YouTube Will Add Information From Wikipedia To Videos About Conspiracies (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: YouTube will add information from Wikipedia to videos about popular conspiracy theories to provide alternative viewpoints on controversial subjects, its CEO said today. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said that these text boxes, which the company is calling "information cues," would begin appearing on conspiracy-related videos within the next couple of weeks. Wojcicki, who spoke Tuesday evening at a panel at the South by Southwest Interactive festival in Austin, showed examples of information cues for videos about the moon landing and chemtrails. "When there are videos that are focused around something that's a conspiracy -- and we're using a list of well-known internet conspiracies from Wikipedia -- then we will show a companion unit of information from Wikipedia showing that here is information about the event," Wojcicki said. The information cues that Wojcicki demonstrated appeared directly below the video as a short block of text, with a link to Wikipedia for more information. Wikipedia -- a crowdsourced encyclopedia written by volunteers -- is an imperfect source of information, one which most college students are still forbidden from citing in their papers. But it generally provides a more neutral, empirical approach to understanding conspiracies than the more sensationalist videos that appear on YouTube.

Comments

Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[quonset]

There is something called the Backfire Effect. In short, the more factual information you give to someone pointing how/where they're wrong, the more strident in their viewpoint they become.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[Penguinisto]

Actually, I think something else entirely will happen.

Got popcorn?

Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[CosmeticLobotamy]

It won't change any minds, but it might prevent people from falling for it to begin with.

I remember when I first discovered moon landing conspiracy sites. I was fascinated and went down that rabbit hole until I stumbled onto a debunking site.

Since I was just looking into it for the first time, I had no commitment to it, and I was able to see that the debunkers has much simpler, more plausible arguments.

But if I had found the debunkers after telling people about it for a year, I might not have had the strength to admit I was wrong. So thanks, Internet debunkers. You do good work.

Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[mentil]

Yeah I read about 9/11 conspiracy theories on Digg for a couple years before a friend linked me to a debunking site. It cleared up pretty much every incongruity that looked suspicious.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, it's not the fact that the information is factual that makes then deny it, it's that they won't see the source as credible. Wikipedia is not a "primary source", which indeed will cause people to do this.

Like the only real way of putting conspiracy theories to bed is to change the algorithms to pick up words IN THE VIDEO, which the auto-transcribe function can clearly do, and find the correlation between the video and subscribers/commenters.

eg, If infowars posts a video called "drinking tap water turns men in to little girls", anyone should see through this bullshit. But infowars then turns around and sells a product that is simply tap water in non-BPA free plastic bottles, and calls it "super water, makes your penis bigger", would be factually incorrect, because the presence of BPA is mimics female hormones. Not because the claim is unfounded, but harmful.

If someone is pushing a product, then that video needs to be labeled "Product placement, this video is trying to sell you something." Then link to the manufacturer's MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) and lab tests.

Like there are a LOT of products out there that will harm or kill you if are dismissive of the safety of the product.

If products are benign or "don't do what they say they do" then those products should be indicated as such, in the video AND in the text of the video.

But Conspiracy theories themselves, linking to wikipedia is basically pointless, since anyone can edit it, and by providing direct links to such theories being debunked, encourages far more vandalism of the wikipedia. No, I think the best way to solve this would be for Google to get an exclusive licence from snopes and politifact to publish their work to provide several separate "non-opinion" investigative sources (eg researched articles, not opinion editorials from papers.)

And yes, nearly every conspiracy theory debunking thing will slant liberal, not because they're liberal, but because they will always slant towards science. So shit like "global warming/climate change is a hoax" will always be debunked as bullshit. Conspiracy theorists are conmen playing a long-game of selling what people want to hear, and then selling them products to "protect them" from the conspiracy. Once the long-con gig is up, they go to jail, or pay fines, but the damage is irreversible.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[KeensMustard]

This assumes that the people who watch these videos are predominantly already in agreement with them.

The other day I fell into the trap of watching a few flat earther videos on youtube. I asked myself "who would watch this tripe?". After thinking about it the truth came to me : I was watching. Flat Earther videos aren't for Flat Earthers, but to stir the waters of people like me who find the notion teeth grindingly irritating. We watch the videos to arm ourselves for a debunking. And they get ad revenue. They win. Probably 80% of people watching those videos do so because their scepticism drives them to, or because they just like seeing a trainwreck of logic.

In fact at some point I saw an ad at the start of a flat earther conspiracy theory that was unequivocally aimed at anti-flat earthers.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[Jahta]

There is something called the Backfire Effect. In short, the more factual information you give to someone pointing how/where they're wrong, the more strident in their viewpoint they become.

There is a more fundamental issue here; one that is well described in the book The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart.

As the Amazon summary says "Over the past three decades, we [Americans] have been choosing the neighborhood (and church and news show) compatible with our lifestyle and beliefs. The result is a country that has become so polarized, so ideologically inbred that people don't know and can't understand those who live a few miles away."

Living and working in communities of exclusively like-minded people tends to reinforce beliefs (and make them more extreme) over time. Confirmation bias becomes ingrained, and the willingness to even consider an alternative viewpoint diminishes.

In such an environment, rational argument is useless. Inconvenient evidence is simply ignored. Sadly, this is not just an American phenomenon. I've seen similar trends emerging in the UK in recent years.

Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[cayenne8]

No, I think the best way to solve this would be for Google....

I think THIS is the primary point that needs to be pondered.

Why even bother? Is this really a problem?

I mean, why not let anyone rant how they wish? As long as it isn't directing direct violent action against anyone....what's the harm?

Isn't this what the internet was created largely for...for anyone to be able to share their views and speak freely?

Why not let the viewer/listener decide what is bunk and what is fact?

And also...who decides what is conspiracy or not?

I mean, we have had a few things in history that proved that truth is stranger than fiction.....and conspiracies that sounded whacky but proved to be true.

The US government conducting drug and chemical experiments on unsuspecting citizens for example?

Who'd a thought that really would have happened, but did? Example: Operaton Sea Spray.

Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[meta-monkey]

Sure, debunking is great...when the conspiracy theory is false. But for a long time people would call you crazy if you thought the CIA was conducting mind control programs, the NSA was faking evidence to get us involved in wars, or the spooks were recording your phone calls and email.

I have a sneaking suspicion that YouTube has no interest in sorting fact from fiction in "conspiracy theories." I'm pretty sure they just want a method of attacking political views they disagree with. In the meantime, CNN will continue their hard-hitting reports confirming that sources familiar with the thinking of former acquaintances of Donald Trump speculate that Trump's use of Russian salad dressing confirms he's a double secret Putin agent and that Hillary really won the election #RESIST.

Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone.

[kilfarsnar]

It took years to become deprogrammed, mostly from living in Newark and New York, watching the filth of humanity greedily feast on the idiot liberals (of which I was one), begging for handouts during the day and mugging them at night, all while perfectly capable of working for an honest and productive living.

How did you track these people to find out that the ones begging by day were also mugging by night? How did you evaluate their ability to work? Or did you just make assumptions based on your preconceived notions and incomplete perspective?

Doesn't Go Far Enough

[mentil]

I'm all in favor of this, so long as it's expanded to creationism, fundamentalism, or any other extremist video predicated on a faulty premise. Heck, take it further and add opposing viewpoints to ANY video presenting only one side to a contentious issue, like abortion or gun control/rights.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[RightwingNutjob]

You know what...no. Every single thing you hold dear is a contentious issue if the audience is wide enough.

Freedom of religion is a contentious issue. In America we have it. In Iran they don't.

Free and fair elections are a contentious issue. In much of the west we have them, in much of the rest of the world they don't and they make a point of touting it as a superior alternative to ours...and some people here quietly agree.

Same thing for blind justice, property rights, the right to operate an automobile, plastic bags in grocery stores. All of is a contentious issue.

So unless you plan fact-check every video for any expression of an opinion or advocacy of a contentious issue, you shouldn't do it at all.

If a Christian theologian were to put a video of his sermon, would you want little atheist factboxes popping up around it? Maybe you would, but you can't expect him to stay on the platform if it's going to go at his content with a thousand little pinpricks.

If an atheist like Richard Dawkins puts up a lecture of his, is it sensible for little factboxes of REPENT SINNERS to pop up there?

Be serious dude. You're either responsible for policing all of the content on your platform or you're responsible for none of it. There's very little ground in the middle.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[ArylAkamov]

I'd love to see the reaction to the little factbox stating "there are only two genders". This whole experiment would get pulled pretty quick if it was equally applied.

Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough

[RightwingNutjob]

Both questions are equally irrelevant. Wikipedia is no more authoritative than anything else. It's pretty good for nonpartisan stuff like science and geography (although you could see how the latter could have issues), but for political hot-button stuff that's a matter of opinion it has gatekeepers and they exercise their own editorial judgement. I'll give you an example:

Wikipedia will tell you unambiguously that having a gun in the house increases the chance that someone who lives there will suffer a gunshot injury. That's a verifiable fact. It's got all sorts of references from respected sources like the CDC attached to it. What it doesn't tell you is how the correlation and causation are distinguished, but it's a fact that's bandied about by gun grabbers to prove "scientifically" that guns are unsafe. The tacit assumption being that having the gun is what causes the suicides or the murders that it is used for. An equally valid and numerically verifiable fact is that in many US states, something like half the population owns a gun but the rate of misuse is something like 5 per million. And gun nuts can use that equally verifiable fact to say (again, correctly) that nearly everyone who has guns doesn't cause any trouble with them.

None of that discussion tells you anything about the value judgementwe should make as a society about whether we believe people should be allowed to carry/own/have access to firearms. It can certainly inform a quantitative trade of the form "freedom to own guns can cause X amount of marginal mortality" in the same way highway fatality statistics can inform a quantitative trade of the form "freedom to drive cars can cause Y amount of marginal mortality" (and btw Y is about 30pct bigger than X in the US including gun suicides and 300pct bigger excluding gun suicides), but it tells you absolutely nothing about how much you should value freedom of movement or freedom to defend yourself with deadly force over overall "safety." That last bit is a value judgement that can't be informed by statistics alone.

"Fact checking" frequently stops at the statistics and doesn't state that caveat. Usually that omission is made to score political points. It actually gives "fact checking" a bad name since most of the widely known fact-checking is done by left-wing news outlets against right-wing politicians and activists. This YouTube nonsense is just another example of it.

Re:This is just the start

[MightyYar]

It's a private platform. They could simply ban nutjobs.

What liberal bias on Wikipedia?

[tepples]

What examples of "left bias" have you found on Wikipedia that are unsupported by sources that have earned a reputation for fact-checking? They might be in need of bringing them in line with Wikipedia's point of view policy. Or is Wikipedia's guideline for determining "reputation for fact-checking" itself applied in a manner that shows a systemic bias?

Re:You mean everything but SJW/Liberal media

[Bing Tsher E]

I must be old, but I can remember when a link on slashdot could kill the linked web site.

Re: So a left biased source will be used to hide..

[Anonymous Coward]

The media has always been biased, but biased news isn't the same as fake news. The American media, through the printed word, wasn't exactly favorable toward their rules in Great Britain, and the British didn't exactly like the satirical coverage they received. They sought to restrict the freedom of American newspapers to publish stories that were unfavorable to them. That's why the first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. No doubt the American media was biased against the British government, but that's not the same as fake news. Even a completely satirical publication like The Onion isn't fake news because it clearly discloses that it's satire. Journalistic errors also aren't fake news, provided that retractions are issued when the errors are brought to the attention of those responsible. Fake news is when fiction is presented as real news for the purpose of deceiving people. The term "fake news" has become incredibly overused and abused, just as your post is doing.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of countering extreme or harmful posts, I'd love to see Slashdot implement better measures to reduce the garbage that gets posted here. They've had millions of comments that have been moderated up or down, so it should be possible to analyze that database and find predictors of comments (like the parent) that have a very high probability of ending up at -1. These comments could then be automatically rejected or flagged for editor review before being displayed. It wouldn't get rid of all trolling, and that really shouldn't be the goal. But it could curtail the most egregious forms of spam including some of the racist and conspiracy comments like the Qanon nonsense that gets posted sometimes. YouTube has a much bigger challenge in analyzing the content of videos, but the relatively simplistic natural language processing required to filter the most harmful of comments should be relatively simple to implement.

So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[Uberbah]

The greatest conspiracy theory of our time (and the dumbest of all time) is Russiagate. Mueller - one of the people who lied you into Iraq has had more than a year but has gotten nothing more than twitter trolls and indictments that have nothing to do with Trump or Russia.

Pointing this out always results in butthurt from people who have been eager to get punked a second time by the people who lied to world about Saddam planning 911 and having WMD's. Feel free to put up or STFU with some evidence, guys. Protip: assertions are not evidence.

Re:So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged?

[edtice1559]

How would this be a conspiracy? He is investigating facts. We know that Russia sought to influence our elections and we can be quite sure that Russia doesn't respect US campaign laws. The investigation itself shows that we are committed to our elections. Many companies (i.e Facebook, Twitter) have publicly disclosed Russion interference activities. So there's clearly something to investigate.

Re:Wikipedia is reknown for it's own politics, bia

[romanval]

Wikipedia requires submitters to cite openly verifiable sources... which is something conspiracy sources won't bother doing... they are usually are self-referencing (bad source A citing bad source B, and vise-versa).. or they're deliberately obfuscating any factual data that contradicts their message.

Wikipedia Saved my sanity

[Air-conditioned cowh]

A few years ago Wikipedia saved me from believing all these monstrous conspiracy theories about Jimmy Saville being some prolific peodo or something.

I'm sure it will do an excellent job in protecting the fragile masses from any other conspiracy theory today.

I have an idea

[slashmydots]

I want to see a huuuuge disclaimer on these looney SJWs' videos stating there are only 2 genders and thinking otherwise is a mental illness.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[butzwonker]

First of all, one man's racism is not another's differing viewpoint. Racism is really just racism, it's a pretty well-defined notion. Nobody is expected to or even should be tolerant towards intolerant people. Read Sir Karl Poppers "The Open Society and Its Enemies", that might enlighten you.

Second and way more importantly, this is not about racism or political opinions, this is about getting rid of obvious off-topic troll posts. This thread is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a member of the KKK, and the people who post this useless drivel can just go fuck off - permban them, shadow-ban them, delete their posts. I'm personally fine leaving all kinds of KKK posts in a thread about "Hillary Clinton is a member of KKK".

These off-topic posts are designed to derail discussions. Ban those assholes, it's as simple as that.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[iggymanz]

Wrong, people mentioning issues with outsourcing major projects to India or wanting to discuss demographics of inner city crime have been called racist. It is often a smoke screen raised to prevent rational discussion, a label thrown when no substantial argument exists.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[sinij]

Racism is really just racism, it's a pretty well-defined notion.

Not in a today's SJW-infested world. For example, opposition to illegal immigration often portrayed as racism. So definition is anything but clear, and I can guarantee that my definition is quite different from AmiMoJo's.

Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN!

[meta-monkey]

Not really. There's personal racism, structural racism, scientific racism, disparate impact, privilege theory, critical race theory, lived experience, etc. Racism is not simple, at all, and the way it's employed and criticized rhetorically is toxic to any sort of rational debate. You cannot simply handwave away the complexity of race in American society with "Racism is really just racism, it's a pretty well-defined notion."

Re:Wikipedia is reknown for it's own politics, bia

[meta-monkey]

The mainstream media does this all the time. Some garbage outlet like Buzzfeed reports "Florida Man Claims Bigfoot Sighting," and then Huffington post reports "Buzzfeed Reports Bigfoot Sighting," then WaPo comes in with "According to a Huffington Post Report, Bigfoot on the Loose in Florida," then the NYT asks the White House to comment on the bigfoot sightings reported by WaPo, then CNN runs with "NYT: Administration Dodges Bigfoot Questions" and has a 12-person panel analyzing the White House response to the bigfoot crisis, and then the next day we've got "Jennifer Lawrence Eviscerates Trump on Jimmy Kimmel Over Bigfoot Controversy!" trending on YouTube.