YouTube Will Put Disclaimers On State-Funded Broadcasts To Fight Propaganda (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: YouTube's latest strategy to fight the spread of misinformation involves putting a disclaimer on videos from certain news sources. The online video website announced it will start labeling videos posted by state-funded broadcasters to alert viewers that the content is, in some part, funded by a government source. YouTube will begin labeling videos today, and the policy extends to outlets including the US's Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and the Russian government broadcaster RT. According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, PBS videos will now have the label "publicly funded American broadcaster," while RT will have this disclaimer: "RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government." The new policy is YouTube's way of informing viewers about where the content they're watching is coming from, a piece of information often hidden or left unsought by the viewers themselves. "The principle here is to provide more information to our users, and let our users make the judgment themselves, as opposed to us being in the business of providing any sort of editorial judgment on any of these things ourselves," YouTube Chief Product Officer Neal Mohan told the WSJ.

Comments

For the US, the picture isn't all that clear...

[bogaboga]

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, PBS videos will now have the label "publicly funded American broadcaster," while RT will have this disclaimer: "RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government."

Though mainstream media in the US aren't directly funded by the US government, they get favors from time to time. Otherwise how would one explain the fact that *all* mainstream media basically regurgitated the government's position in previous [unfortunate and unnecessary] wars?

These are wars that are continuing to some degree even as I write this. After causing chaos, mayhem, confusion in distant lands, the US basically stated, "It's not our problem."

Just ask the Europeans who now have to deal with the refugee influx by what our leaders caused with no checks from the media whatsoever!!!

Re:For the US, the picture isn't all that clear...

[El Cubano]

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, PBS videos will now have the label "publicly funded American broadcaster," while RT will have this disclaimer: "RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government."

Though mainstream media in the US aren't directly funded by the US government, they get favors from time to time. Otherwise how would one explain the fact that *all* mainstream media basically regurgitated the government's position in previous [unfortunate and unnecessary] wars?

Not only that, but will videos/ads created by companies that are owned (in whole or in part) by their governments be similarly labeled? I'm thinking of Deusche Telekom, British Telecom (though it is no longer directly owned by the UK.gov), PetroBras, PDVSA (Petroleos de Venezuela). Sure, they aren't media companies, but what is to stop them from producing "propaganda" that suits their ends?

Also what makes government-funded propaganda so much worse than corporate or political party or any other sort of propaganda?

Re:For the US, the picture isn't all that clear...

[toadlife]

...how would one explain the fact that *all* mainstream media basically regurgitated the government's position in previous [unfortunate and unnecessary] wars?

The United States is an oligarchy and those media conglomerates that promoted the war have financial ties to the military/industrial complex.

Re:For the US, the picture isn't all that clear...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a technical distinction. In day-to-day life many huge corporations have more power to fuck you over in real, perceptible ways than the government does. Yes you theoretically could get tossed into Gitmo or Branch Davidian-ed, but the odds are infinitesimal. Your cable company or your power company or your ISP or Google or Facebook are much more likely to screw you in ways you can actually feel.

And as little as I fear the American government killing or imprisoning me for wrongthink, I fear the Russians doing it from the other side of the planet even less.

Re:Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

yo momma's so big she's a nation-state

What is there to gain by tagging PBS?

[damn_registrars]

I've seen more politics on HGTV than I have seen on PBS. It's rather preposterous to claim that PBS is pushing some sort of political agenda. Their news coverage is arguably the least politically biased of any network that you can watch in the US.

Re:This Will Backfire

[Narcocide]

I know this is probably a lost concept on you, but the idea here is that people will be more capable of admitting to themselves that they are being lied to if they can correlate advertisements with known motives.

Wait a minute

[fustakrakich]

Are they saying there's a difference between government propaganda and corporate propaganda (advertising)? That's a bit off I would say...

Re:Cool

[Art Challenor]

Problem is it's actually quite close to the truth. You don't necessarily need "fake" news, you just take spin and extreme news and saturate social media with it until dissent is overwhelmed. How? Hire a large number of low-wage people to work (possibly from home) to spread the articles that you want spread.

Re:This Will Backfire

[serviscope_minor]

People don't trust CNN, MSNBC, etc because they lie fucking constantly

Funny thing is the kind of people who say that kind of thing seem to prefer Breitbart and even Infowars.

Which is ironic.

Re:This Will Backfire

[serviscope_minor]

They're all shit, the only difference is

And you're wronger than both put together.

Even if I concede the others are shit, Breirbart and Infowars are much, much worse.

Objectively.

When was the last time either of those two published a retraction or correction?

Re:This Will Backfire

[serviscope_minor]

You're basing that on whether or not they publish retractions or corrections?

The absence indicates a desire to decieve. It's an absolute minimum bar.

Just look at the way Hillary sold Uranium to the Russians - if you know anything about it (aside from the talking points on the matter) you know that she "didn't" sell it to the Russians, she OK'd a Canadian company to acquire it, who then turned around and sold it to the Russians inline with the terms of the contract.

And you're talking about a beacon on how not think?

She didn't sell uranium to the Russians via any mechanism. A uraniumoperation was sold. There's no way and no license for that company to ship uranium out of the US and to the Russians.

Trump is our last hope

Aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!

Re:This Will Backfire

[serviscope_minor]

I noticed you quietly dropped your claim as if no one would notice!

And no, pretending everything is equally bad does not make you worldly, it makes you foolish.

Re:This Will Backfire

[serviscope_minor]

Read and learn:

Hillary did not sell Uranium to the Russians.

If you dispute this, show proof that the Russians actually acquired radioactive materials as a result of Hillary.