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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[poity]

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

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: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: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.

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.

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.