several times and have yet to ever get a room that has an open window. Hell, it was even a plot point in The Hangover that hotel rooms in Vegas don't have windows that open! Mandalay Bay does NOT have windows that open. Luxor does NOT. Some people say some of the rooms in the Excalibur might, but I can't get a definite answer. Any other hotel would be the wrong angle or too far away to hit the concert venue. Trust me on that one, as I've been to concerts at that venue.

You're attacking him for having a filtered view of the world, but do you know anything about Vegas?

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[zieroh]

No, you want to dictate what is fact, and suppress anything that is inconvenient or in conflict with your pre-determined narrative.

Citation required, asshole.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[stinerman]

Man this site has gone downhill over the years, hasn't it?

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[zieroh]

Unfortunately - what most people think is "reality" or "fact" is actually opinion.

One from Trump election days - "Trump campaign manager assaults female reporter".

This was reported as fact for weeks. It was definitely not a fact. Etc.

I didn't vote for Trump and think he's terrible.

No, that was actually a fact. He was even charged. It didn't go anywhere, but there was ample evidence to show the incident actually happened.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[AmiMoJo]

Damn straight, and if you disagree I'll mod you -1 troll because it hurt my poor snowflake feelings.

I honestly would never have predicted that after 20 years right wing snowflakes would be the downfall of Slashdot.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

March 30, 2016
Trump told reporters that Lewandowski was a "fine person," and suggested he would not part ways with his campaign manager.
"I don't discard people," Trump said.

June 21, 2016
Donald Trump fired his controversial campaign manager Corey Lewandowski Monday.

16 Aug 2017
President Donald Trump's former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski threatened his neighbors with a baseball bat and promised to use his 'political clout' to make their lives a 'nightmare' over a property dispute, according to a new lawsuit.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Reverend Green]

But muh FACTS!!!1!!

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Reverend Green]

I saw the FBI's surveillance box plugged in to the border router. With my own eyes. Not even classified - I was a working a student job at university. I read the leaked copy of the CALEA implenting regulations. That's a creepy fucking document, especially when you consider it predates the 911 events.

Point is, a lot of us in this business KNEW mass surveillance was happening. Like 50,000 or 100,000 civilians KNEW about it. But clover fools - like many people here who really ought to know better - dismissed us as conspiracy nuts, right up until the Snowden media spectacle.

I just don't get how people can maintain such serene unthinking confidence in their world view, in their "facts". After seeing again and again how our reality is socially constructed.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

Knucklehead that's because you're using the google filtered view of the world. Those of us who stepped outside their little walled garden and actually watched and read some of the conspiracy theory pages and videos know the claim is a 4th floor shooter.

Have you been to Vegas? Have you ever been in any high rise building? Most windows do not open. As for 4th floor shooter: Have you ever fired a gun from a perched position like a deer blind? A 4th floor position would not have been able to reach most of the crowd.

Was there really a 4th floor shooter? I don't know. But I do know you're absolutely fucking wrong that no one has alleged a lower floor shooter and you're too dumb to recognize that your false claim is due exactly to the fact that you automatically dismissed all that stuff because you only know what your corporate google masters want you to know, you poor dumb bastard.

I don't know that there was 4th floor shooter. I'm saying that a 4th floor window wasn't shot out so it's not likely that there was one. I dismissed the claim because the evidence doesn't support it. And what does Google have to do with any of that?

You'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes but won't have any idea it's happening because google didn't tell you about it. Idiot.

Feel free to feed your paranoia. Some of us use common sense. Do I trust Google with all my heart? No. But I don't ignore evidence because it's contrary to my bias of Google.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

Again, the increasingly complex scenario. Sure the other shooters planned and picked up the hundreds of casings. They also brought in an industrial fan to blow out the smoke into the hallway, down the hall, and out a door. They Febreezed the shit out of the room to remove the smell. Gunpowder smell isn't 3 day old fish but you'd notice it if someone emptied a few clips in a small hotel room. And they replaced the shot out windows. All of that without anyone noticing.

Or the hotel and law enforcement in on your scenario. 1) Law enforcement and hotel security did not search the hotel for possible other shooters. 2) Hotel cleaning staff are forbidden in certain rooms or do not report about the other rooms full of gun powder smoke and smell. 3) Everyone ignores the men who replaced the windows in the middle of the night.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

Please cite your evidence. I can still access these videos on YouTube.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Opportunist]

Wanting to understand your world is a good thing. Simply following whatever insanity someone spouts, usually in the chase of monetary gains, without even bothering to test the validity of their claims is not going to lead to understanding, though.

Only to delusion.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

Note that I wrote that some people knew what it meant, and most didin't.

No you didn't and while some of the American people didn't see the ICBM threat, some did. The military did for sure.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[K10W]

And how is Google no longer promoting a video the same as them controlling free speech? You can still find the videos if you search for them. Google is no longer advertising them at the top of their list. If they blocked them, then you might have a point .

Because it never stops there. It isn't about what they do now that is merely superficial. It is about what trend it indicates linked to other actions in recent history coupled with what you can safely infer their motives are. They come for the "extremists" and cast a net so wide so as to include gamestreaming channel people who are not real threats at all just silly children who say misguided things. The pewdipie dude (unsure if sic) I can't stand and one of my younger kids likes him so been exposed to him on occassion where most /.ers probably don't even know the name, but the dude is not affecting anyones political belief believe me. Then they start on the conspiracy folks and cast wide so as to remove all the channels KNOWN for debunking conspiracy nonsense but pointing out flaws in the leftist agenda bs.

It starts with reducing how they are found and when they're suppressed not only do they exert less influence BUT they become easier to simply terminate accounts with people not noticing. However they do it, they do terminate low level accounts at the drop of a hat. This model works for many things, kind of how they kill train services. You drop the service from several an hour to 1 for 18 hours a day, then shorten the window to 1 per 12 hours. Then keep dropping until it is so low as to not make any but the smallest ripples when it gets cancelled completely. I've seen this done with a lot of things so THAT is why you should be wary. Think not of now but of where this is likely to lead.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[callahan2211]

Censoring only leads to more charges of a cover-up. Why censor alternative theories, unless you have something to hide.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Ol Olsoc]

Note that I wrote that some people knew what it meant, and most didin't.

No you didn't and while some of the American people didn't see the ICBM threat, some did. The military did for sure.

Trolling fail. Good day sir.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Ol Olsoc]

Not the same at all. Google is actually removing the videos from YouTube and banning the users that post them. Not the same as ranking at all.

You have the cites for that? It certainly has nothing to do with his article.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

You wrote: "I suppose a good example of this inability of people to understand the implications of actions was Sputnik. Most Americans and the world were busy worried about national prestige, it took some years for them to understand that the satellites in orbit meant the capability of delivering warheads to your doorstep. Meanwhile people who understood the implications of actions knew."

I fail to see the words "some people" in any of that. In fact you wrote: "Most Americans". Why do you think Americans were panicked over Sputnik? It wasn't because the Soviets would have better TV and weather satellites. It was potentially a new weapons platform. After all it was only a dozen years earlier that V-2 rockets hit targets in England from Continental Europe. Now the Soviets are capable of reaching space which means they could reach anywhere on the Earth.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[HornWumpus]

Echelon and 'three eyes' were open before Snowden. People didn't want to know.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[HornWumpus]

That one had been around so long, it started as 'three eyes'. FDR was the one who started it, Truman was the one who made it formal.

Re:Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[Pseudonym]

Wikileaks works with news outlets on the big releases.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[drinkypoo]

Again, the increasingly complex scenario. Sure the other shooters planned and picked up the hundreds of casings.

No. That's not what I said. If you knew anything about guns you'd know that you can buy a shell collector that just clips onto the most popular weapons to run a lot of ammo through. Since you don't, maybe you should just clam up and let the people who do have the conversation.

Or the hotel and law enforcement in on your scenario.

If only you could read, you'd know that it's not my scenario.

Re: Conspiracy theories aren't always wrong

[UnknowingFool]

No. That's not what I said. If you knew anything about guns you'd know that you can buy a shell collector that just clips onto the most popular weapons to run a lot of ammo through. Since you don't, maybe you should just clam up and let the people who do have the conversation.

If you didn't read, I granted you the possibility. I specifically said also makes it more complex in that the multiple shooters had to bring such equipment with them. I also noted that equipment would not remove the smoke or smell from the room even if they could remove all the casings.

If only you could read, you'd know that it's not my scenario.

No that's THE scenario. If there were multiple shooters and multiple rooms, either law enforcement is part of the conspiracy as no other rooms have been found. Or law enforcement was so inept as not to sweep the hotel to look for possible other shooters.

Present

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

This serves an example of people's state of mind. When everything around you is getting progressively worse you start questioning the official media.

Re:Present

[mentil]

I wonder if the killer's motive will be found, but covered up. The govt. probably remembers how much the press about the Oklahoma City bombing caused people to remember/learn about Waco and Ruby Ridge. They're probably none too pleased about the publishing of the Unabomber's manifesto, either.

Re:Present

[Opportunist]

You start questioning the "official" media when what they report don't match your own observation.

That's basically one of the things that fell the communist states. People eventually saw that what they're told by media and politicians does not reflect what they experience. They heard that the plan was fulfilled and overfulfilled yet you could buy nothing in the stores. They heard that they live in the best of all words and saw that everywhere else the world is better.

What's keeping our system afloat is that there is no west showing us how we're being bullshitted.

Re: Present

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, RT is actually pretty reliable on U.S. news for precisely that reason.

In a totally unrelated coincidence, people are calling for RT to be censored.

Re: Present

[UnknowingFool]

From what I remember about the Unabomber the government wanted to publish his manifesto so that someone might recognize it to help generate leads. And it worked. Are you remembering it right?

Re:Present

[gtall]

"People eventually saw that what they're told by media and politicians does not reflect what they experience."

Ever talk to WTC conspiracy "theorist". They will claim all sorts of things cannot be right in the official accounts. Easy example, they claim the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. Yes, but the heat need not equal the melting point for the steel fail, it only need get hot enough. Once pointed out, they simply move to something else they do not understand.

The basic conspiracy "theorist" works on the assumption, that if s/he doesn't understand the official explanation, then their alternative explanation must be the correct one.

Conspiracy "theorists" work their magic on a pop. that has no sense of numbers and statistics. So you can show the stats on people dying from guns by their own family, yet they'll persist in thinking they are somehow safer with a gun. The stats mean nothing to them.

Re: Present

[easyTree]

I challenge the validity of the concept 'official' in today's world.

Re:Present

[Opportunist]

That's the general tactics employed in such scenarios. You can have the same from religious nuts. They'll jump from topic to topic to topic until they finally find one you're not an expert in, then use that to "prove" their claim.

Re:Present

[HermMunster]

Because the professional media is progressing in tandem with how progressively worse everything else is. To think otherwise is to be corralled by them and others. The media these days is horrible. I'd want to hear other views, as always.

Re: Present

[HermMunster]

I just noticed that people are conflating to demote the view that the mainstream media is letting us down.

The view that any opposing view is conspiratorial is really a tactic to delegitimze.

People need to read the book called The Smear. Chapter 1 will clarify a lot of what happens in government and the media.

Re: Present

[UnknowingFool]

You didn't watch the tv show called manhunt Unabomber.

So you're basing your knowledge on a TV show. A TV show that doesn't even proclaim it to be a documentary but rather reports itself as drama. That is your source? You do understand that "based on a true story" != 100% true right? There are lots of details changed in every "based on a true story" drama.

For example The Big Sick is based on the true story of how Kumail Nanjiani met his wife, Emily V. Gordon. Parts of the romance are true. Parts are not true. For instance, the comedy romance is set in the present day whereas the couple met in 2007 so things like Uber and smart phones that are present in the film were not around. Her parents are depicted by Ray Romano and Holly Hunter are nothing like her real parents in their behavior or mannerisms according to both of them.

Besides they wouldn't have had the need to publish the whole manifesto to accomplish what they wanted.

Except for the fact that his brother recognized the writings of the manifesto as very similar to what Ted had written in letters to him?

Some investigators did want to publish it, but the majority didn't. It was published to save lives after a lot of debate and finally only to save lives.

The people in charge like Janet Reno wanted to publish it and it got published. The contention that the government didn't want it published would therefore be false.

Re: Present

[UnknowingFool]

Your source? My source says Janet Reno wanted it published who was Attorney General at the time. Your source would have to be multiple people at the least.

Re: Present

[slashrio]

Don't forget globalresearch.ca.

Re:Present

[cold fjord]

What is a "religious nut" in your mind?

Do you think that everyone that believes in God is a "religious nut"?

Do you think that "atheist nuts" exist?

Re:Present

[tinkerton]

I'm one of those who doesn't take the conspiracy theory of controlled demolition seriously. Not only that, it is a red herring.
It is visible in plain view that the 9/11 attacks were seen as a golden opportunity to enforce a new order on the world. If I'm not mistaken that is what 9/11 conspiracy theorists also want us to believe and I find it perfectly obvious, but instead of focusing on the important part they want us to believe us some extra stuff that is hard to take serious.

Re:Present

[Anne Thwacks]

I am quietly confident you do not work in the demolition industry.

Re:Present

[yuriklastalov]

Yes, they're called Social Justice Warriors. Communists would also be an acceptable answer.

Re:Present

[slashrio]

Not really quietly, as you posted it here.
A Dutch television crew asked a demolition expert who didn't know about building 7, yet.
They showed him the recording of how WTC 7 came down. He said that it, no doubt, was controlled demolition, and very expertly done.
In one day? He couldn't believe it.
To make the story more juicy, shortly thereafter he died.
Then, not a theory, but on camera, Silverstein declared himself that "...then we decided to pull it'.

Re:Present

[slashrio]

Well, in a report of the Project for the New American Century it is clearly stated that in order to succeed, an event like Pearl Harbor was needed.
I think they did it exactly for that reason.

Re:Present

[tinkerton]

They're not the only ones who thought that, it's a fairly common concept: big changes require major upsetting events. If you read the Shock Doctrine , it's about that. A strategist like Zbigniew Brzezinski also wrote about it. Every risk trader thinks like that as well.
Mostly what it means is when such a thing happens, be ready to take advantage of it. And there, everyone seemed to be ready to see it as the golden opportunity. Does it mean that some people were aware that something was going to happen and deliberately kept quiet or looked away? Maybe.
But the main issue should be how the government hijacked the event.
I don't mean to say there should not be a more thorough investigation of the event, and I'm sure everyone involved has been only interested in covering up whatever they were doing. For instance you always have people who know things and think they are in control of the situation(don't worry, we've got people inside!) and then get a surprise. Then I'm mostly thinking of the Saudis and by extension the CIA.

Re:Present

[Opportunist]

What would an atheist nut be like? Being really hell bent on ... well, what exactly? Atheism only means that you don't believe in a god. That's not really something you can be very emotionally attached to. How do you get emotionally riled up over not doing, wanting or believing something?

Re:Present

[Opportunist]

Not quite. They actually DO have a set of beliefs they believe quite strongly in. It's not really that different from a religion.

Re: Present

[Opportunist]

If people weren't so stupid to just believe whatever story entertains them best...

Seriously, that's the only thing that I could imagine why some outright ludicrous stories get believed. Wanna bet that if I make up some conspiracy about a plot of SPECTRE to create weather phenomenon to blackmail governments across the globe and Trump refusing to pay being the reason for the most recent hurricanes that I'll find some idiots believing it?

It is after all a lot more entertaining and thrilling than just a few hurricanes forming and devastating large parts of the US.

I'm all for handing everyone all the information he'd want to have. Unfortunately there's always some asshole that wants to sell some fairy tale book with "shocking revelations" and "the truth".

Re:Present

[cold fjord]

Is that so? There is no shortage of these types, even on Slashdot.

Atheism isn't particularly rational.

“Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas . . . for it is the assertion of a universal negative.” - G. K. Chesterton

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

There seem to be a lot of atheists on Slashdot that are "certain." I take it you are among them? How did you arrive at that "certainty"?

Re:Present

[Opportunist]

Just because someone claims to be something doesn't mean he is. Or even understands the concept.

You'll notice that such "militant atheists" are usually not adamant about atheism but more interested in promoting their own superior idea. In the case of your example, communism. Their atheism stems from the zeal to promote an alternative ideal or belief system, not just the wish to stop the promotion of what they perceive as an incorrect one.

Personally, I don't know if god exists. What I can observe, though, is that whether he exists or not is meaningless, because he is irrelevant to the functioning of the universe. It's like the question whether there are stars further away than the 13.something lightyears that we can observe. Are there? Possible. Does it matter? Not really.

Then there's that problem with the advertising brochure of his. Not only are there a lot of glaring mistakes that don't really add up with reality, the entity described therein isn't really something that would command worship, even if it exists. It's more something that any rational person should try to oppose and fight, for the god of the bible is much but decent, just, honest or even holy, he certainly is not.

Unless, of course

[Bender Unit 22]

Unless, of course it is CNN or any of the old news outlets, having "experts" speculating for hours.

Re:Unless, of course

[helga the viking]

Thats the crux of the problem. Great they're reducing the conspiracy rubbish saturation. But there are also serious credibility issues with mainstream *cough* Rupert Mourdoch owned media on many certain issues.

Re: Unless, of course

[poity]

Up next on CNN with Don Lemon: Could a black hole have altered the shooter's brain waves?

Re: Unless, of course

[Mashiki]

Up next on CNN: Someone who was pointing out an inconvenient fact....and we've lost the feed.

Re:Unless, of course

[HermMunster]

Actually it is just more conspiracy on their part, so your claim that they are just rubblizing other conspiracies is just more conspiracy. All they are doing is using their podium to push their narrative in a way others can't challenge.

What we want are facts, even if that results in boring news.

Prior to Edward Snowden all talk about government mass surveillance was conspiracy. Now we know the government used the "you're a conspiracy nut" tactic to delegitimize anyone questioning them.

The mainstream media has been promoting the unproven conspiracy that Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election.

We had hollywood elites claiming that "the hacking of 21 election agencies" allegedly hacked by the Russians, was enough to prove to us US citizens as it was enough to prove to the likes of Rob Reiner (a founder of the investigaterussia.com) to claim that with that new evidence they can successfully invalidate the 2016 election and place Hillary Clinton into the presidency where she belongs, only to have that story fall apart days later in stories by the not so mainstream media.

Re:Unless, of course

[burtosis]

Not that all news institutions are equal, but all of them that are funded or owned by large corporations have the corporations interests in mind, not objective and honest reporting - even to the base audience they cater too.

Re:Unless, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN has become absolute garbage. I don't like the Fox News comparison, but it's a terrible fucking "news" station.

Re:Unless, of course

[tinkerton]

What we want are facts, even if that results in boring news.

When the media reports official claims they are reporting facts and they are following journalistic guidelines. It is not enough to report facts. Even when the media debunks an official claim it happens low key and after the damage is done.
In short what is needed is a media that works from a position of distrust. That makes them to actively go and verify the claims and actively highlight lies and debunked claims. But all that is bad for business. Instead the media works from a position of trust.
If they'd adhere strictly to the journalistic code I suppose they would work from a position of passive distrust. Not motivated to investigate because that would not be objective and too partisan.

those trending fake videos

[anonieuweling]

`Those trending fake videos` shows what interest the receiver has in notifications.
They are not critically reviewing any news they get, they want to be soothed into a sleep.
This means that they have no right to dismiss credible evidence.

Re:those trending fake videos

[Rei]

The "recommended videos" algorithm on YouTube is terrible; it's not a user's fault what comes up there. You watch a single news clip which mentions Trump in its title, and for the next week you'll be flooded with recommendations from channels with names like "RealTruthNews" and titles like "DONALD TRUMP is a LIZARD who is now ROUNDING UP DISSIDENTS!" Every time I watch something random, if I even want to try to minimize the amount of terrible garbage that shows up on the front page, I have to spend the next 5-10 minutes clicking to block channels. And for some reason it seems to forget the blocks over time, too. It's a bloody awful algorithm.

Re:those trending fake videos

[Anonymous Coward]

`Those trending fake videos` shows what interest the receiver has in notifications.

And guess who decides where the receivers intertests lie ...

What now if the algorithm is already skewed, meaning that he alread gets fed whatever the company wants to shove (and covering that up by pointing at (their) infallible computers) ? Can the receiver check that ? Can you ? I don't think so.

Mind you, good propaganda isn't blatant. Its mostly all verifyable facts but for a minor detail. That is what makes it so hard to spot.

And yes, there you have it: Another conspiracy theory (is it actually a conspiracy if only one company is involved ? Or is it still because its executed by multiple people in that company banding together ? Or is it just "a way a company works" ? Semantics, semantics...)

Oh, by the way: If you believe that conpiracy-theory loons exist, does it than not stand to reason that the opposite also exist (with "normal" people being in the middle of that range) ? Ever thought of that ?

And if that latter group exists, what drives them ? Afraid of that their deemed-to-be-secure lifes turn out to be build on lies perhaps ? I would not be surprised if that where so ... :-o :-)

Re: those trending fake videos

[easyTree]

DONALD TRUMP is a LIZARD who is now ROUNDING UP DISSIDENTS

Omg thanks for the heads-up!

Another YouTube Hit Piece

[mentil]

Recall a few months ago, advertisers were pulling ads from Youtube, complaining that their ads were being shown with videos for extremist content, even though this was hardly new. Around the same time, there was much handwringing about Pewdiepie's allegedly racist antics. Also recall that the RIAA recently complained that they're being severely underpaid by Youtube, despite being one of their highest sources of streaming revenue. I can't help but feel there's some coordinated attack against Youtube, particularly against ordinary people's ability to post videos and have them noticed/monetized.

I suspect that ALL corporations (aside from Google)/trade groups/governments would approve of/look the other way to/assist in such an attack. I can't help but recall the idea that a gradual lessening of online liberty is agreeable to big business as it makes the internet less 'wild west' and more 'safe place to spend money'. Take away the copyright infringement, extremist content, and conspiracy theories, and all that's left on Youtube are funny animal videos, 'how-to's and trailers/music videos officially posted by their creators.

Re:Another YouTube Hit Piece

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO it's more that old media is used to telling people what to think. That's why people get into journalism these days. They abhor that dissenting views can be spread online and that they are losing control over information. So they push for censorship.

Google is perfectly happy to censor its products to push the approved narrative. They're on the same political side as those media companies. The only conflict is a difference in opinion how radical they should be.

Re:Another YouTube Hit Piece

[Anonymous Coward]

>Take away the copyright infringement, extremist content, and conspiracy theories, and all that's left on Youtube are funny animal videos, 'how-to's and trailers/music videos officially posted by their creators.

Spoken like someone who doesn't use youtube for anything not mentioned here. Gaming videos, light entertainment, art (film, tv, book, etc) analysis/criticism/etc, video art, documentaries, and the list goes on. The entire thing about search engines is that the stated goal has always been to filter out BS that pretends to be legitimate. In the 90s that was porn, gambling, and browser exploits that pretended to be real content. Now the bullshit has gotten smarter, so the search needs to adapt.

Re:Another YouTube Hit Piece

[Opportunist]

It's not even extremist content anymore. It's pretty much any content that could remotely be considered "offensive" by anyone. No matter what or who, if anyone could have a huwt widdle feeling by looking at your video, you're demonetized.

Re:Another YouTube Hit Piece

[Frank Burly]

People will be forced to return to the original internet ethos of being an asshole just for fun!

Re:Another YouTube Hit Piece

[Frank Burly]

Demonetized, or briefly age restricted and then restored—as might happen if there was a coordinated dishonest complaint against the video?

Re:Another YouTube Hit Piece

[Opportunist]

The point is that it doesn't hit people who are assholes. If you want to know what kind of Bizzarro-World YouTube has become, realize that you can monetize making videos promoting "alternative theories" (from flat earth to "medicine" that kills you) but debunking their claims means you get defunded.

Re:Conspiracy theory, or just asking questions?

[coastwalker]

Alex Jones's YouTube entertainment channel Infowars is often in the first page of search results for any current news item. The site makes up stories to increase view-count which are later conclusively debunked. They are welcome to use their business model but it should not be promoted as a news source by Google. They absolutely should show up in search results for conspiracies about the news. That would not be censorship, it would be accurate cataloging of information.

Are you advocating for...

[BabyAndTheButterfly]

...establishing the Ministry of Truth?

Re:Are you advocating for...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, of course not. We should have a private company, made up of members of mainstream media, annoint outlets as mainstream. I don't see how this could go wrong.

Re:How is this okay?

[buck-yar]

That's how Google pushes its leftist agenda.

Re:AR15 3D printed bump fire gadget

[Anonymous Coward]

... make their ban obsolete ...

Congratulations, child-sized firearms are illegal: But no-one enforces that US law.

... the NRA urged Congress to pass their longstanding pet proposal to expand gun rights nationwide, so-called right-to-carry reciprocity.
The lobby group wants gun-owners with concealed-carry permits from one state to be allowed to take their weapons into any other US state, even if it has stricter firearms limits.
Another NRA policy priority, the deregulation of silencer attachments, appears to have stalled in Congress in the wake of the Las Vegas attack ...

-- BBC news

It's convenient that the US government bans their manufacture and promotion: But the sale or possession of much banned ordinance, is allowed.

Ahh, the NRA: Speaking for everyone when it promotes the use of silencers. Plus, minimizing the power of the states.

High time

[DrXym]

I don't know how they rank results right now but I do know that it really sucks particularly for topics like news.

I assume they rank based on number of subscribers, thumbs up/down, keywords, related video clicks etc. and for the most part perhaps that's fine. But for news and notable events it is a terrible way to rank results. Search on "Sandy Hook" for example and look at all the nutbar results that appear close to the top.

I realise curating everything is unlikely but YouTube / Google can certainly weight channels as more trustworthy based on the veracity of their news reporting and their track record. It can also curate certain "hot topic" items and ensure that results are reflective of the facts rather than conspiracy brain damage.

Education is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The K12 system in the US teaches kids to pass tests needed to graduate. They donâ(TM)t teach critical thinking and discernment. Free speech relies on a public capable of thinking critically to discern between a bullshit theory and an alternative explanation backed by evidence.

Re:Education is the problem

[thinkwaitfast]

However, social media has created a highly efficient way for false stories to reach millions in a hurry. In what seems like an eternity ago, false information was occasionally shared via viral email. The success of these misinformation campaigns was dependent on each recipient forwarding the email to a new group of readers – in other words, failing to demonstrate critical thinking. At that time, a viral email containing fake news was problematic, but it only reached a limited audience.

Study: Nearly Half of Millennials Get an ‘F’ In Critical Thinking

And before anyone starts calling conspiracy theory,

Given how far astray critical thinking has often taken us, maybe it’s time to embrace the Millennial Generation’s approach and see if it leads to even better results than the preferred methods of older gen erations.

by Morley_Winograd

Re:Education is the problem

[pauljlucas]

Do you have evidence that the general public is, on average, intelligent enough to be critical thinkers? Or does critical thinking require an innate higher-than-average intelligence?

Corporate censorship

[ratpick]

Do we really want tech companies deciding what material is proscribed? How is that better than government censorship? So called fake news is unavoidable and inseparable from freedom of speech and press. In a free country, people are free to be gullible and stupid. Any effort to actually fix the problem of "fake news" would focus on educating people and promoting critical thinking, but that would also mean not blindly swallowing propaganda and ideology from media, liberals, conservatives, et al, and so is unlikely to gain any traction.

Re: Corporate censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Because there is a network effect: who comes first settles first, and then it is used by everyone just for being largest. There are various YouTube clones like Vimeo, but they are marginalized or niched (like the ones for porn).

Since when is YouTube a news site?

[Roger Wilcox]

"Public outcry?" More like "mainstream media narrative." Way to tip your hand there Mr. Author.

The mainstream narrative (not public outcry) here has been for censorship/alteration of Internet algorithms to prefer mainstream sources.

This seems an undesirable development to any but those mainstream sources themselves. (from big media's point of view:) "Alright Internet... we acknowledge that you have the people's eyeballs now. Let us use what thrall we still have over the people to convince them that we should be the only ones they can trust online."

Worse, the news these mainstream companies produce is largely "fake" too, with headlines ever-more tabloid-like, begging for views like clickbait links. Plus, they put a blatant political slant on everything. Hearst famously claimed "I make the news," and he was right. He had editorial sway over what people across the nation would discuss that day, based on what he decided to print.

This whole thing is utter rubbish--a dying mainstream media grasping for relevancy. I say let them die.

wrong promotion

[Tom]

20 years ago, that might have been a good choice. These days, not so much.

Yes, the conspiracy theories around that shooting are probably out of control. I checked about five videos of it, 2 handy videos from the grounds, 1 short news blurb and 2 conspiracy videos and boy do these guys need to take less of whatever drugs they are taking.

But (and that's a big butt, in the words of Ben Goldacre) the mainstream media is not exactly an impartial, reliable and thorough reporter of news anymore. Too many real journalists have been cut in the name of profits, too much funding diverted from investigation and background checking, too much power given to click counts and advertiser demands.

I won't trust the mainstream media on anything more deep than the basic facts. Too many stories where I know the backgrounds have been reported incorrectly, or shortened in simplified so much that they are barely recognizable. Too much clear bias has been uncovered by media studies. Too much press releases and press conference statements are parrot-like repeated instead of properly checked before reporting.

Putting less weight on conspiracy theories - good. But it's a step too little. The balance should be tilted against all sensationalist and click-bait reporting, including that of mainstream media. Balance should be up on reporting that includes background information, fact-checking and independent investigations. But hey, that would require some actual human judgement and is hard to put into a couple lines of code.

Re:wrong promotion

[UpnAtom]

It would be relatively simple to rank the base credibility of news articles according to the source.

Sources already have a base reliability. Let's say they're out of 10. Then they could have modifiers for particular subject areas eg The UK's Daily Telegraph isn't a terrible paper. It's biased towards capitalism and biased against the EU and climate change.

So it could be a 7/10 with a -3 or -4 modification for those particular subjects.

Ranking news sources would be very easy for media watch groups, political scientists etc.

Re:wrong promotion

[Tom]

Funny how you know which videos I watch. ;-)

I said "basic facts". In this case that is stuff like that there was a shooting, lots of people are dead and wounded, it happened in Las Vegas, at a country festival - that kind of basic.

The reason for conspiracy theories

[guruevi]

The only reason conspiracy theories exist is because no plausible story exists to answer all the questions. People don't understand why these things happen and the government typically isn't all too clear about their prevention, response and subsequent investigation.

If the government were fully transparent, it would quell the conspiracy theories. In this case, they should be transparent as to the reason that individual could buy and bring up 400lb of gear, break the window on a high riser and disable the security alarms all without getting noticed. They should be transparent about the reason it took police an hour to respond to a shooter situation or why they killed instead of capture him. We still don't know much about the person, but once again it will become clear over time that he was deranged, was taking some serious meds and that he was never institutionalized and otherwise fell through the ObamaCare cracks.

Re:The reason for conspiracy theories

[Frank Burly]

The only reason conspiracy theories exist is because no plausible story exists to answer all the questions.

This is obviously false. Everything about the moon landing is extremely well understood and well documented: the technology, the physics, the fact that it was broadcast live, and samples were brought back, etc. And yet a cottage-industry of conspiracies has grown up around it because people are too dumb to understand the truth or because they do not want to believe the truth.

I don't know anything about you, or which category you fall under, but the questions you are "just asking" (in conspiracy parlance) are are either predicated on falsehoods or trivially answered:

1) reason that individual could buy and bring up 400lb of gear: He could buy it because this is America; nobody noticed because it was a large hotel in Las Vegas over the course of a couple days.

2) break the window on a high riser and disable the security alarms all without getting noticed: He broke the window with a sledgehammer, and my understanding is that the alarms were going off.

3) they killed instead of capture him: The official account (which you have completely ignored even though it was one of the first things reported) is that he killed himself; if this turns out to be false, people will certainly ask questions about that. But nobody (except you, maybe) will wonder why police didn't attempt to capture a heavily armed man with a high perch and a demonstrated willingness to shoot innocent bystanders.

The right to speak does not entail the right to be taken seriously. Slashdot and YouTube do their users a favor when they filter out disinformation and motivated obtuseness. If your post had been downmodded to oblivion, I would have saved myself some time. But hopefully this post is helpful to someone.

Re:The reason for conspiracy theories

[guruevi]

The moon landing is extremely poorly understood by the populace and my predicate was that poor understanding and poor education is at the core of conspiracy theories. On top of that, the details of the actual moon landing may be common knowledge today, back then it was top secret stuff and beyond being able to land on the moon, little details about how, why and when this all came to be were available to the general population. All the people knew was that this was done by a brand new agency purely created for cold war purposes.

The questions I posed are rhetorical, but you're right, this happens in America where you're free to buy 400lbs of guns and bring them to your hotel room. The problem is no-one on camera (politicians, reporters etc) wants to say that - yes, it's your right to arm yourself to the teeth - as long as you're not doing any harm - and the price we pay for freedom to guard against an overreaching government is to occasionally have someone go nuts with that freedom. But Americans are not willing to teach the cost of freedom.

The second portion of that is a bit harder to understand, but it's in my opinion the ineptness of either hotel security or police forces to respond in an appropriate manner. Again, something you're not allowed to say if you have a job on television or a politician, but police forces are dumb as nails and are poorly managed, crisis response in general is poor, police forces - for all the power they have been granted including being able to flag suspicious bank transfers and purchases of thousands of dollars in weapons - in the US are poorly trained to handle the data and either negotiate or prevent these disasters. But yeah, those idiots in charge are all supposed to be held up as heroes (waves tiny flag). If I transfer $10,000 somewhere in the US or get a $300 hand gun, I get a nice and friendly visit from a suit, this guy was somehow able to amass thousands of dollars worth of money to pay for thousands of dollars worth of armament, the enforcement is lopsided for the low-hanging fruit, easy targets.

The third part is a typical story line, the guy committed suicide, I'm not crazy so I don't understand why you would kill yourself without at least trying to make a stand and take at least a bunch of them down. If you're going to stick it to the man, at least do it well, but we also know cops are very triggerhappy and nobody is ever going to ask for a third party investigation. Again, the leap from "really? after you couldn't find him for an hour, he hears a knock at the door and shoots himself?" is a logical conclusion from people that don't understand mental illness.

Re: MODERATORS & GOOGLE ARE CENSORING POSTS...

[buck-yar]

Someone said bump fire? :D

3d Print your own Bump Fire gadget!
https://mega.nz/#!Vjp1XaDR!0YL...

Pic of gadget
https://i.imgur.com/bZuDcZq.pn...

See it in action:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Yup. So what?

[easyTree]

If you are mugged, do you refuse to report it to the police in case they fit up some innocent dude for it?

If you are mugged, do you refuse to report it to the police out of compassion for all those additional donuts which would be eaten in lieu of looking for the perp.

This is just wrong

[HermMunster]

Manipulation of this sort is wrong. I'm not into conspiracies but I know this manipulation is just wrong.

If they can do it they will do it to anything that they don't like. What they don't like is irrelevant.

It is no longer youtube when you don't choose.

Re: meh

[easyTree]

I agree. I'm just another aspect of you.

Re: Conspiracy theory, or just asking questions?

[easyTree]

I'm pretty sure real fascism is usually accompanied by leather boots and dark uniforms so clearly... EVERYTHING IS OK.

know why this shouldn't have been done

[strstr]

the military/law enforcement are behind these attacks. most of the people who claim there's an issue secretly hold clearances, are actors, paid shills, etc.

these people are deliberately fucking with people in order to create this epidemic of fake conspiracy theories.

even though the mainstream media is equally as bad as reporting the news accurately, and they do it all for profit, with agendas and spin if they report on the real news at all, they are now being promoted on YouTube as the defacto standard when they aren't. now they have propelled themselves to the top of the search results, without even having to pay for it, and they've managed to eliminate the voices of others.

The website https://www.alternet.org/ is a legitimate news source, since the changes the elite wealthy wanted made were implemented in the Google search engine this summer, the website has seen over 2.5 million less readers, because their website is no longer being listed in search results.

Score for the wealthy elite world domination strategy, including their desire to control the information that gets in front of you, so they can continue to deceive us all and control the flow of information. It's the ultimate in psychological warfare, strategic mass deception, and COINTELPRO2016.

https://www.trumpsweapon.com/

This is the conspiracy

[zedaroca]

Capitalizing in events of this nature to implement ways to control what people see or think. To claim that theories that doesn't come from mainstream media are "conspiracy theories" that should not be believed.

Who says....

[MoarSauce123]

....that established news outlets are reliable sources? Just look at Trump's propaganda channel Fox News and rest assured to be served up at least heavily biased stories if not entirely fake news.

Re:Who says....

[walterbyrd]

You seem to be confused.

CNN, and DNC, were caught manipulating the debates by giving Hillary the questions in advance.

CNN and MSNBC have both been caught staging news stories.

So who is the propagandist?

A Real Conspiracy

[JimSadler]

Here we have another sick man killing a bunch of people. There is no understanding him as at the time he did what he did it probably made sense to him although it was idiotic in nature. To understand this guy you would almost have to be him. So where is the real conspiracy? The lack of health care in the US for the mentally ill is abysmal. Decade after decade reasonable funding for mental health simply never happens and the consequences sometimes are the horror stories we all see on the news. When will the US properly fund care for the mentally ill? And it gets worse. there are always debates over the sanity of this type of criminal. Well, here is a news flash. If you have an urge to start shooting people you are insane. Normal people should never feel a desire to go out and shoot strangers. the same is true for sex offenders. The creep that molests a baby simply can not be sane. Sane people do not want to sexually harm babies. So we can spend billions debating whether each bad actor should be treated as ill rather than as a criminal and the system keeps rolling along with a huge path of the dead and wounded in its wake. It is so simple. A person's desires define their degree of sanity. To anyone out there that is having strong urges to harm others simply get to a hospital and demand that you get help.

Re:A Real Conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, define crime as a medical issue. There's no way that could possibly go wrong.

Re:AR15 3D printed bump fire gadget

[Q-Hack!]

Seeing how the NRA is a group of like minded people, I'd say they represent their members quite well.

Many see this: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Being superseded by: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Those of us in the NRA generally see the National Firearms Act of 1934 as a bad precedent. A prime example of a poorly written law in the heat of emotion. Unfortunately, the NRA didn't have the clout then, as it does today. Suppressors (no such thing as a silencer) should not be as difficult to obtain, by law abiding citizens, as they are. Their ability to prevent hearing damage gives them a valid use.

it's also hard to convince believers

[dfm3]

Not only that, but in the mind of a conspiracy theorist, any attempts to downplay or suppress their theory simply validate it. What was just a kooky idea in a Youtube video becomes "THE CONSPIRACY THAT EVEN YOUTUBE IS TRYING TO HIDE!!!"

I personally know several people who have been swept up in the recent "9/11 was an inside job" craze (it's 2017 - why the hell is that even still a thing?) and it's impossible to have a rational conversation with them about it... because if you don't completely buy in or try to use things like logic and facts to explain how ridiculous they sound, they accuse you of having the wool pulled over your eyes and being manipulated by the mainstream media or the government.

Re:it's also hard to convince believers

[slashrio]

Well... they are right.

Re:it's also hard to convince believers

[tinkerton]

Not only that, but in the mind of a conspiracy theorist, any attempts to downplay or suppress their theory simply validate it.

You mean like this?
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

Re:slashdot has fallen..

[gabrieltss]

Yes PLEASE leave - your a DULT!
Move on to a nice liberal/progressive/racist site promoting BLM the biggest terrorist group in the U.S. right now along with ANTIFA.

So they are saying ...

[PPH]

.... there is no grassy knoll in Las Vegas?

Re: MODERATORS & GOOGLE ARE CENSORING POSTS..

[DarkOx]

bullets don't kill people physics kills people ban phyiscs

This looks like a job for ..

[torpor]

>>> reviewed by actual humans. .. Max Headroom!

Re: MODERATORS & GOOGLE ARE CENSORING POSTS..

[Anonymous Coward]

Bump stock doesn't kill people, guns kill people. Ban guns!

Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. Ban bullets! Or at least tax the hell out of them.

I saw on CNN the one republican who basically said we can't ban bump stocks because machine guns are already illegal, so there is nothing to do. It is this kind of logic that would make binary explosives available at walmart, as long as they were sold separately.

Clearly a reasonable person would conclude, yep we can ban those. They make it too easy to create the same effect as a true automatic weapon. Also, banning has no significant negative effect that was unintended, as bump stocks do not have a large non infringing use.

I also saw multiple republicans say well Obama allowed them, which as any fact checking site will point out, misses the point entirely. An agency of the Obama administration made a legal determination that they could not regulate the item based on existing law. The fact that they tried to figure out a way to do it, but failed indicated that they were doing their jobs. All to often the right will accuse Obama and such of going outside the law in their executive orders. This is a clear case when they did not, so they accuse them of not going outside the law. It is, of course, ridiculous. Now those same republicans want the same agency to go outside the law, since the alternative is for them to take an actual stand. Sad.

The Google change is all the same thing. Can they do something? Yes they can. Is what they are doing better than the alternative? Yes it is. Should they be mindful of the impact of their decisions and always seek to improve them? Sure.

The counter argument which is basically the slippery slope fallacy is bogus. The world doesn't end just because google returns more accurate and more truthful information. Of course at some point you need some actual human moderators to look at things and give things a deeper look. If there is an article that might not otherwise be promoted but everything checks out, then promote it. If you can make your algorithm automatically recognize such things, without bringing in a ton of crap, do it.

In short filtering out crap is the job of google, and they should continue to do it.

Re:AR15 3D printed bump fire gadget

[tinkerton]

AFAIK as I know the majority of NRA members approve of the idea that 'cranks should not be allowed to get guns' but the manufacturers think every threshold for acquiring guns will affect sales.

Actually no

[rsilvergun]

the American revolution was started by wealthy farm owners who didn't want to pay taxes. The folks in charge were by and large in favor of it. Those weren't grass root memes, it was war propaganda.

Now, you can argue that you still agree with the message and that we're better off now than we would have been under British rule (I woulda like the NHS), but make no mistake, the Revolution was about as grass roots American as the Tea Party was 200 years later.

Re:Actually no

[Hal_Porter]

you can argue that you still agree with the message and that we're better off now than we would have been under British rule (I woulda like the NHS),

Bismarck healthcare systems outperform Beveridge ones

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

SSH systems perform slightly better on overall mortality rates and life expectancy (after 1980). For infant mortality the rates converged between the two types of systems and since 1980 no differences ceased to exist.

SSH systems are more expensive and NHS systems have a better cost containment. Inhabitants of countries with SSH-systems are on average substantially more satisfied than those in NHS countries.

Re: Actually no

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't confuse "had land" with "wealthy". Land here was cheap then. Farmers had big houses because houses were working operations, with or without slaves before someone says that. You'd need a lot of space too if you made your own clothes and cooked in a huge fireplace with no stove.

The US did not produce its first millionaire-equivalent until 20 years after the Revolution. These people you speak of were at best upper middle class. People who had time to meet and discuss the issues of the day and what to do about them--exactly what the government and the likes of Google do not want. The middle class of this country did that too in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. The ruling elite did not like it one bit.

Is there any wonder the policies of this nation have been geared twoards getting rid of the middle class and increasing economic uncertainty?

That assumes your claims are insane

[rsilvergun]

e.g. that they're truly random. But many of these conspiracy theories are really just far right wing propaganda meant to shut down any serious discussion on gun control and/or a national health service that covers mental illness (no, the guy didn't convert to Islam 6 months ago).

If you really picked 344 out at random then, yeah, eventually I'll guess it. But if you're goal was to make me pick a number out of a certain range (say to egg me on for gambling purposes) you'd settle on a rough pattern. Same thing with the theories that are taking shape out there. Go read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction". Great science fiction and all but it wasn't supposed to be a guide book...

They do worse than that...

[Anonymous Coward]

'The nail that sticks up gets hammered'

That is what happens in US schools, same as many other places in the world. Even during the years where the schools were moderately 'progressive' (ie sexism is bad, commies are bad, etc.) having a critical discussion on any of these topics was heavily shunned. The past few years I've been having flashbacks as thinks I had been told by parents and others during school 'participation days' turned out to be true, while the school was whitewashing the full context behind them.

The most ironic example being Woody Guthrie's 'This Land' song with a few verses removed to make it pro-land ownership/capitalist instead of anti-land ownership/communist. Also 'papers please' in Russia (something i find ironic now since we hurried to add that in the US after 9/11), confiscation of goods (we've had that now for the entirety of the drug war, but we're seeing it done more for government/corporate profit now as well), and treating citizens differently based on when/where they came to the country from.

That majority of kids in my schools conformed, and the ones that didn't couldn't easily prove it at a time when all the 'official' books pushed a different narrative.

captcha was 'condemn'. Fitting since that is what happened if you didn't follow the propaganda. Just like today.

Re:AR15 3D printed bump fire gadget

[Known Nutter]

Their ability to prevent hearing damage gives them a valid use.

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Se...

Re:Avoid it? You're building the goddamn road to i

[Ol Olsoc]

Avoid it? You're building the goddamn road to it!

Nope. Humanity has several groups of folks, and allowing those who allow their sociopathy and perversions to dominate because they are mistakenly assuming they are anonymous is a fine example of the tragedy of the commons. While these bits of human excrement are busy acting like the assholes they are, yet way too cowardly to act that way if they were to meet whoever it is they are messing with in person, the actual legitimate participants just go away. Then a group is left with nothing but the trolls and kooks, who lose interest because after ruining a group, they need their new fix.

My best example is the usenet groups. If I might use an example, the rec.radio.amateur.antenna group at one time had some world reknowned experts that you could learn from, and have a conversation with. It was priceless.

But after teh trolls and kooks came on board, some idiot that thinks antennas work by shooting off bits of themselves, and they guy who wants to go into great detail about how they want to fuck the expert's dead mother ended up chasing the experts away. They didn't need that sort of abuse, no matter how much you want to hand it out, AC.

So now we have closed groups, some of which I moderate, which simply don't put up with that. If the AC wants to be a necrophiliac, or believe that hurricanes are God's diarrhea, they can, just not on my watch.

That's why Slashdot's moderation system allows the AC to be as disgusting as they wish. They are not squelched. Unfortunately, in more tightly focused groups, we don't have time for that. Don't like it? Too bad.

Re:slashdot has fallen..

[serviscope_minor]

I can't tell if you're a Markov chain bot, a nutcase or if this is satire.

Can you enlighten me?

I'm guessing satire.

Yeah but either one

[rsilvergun]

massively outperform the US model.

Re:slashdot has fallen..

[gabrieltss]

"Just the facts mam'"

Re:Avoid it? You're building the goddamn road to i

[Ol Olsoc]

So now we have closed groups, some of which I moderate

Do you do it for free, or do you get paid in Hot Pockets?

Conjugal visits from Sophia Vergara

Now for a metaconspiracy theory

[Applehu Akbar]

Now that YouTube is defining 'conspiracy theory' for itself rather than letting its viewers decide, what is the criterion exactly? Might it be any evidence that supports the ISIS claim?

More censorship of politically incorrect speech

[walterbyrd]

Social media companies have been doing quite a lot to censor any discussions that do not support the political view of said companies.

Re: MODERATORS & GOOGLE ARE CENSORING POSTS..

[TapeCutter]

In general, Aussies don't fear their neighbours. Hell, even our prime minister walks around town and rides on public transport without a small army following him.

Conspiracies

[namoland9]

Well, recently, youtube decided to outright ban gun mod videos. I guess this is a step beyond the conspiracy theory censorship. It's actually pretty conspiratorial looking. https://macdownload.informer.c... I mean, first it's politics during the election, now it's guns, what's next? Browsers you need to use to be able to watch things? Or even the right device only? it's not just my ramblings, it's a possibility. https://software.informer.com/... I know, I know, tinfoil hat stuff. but what is?