Slashdot Mirror


'Why YouTube's New Plan to Debunk Conspiracy Videos Won't Work' (vortex.com)

Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein believes YouTube's plan to combat conspiracy videos with "information cues" is "likely doomed to be almost entirely ineffective." The kind of viewers who are going to believe these kinds of false conspiracy videos are almost certainly going to say that the associated Wikipedia articles are wrong, that they're planted lies... Not helping matters at all is that Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy -- never all that good -- has been plunging in recent years, sometimes resulting in embarrassing Knowledge Panel errors for Google in search results...

The key to avoiding the contamination...is to minimize their visibility in the YouTube/Google ecosystem in the first place... Not only should they be prevented from ever getting into the trending lists, they should be deranked, demonetized, and excised from the YouTube recommended video system. They should be immediately removed from YouTube entirely if they contain specific attacks against individuals or other violations of the YouTube Terms of Service and/or Community Guidelines. These actions must be taken as rapidly as possible with appropriate due diligence, before these videos are able to do even more damage to innocent parties.

308 comments

  1. "Weinstein"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'nuff said.

    1. Re:"Weinstein"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (((Weinstein)))

      FTFY.

    2. Re:"Weinstein"... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      ((( IN STEREO )))

      FTFY

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re: "Weinstein"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm still using mono you insensitive clod.

  2. Censoring vs. Educating by Tinsoldier314 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lauren's supposition that Wikipedia information will simply be ignored and that Youtube should simply censor the videos is based on a dodgy notion that censoring speech we don't like is somehow better than combating it with truths. Yes, they may ignore Wikipedia but not all of them. It may take longer but it's the more righteous path than censoring. imho

    1. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by the_povinator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I believe Lauren Weinstein used to be paid as some kind of Google shill and now that the agreement has been terminated, he seems to have turned on his former employer. Most of his posts now seem to have an anti-Google bias.

      --
      The .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.
    2. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by the_povinator · · Score: 5, Informative
      ... also, who exactly is going to decide what information is "bad" and what is "good"? Google itself?

      I notice Lauren's attitudes towards censorship have not changed. When he blogged on Google+, he would delete any comment on his posts that disagreed with him even in a mild and reasonable way.

      --
      The .sig is dead, and I believe I had a hand in killing it.
    3. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obviously far-left communists confused about their gender should be responsible for dictating to the rest of us what's true, what's false, and what ideas are too powerful for normal peons to know about.

    4. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... on a dodgy notion that censoring speech we don't like is somehow better than combating it with truths.

      And yet, you should never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Also, YouTube can do as YouTube pleases. They're not the government and they don't have a monopoly on the online video space.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a baker has to make cakes for gay weddings, YouTube has to offer an equal platform for diverse users that they might disagree with.

    6. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what they are doing. Except they are trying to automate it.

      https://xkcd.com/386/

    7. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's hardly a good analogy. Customer relations in shops tend to be regulated, especially for certain attributes of individuals. And I'm pretty sure Google wouldn't refuse to distribute a video of a gay wedding.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by sg_oneill · · Score: 0

      If a baker has to make cakes for gay weddings, YouTube has to offer an equal platform for diverse users that they might disagree with.

      Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit!

      The defence rests.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    9. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Yes, they may ignore Wikipedia but not all of them. It may take longer but it's the more righteous path than censoring. imho

      There is a danger in giving a wingnut a soap box. Not only does it embolden the wingnut, and give him a sense of authority because people are stupid enough to figuratively look up to people they literally have to look up to, but it also legitimizes them by associating them with your brand of soap.

      On the other hand, carriers who moderate some content are sometimes held responsible for moderating more content. It's best to moderate no content, except as demanded by the law. But how do you avoid legitimizing the nutbags? You put a notice next to what they say that makes it clear that you don't agree. Which, of course, is what they are doing.

      If all it accomplishes is that some of the nuts post less videos to Youtube because they don't want a WP link on their video, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lauren's supposition that Wikipedia information will simply be ignored and that Youtube should simply censor the videos is based on a dodgy notion that censoring speech we don't like is somehow better than combating it with truths. Yes, they may ignore Wikipedia but not all of them. It may take longer but it's the more righteous path than censoring.

      There is no censorship there. YouTube is a private business. They have the right to delete anything they want, for any reason they want. Even if their reasons are stupid and I don't like them, it doesn't matter, they still have the right to do it and it is not censorship. Nobody is forcing you to look at videos on YouTube. If you don't like it, go somewhere else.

    11. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      They give you a soapbox here...

    12. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 0

      Ask Fox how effective censoring truth has been?
      The right rode the Hillary-email-Unspecified-crimes lie into the White House by keeping all debunking off their air.

    13. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Berkyjay · · Score: 2

      censoring speech we don't like

      It's more censoring speech that is not fact but passed along as fact. If it can be proven not to be factual, then it shouldn't be afforded any sort of censorship protection.

    14. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by fafalone · · Score: 0

      Right-wing conspiracy theorists aren't a protected group.

    15. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only the founding fathers did not discuss about arson, but did about being able to express one's ideas.

      And of course, frome somebody's point of view, maybe YOU are the arsonist/little kid here.

    16. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So someone has to reject their freedom of religion because a protected group that disagrees with them wants them to make a cake?

    17. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And right there is exactly why we are in this situation...if someone blindly accepts something you disagree with you think the answer is to get them to blindly accept your perspective instead. The real problem here is that the vast majority of people, approaching 100%, especially Americans, are provably illiterate.

      Oh Sure...you may know how to read but you have no clue how to understand and at that point reading is worthless. Let me give you an example. If you believe this statement proves anything about the climate change debate you are totally illiterate: "97% of scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change."

      That statement consists of a false dichotomy, a call to majority, and a call to authority. Nothing else. There is no legitimate argument there.

      Now...if you think I just made any kind of argument against anthropogenic climate change you are illiterate. I haven't actually presented any kind of argument on any of the multiple sides of this issue.

      You want to educate people start by teaching them how to understand and research what they hear, read, and see. Learn to differentiate facts from fallacy. Learn what talking points are and how they are used. Learn to ignore the personality and actually listen to what people are saying. and most important, to recognize and accept when there are not enough facts to draw a conclusion.

      I don't give a flying fap if something comes from Trump or Putin or Alex Jones or Bill Nye or snopes or Obama or Asma al-Assad or wikipedia. I have caught every one of those sources lying but I have also found them telling the truth. I am a mature, educated adult, in fact likely older than most of the people in this discussion and certainly more mature than the children at google who arrogantly presume that they are somehow qualified to babysit me.

      These people have the perfect opportunity to truly educate people but they won't and the reason is simple and obvious: it doesn't matter if it is China or Russia or Facebook or the US or Google or the UK or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. They want illiterate blind followers. They just don't want them following the other guy. And if we actually taught people how to think they would not be following anyone.

    18. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Aaaand there goes all of fiction, since it can be proven to be non-factual.
      Also, there goes an scientific discoveries that are against the currently understood science.
      Let's not forget that newspapers are now going to have trouble breaking scandals, especially against popular figures.

      What's that? You say science and news can prove themselves correct? Well, how are they going to do that, when they can't publish because they're being censored? No one hears the arguments, no one's mind is changed, and the Groupthink is reinforced once more.

    19. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course. And we all know where we end when those people are not stopped in their tracks. Giving deceitful demagogues plenty of airtime gave us Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump. I'd say that's a pretty damning indictment against that particular brand of "free speech".

    20. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      According to court precedent, a baker has to bake a cake for a gay wedding. But they cannot require him to ice it with "God is dead". If a white supremacist couple comes into a Jewish bakery they must be served, but they can't require swastika icing.
      Youtube is a private company, not some sort of public square or civic space that must accommodate free expression in all forms. They offer an equal platform to everyone no matter what their political persuasion. (Being a private entity, they're not required to, but they do.) But if you upload nothing but crap, and they decide it's crap, they have the right to kick you out. Unless the cops show up to arrest you because someone didn't like the politics in your videos, no U.S. court will consider your First Amendment rights to have been infringed. They'll just say you can upload your videos somewhere else if you don't like it.

    21. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by tomhath · · Score: 1

      It may take longer but it's the more righteous path than censoring.

      It's only righteous if they are completely fair in determining when to link to the "accurate" story. But there is no way that can ever happen because you will never get anyone to agree on what's fair (especially with Google making the call).

    22. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That is true in Germany already. Discussion is not desired. Those that dare discuss undesired subjects are called nazis. This usually ends discussion before it even gets started. I have a neighbor doing this exercise on me so it works from the top till bottom of the society.

    23. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK so we are certain that gay wedding videos are not suppressed. What about videos made by gay right wing radicals?

    24. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They give you a soapbox here...

      Sure. And Slashdot has built a reputation for permitting wingnuts like me to speak freely. But Youtube has no such reputation...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So by y our logic, the baker can refuse to put a message on the cake?

      You're a fucking hypocrite. Political speech is the most im portent to protect.

    26. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by jader3rd · · Score: 1

      If a baker has to make cakes for gay weddings, YouTube has to offer an equal platform for diverse users that they might disagree with.

      When the gay couple removes the cake from the baker, no one attending the wedding will be associating the wedding with the baker. There's a clear division between the two. But with hosting a video on YouTube, YouTube is associated with the video. It's not difficult to see the video to YouTube connection, whereas with the baker one would had to go way out of their way to associate the gay wedding with the baker.

      The gay wedding does not tarnish the bakers good name. Hosting democracy destroying videos on your website does tarnish your good name.

    27. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by preflex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's more censoring speech that is not fact but passed along as fact. If it can be proven not to be factual, then it shouldn't be afforded any sort of censorship protection.

      Aaaand there goes all of fiction, since it can be proven to be non-factual.

      No, not all of fiction. Only fiction being passed along as fact. This is why teaching creationism in public schools is outlawed. It is demonstrably false.

      Also, there goes an scientific discoveries that are against the currently understood science.

      If they can be proven to be non-factual, it doesn't matter if whether it goes against the currently-understood science. It's simply not true, and shouldn't be passed along as fact. If a claim it is merely unsubstantiated, that's one thing. If a claim is demonstrably false, that's another.

      Let's not forget that newspapers are now going to have trouble breaking scandals, especially against popular figures

      Can the scandals be proven not to be factual? You do understand there's a difference between that and not being able to prove that it is a fact, right?.

      What's that? You say science and news can prove themselves correct? Well, how are they going to do that, when they can't publish because they're being censored? No one hears the arguments, no one's mind is changed, and the Groupthink is reinforced once more.

      The burden of proof is on the censor. The scientist and journalist cannot prove that they are absolutely true, but if they can be proven to be false, then it is junk science or fake news.

    28. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by swillden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe Lauren Weinstein used to be paid as some kind of Google shill and now that the agreement has been terminated, he seems to have turned on his former employer. Most of his posts now seem to have an anti-Google bias.

      In your world, does anyone ever say anything merely because they believe it, rather than because it supports their tribe or pays their bills?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    29. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world is unfair.

      You cannot freely engage in religious practices that violate the legally-enforced rights of protected classes.

      Deal with it.

    30. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Z80a · · Score: 1

      What the of author of the article is failing to see is that there's no such thing as "conspiracy theory switch", and there are a bunch of people on the middle of this path to crazy shit that can most likely be tossed off the path of the gay frogs.
      But i think allowing people to post debunk responses to videos would help quite a bit too, as you have video vs video instead of video vs boring text, and even allow you to post videos of people that are not considered exactly left but still debunking the thing.

    31. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      Also, YouTube can do as YouTube pleases. They're not the government and they don't have a monopoly on the online video space.

      Fundamentally I agree with you, but I'm still a bit uneasy. Really, YouTube DOES pretty much have a monopoly when it comes to the average citizen being able to upload a video and having a decent chance of it being seen by at least tens of thousands of people. With great power comes great responsibility. If YouTube either is ineffective at rising to that responsibility, or doesn't take it seriously, then perhaps legislative intervention is in order. And perhaps it's NOT in order - I'm simply saying that a knee-jerk proclamation on either side of that argument may be ignoring some complexities that ought to be considered.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    32. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're running that private company on the internet, which was developed with government funding. Hell yeah, there using public infrastructure, and hell yeah, they can be regulated!

    33. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      The phone companies are not monopolies, and are not government, should they be able to censor your calls, or your messages, or the websites you visit?

    34. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by fafalone · · Score: 2

      Pointing out the legal difference between categories of people that are protected under anti-discrimination/civil rights law is Flamebait now? How the quality of discussion has fallen.
      Look, I wasn't saying whether it's right or wrong, or even whether it's right or wrong for groups that are protected, just that law prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex (which the courts have ruled includes sexual orientation). That means you can't refuse service to black people, but you *can* refuse service to right-wing conspiracy theorists.

    35. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a danger in giving a wingnut a soap box. Not only does it embolden the wingnut, and give him a sense of authority because people are stupid enough to figuratively look up to people they literally have to look up to, but it also legitimizes them

      In other words, "The Goyim know. Shut it down!"

      seriously, neighbor, this is remedial and settled. "Yes there is a danger. Wingnuts get to stand on soapboxes anyway," is what free speech means. Article _One_, the first one, should not be a controversial position. Why is this even up for discussion?

    36. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut the FUCK UP you reptilian bastard.

    37. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, you whiny fucktard.

    38. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by fafalone · · Score: 0

      So let me ask you a question in response then. A few decades ago, it wasn't that uncommon to find many people who professed a sincerely held religious belief that interracial marriage was wrong. There even used to be anti-miscegenation laws on the books in some places. So, should the baker lose their freedom of religion, or would it be ok to refuse someone service based on their race? You're either principled in your objection and must therefore answer yes, or answer no and admit that it's just personal animus towards homosexuality (which also leaves the mechanism door open; do you accomplish it by striking sexual orientation from being covered under civil rights law protected classes, or by having the government define what is and is not a sincere religious belief in the current year?).

    39. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lauren's supposition that Wikipedia information will simply be ignored and that Youtube should simply censor the videos is based on a dodgy notion that censoring speech we don't like is somehow better than combating it with truths. Yes, they may ignore Wikipedia but not all of them. It may take longer but it's the more righteous path than censoring.

      imho

      It is appropriate for a search engine to return relevant results. Results that can be proven to be factually incorrect by any reasonably impartial panel are not relevant results, so could be weighted way down. There needs to be a process to appeal such a decision of course.

      That all being said, some things don't have clear answers and are more opinion based. That is where wikipedia links make sense. If in doubt we probably want to preserve the content and not censor. Of course proof that something is false is a very high standard to meet and requires a hell of a lot more than, "Believe me."

    40. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Berkyjay · · Score: 1

      Aaaand there goes all of fiction, since it can be proven to be non-factual.

      Straw man much?

    41. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Her main supposition is that the videos that will be censored will, of course, be the ones that disagree with her own specific brand of liberal politics. And that will probably be true at first. But what never occurs to her or her ilk is that someday the winds could change out of nowhere, and it could become *their* speech that's suddenly being censored. When you create the censorship machine, it's pretty arrogant to think that only you and your allies will ever control it.

      Robespierre sent many men to the guillotine in the name of the Revolution, until the day the Revolution turned against him and it was him being marched to the platform. On that day he realized all-too-late that the oppression you create today can easily be turned on right back on you tomorrow.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    42. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cake? Forced to write message? Ok.

      Videos? Forced to host message> ok.

      If one is ok so is the other. The rest of your point is fluff.

    43. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but those people don't get air time on the media or put into positions where they could censor others.

    44. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you are advocating shutting up morons, check your post for awkward syntax. :)

    45. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's hardly a good analogy. Customer relations in shops tend to be regulated, especially for certain attributes of individuals. And I'm pretty sure Google wouldn't refuse to distribute a video of a gay wedding.

      Do you just not know what an analogy is?

      A person can argue that Google has a right to not serve certain content or provide service to some individuals. This argument would be the very same a bakery could use to decline the request for a wedding cake for a gay couple.

      This observation draws a comparison between political speech and gay marriage. It says nothing about Google's stance on gay marriage,

      And yes, it is true that there are regulations controlling for one of these and not the other. GP's deeper point was that either both should be regulated or neither should.

    46. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awkward syntax doesn't necessarily relate to intelligence or lack of education. It could also indicate someone whose native language isn't English. (And being too annoyed to notice or care to fix it for some mostly pointless post on some random Internet forum).

    47. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. Right-wing?

      Does this mean they're only going to cover insane conspiracy theories and doomsday cults popular with the political right? What about the big left-wing conspiracy theories (e.g. "Putin is hacking all the elections!") and doomsday cults (e.g. "The planet is going to boil over!").

      Both sides could benefit greatly from this proposal.

    48. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to court precedent, a baker has to bake a cake for a gay wedding. But they cannot require him to ice it with "God is dead". If a white supremacist couple comes into a Jewish bakery they must be served, but they can't require swastika icing.

      Can they require the icing read "God is gay"? What about a deliberate misspelling with an understood meaning like "God is gy" or "God is dd"?

      Let's have a new, tax-funded regulatory body to decide these questions and then think up some more, start deciding those too, and work out why they need more funding.

      It's truly tragic to see America sinking into totalitarianism as though it were a nice, hot bath.

    49. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are the moron. Or the hypocrite, take your pick. Democracy is based on free speech, it's an incredibly important part of our modern society, but what you apparently do not understand or conveniently ignore, is that it comes with a responsibility, like all powerful things. It's based on the underlying assumption that you will grant others the same benefits that you are given.

      Hence, the moment you stand up, and spread lies, confusion, mislead or act in other ways act in order to deny other people their rights, you have deliberately broken this contract, and society no longer owe you shit, jackass. If you want to play outside the rules, fine, but don't expect anyone else to continue to play by them for your benefit either then. There simply is no room for that, unless you're a stinking, filthy hypocrite.

    50. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The way that I pontificate safely here is to tick the 'no karma bonus' by default. I could always post with the +1 but I figure that makes it more likely to get modded down and loose 'excellent' rep or whatever they call it. As long as you stay safe 'below the radar' posting at 1 you get enough mods up to make it safe to take some mods down. I would hate to waste time staying conformant to the groupthink on /. Life is too short.

    51. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by meglon · · Score: 0

      You're right... reality should be what dictates what's true and false, but some people are just too fucking stupid to live in reality. Censorship isn't the way to go, and showing people what reality is only works on people who still understand reality is not equal to their ignorant, uneducated opinions. Stupid can't be cured it seems, because stupid is strong (and it's perfectly happy to be stupid).... and the anti-intellectual right wing fascists of today prove that pretty much every single time they open their mouths, or put fingers to keyboards.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    52. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by meglon · · Score: 1

      Which shows the problem with most conservative thinking... turning a complex nuanced problem into a 5 second soundbite only shows that you don't understand what the fuck is going on.... and dipshits who marked you as "insightful" are as stupid as your comment.

      While a business can refuse to serve anyone, they are not allowed to discriminate against certain groups. These bakers who refuse to make wedding cakes are not simply refusing to serve someone, they intentionally go out of their way to make sure the people (and everyone else) know that they're intentionally discriminating against a class of people that it's illegal to.

      That is not the same as Youtube censoring some video's for content, and it takes an incredibly stupid person to think that it ... and when someone makes such a stupid statement, it only reinforced that absurd notion in people who are too stupid to understand what's actually going on. That is the same as these dipshits who post conspiracy theory bullshit.

      https://xkcd.com/1357/

      Censorship is still the wrong approach, because stupid people will still be stupid, and will continue to fuck up things because of their stupidity.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    53. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My religion says the earth is flat. Youtube killed my video, lowered my rank, demonetized me but does not do the same to round earth bigots.

      I'm clearly discriminated against.

      How can you not see this? It's because you think it's ok to filter messages you disagree with. Burned any books lately?

      You know the same crowd has been saying dr Seuss is racist? They want his books burned. How can you stand with people like that?

    54. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by meglon · · Score: 0

      I know what an analogy is...it's a comparison of two things which are similar to make a point. However, these two things don't share the similarities needed to make your point, and in fact, are exactly opposite in the area you needed them to be similar in to make it an analogy. You yourself said it... one is regulated, the other is not.

      Now, you can argue that both should be, or both shouldn't be... but as an analogy, you and the OP fail miserably to make one.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    55. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by meglon · · Score: 1

      There's a bunch of whiny rightwing asshats on slashdot that routinely mod down any posts that show the fantasy land they live in doesn't come close to reality.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    56. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by wellingj · · Score: 1

      I award you no points.

    57. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mention net-neutrality and watch these same pro-censorship folks lose their minds.

      They want to censor people they disagree with. They don't want themselves censored. It's a simple, child-like mentality that's rife with hypocrisy.

    58. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... also, who exactly is going to decide what information is "bad" and what is "good"? Google itself?

      I notice Lauren's attitudes towards censorship have not changed. When he blogged on Google+, he would delete any comment on his posts that disagreed with him even in a mild and reasonable way.

      If we could weaponize your stupidity, there would be no need for any nuclear weapons.

    59. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They would never censor a video of a proud black woman from Africa chanting, "black power!"

      They would instantly ban a proud white man from Germany chanting, "white power!"

      This is racist, sexist, illegal and discriminatory.

    60. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Tinsoldier314 · · Score: 1

      And yet, you should never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

      You're right, don't argue with an idiot, but in this case we're not talking about arguing with the one in the pulpit, we're trying to educate his followers (the viewers on YouTube) and I think that's different in a very meaningful way.

    61. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Of course people who actually believe things get air time.

    62. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Party Guest 1: Mmmm. Delicious. Who made this cake?
      Party Guest 2: You don't say. The shop down the corner. Ain't they sweet?
      PG1: I hear they are evangelicals. We have to let the word out to our community to buy there.
      PG2: Sure, I'll spread this on Instagram.

      Soon, nobody from the evangelical community buys from the shop any more. Their customers are now the occasional gay couple from the LBGT community.

    63. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by meglon · · Score: 1

      ...and while the black woman is chanting black power to rise up from discrimination, those white men are chanting white power to oppress everyone else even through genocide if need be. Again, you're trying to compare to different things. I get it.... in mind numbing stupid alt-right fantasy land, it's the poor white man who's always the victim. Stupidity is truly an endless resource.

      https://xkcd.com/1357/

      People with any form of intelligence are getting tired of stupid asshats like you thinking your lies and ignorance mean a damn thing. When you wonder why the world is going to shit.... look in the mirror; that's why.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    64. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by meglon · · Score: 1

      So, you missed the part right there in where i said "censorship isn't the way to go." I get it, you're too fucking stupid to read.... once again a dipshit to prove my point.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    65. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      True, some people *can* be successfully steered away from bullshit, but my understanding is that those who need it most are only reinforced.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    66. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent censored by the very people who claim to vehemently support free speech, because they found the content disagreeable. An act as telling as expected.

      Morons, have you ever heard of an "own goal"?

    67. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe Lauren Weinstein used to be paid as some kind of Google shill and now that the agreement has been terminated, he seems to have turned on his former employer. Most of his posts now seem to have an anti-Google bias.

      Weinstein has been around since the ARPANET days, and probably hasn't needed to cow tow to anyone in his career for a while (regardless of whether they pay him or not):

      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Weinstein_(technologist)

      He started the PRIVACY forum back in '92:

      * https://www.vortex.com/privarch.html

      I don't always agree with him, but I think his bona fides speak for themselves.

    68. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    69. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phone companies are not monopolies, and are not government, should they be able to censor your calls, or your messages, or the websites you visit?

      Actually in the USA phone companies are government-granted monopolies. So you pulled the old classic "speak about what you know nothing of" error, eh?

    70. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      seriously, neighbor, this is remedial and settled. "Yes there is a danger. Wingnuts get to stand on soapboxes anyway," is what free speech means. Article _One_, the first one, should not be a controversial position. Why is this even up for discussion?

      Because you (and others like you) don't understand the first amendment. Google is not obligated to provide a soapbox to a wingnut in the first place, and they're well within their rights to take their soapbox and go home, or to decide who can stand on their soapbox.

      The first amendment is a limitation on government, not on corporations.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    71. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      IT seems you've already chosen, for yourself, to not read anything. Clearly, you don't need white cis males to decide that for you; if you did, you'd see that many of us would decide you should read as much as you can. The post you replied to with such angst (and ignorance) would be a good starting point.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    72. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      If we could weaponize [...] stupidity

      What do you think propaganda is?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    73. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it quite often that people here on Slashdot claim that corporations own the government? Wouldn't that make them the government?

      But from a less snarky side, Google has far more influence than any corporation should realistically have. Beyond just the ability to control speech, they lobby and buy a lot of laws. My personal feeling is, if you're going to lobby the government, then you have to follow all the rules the government follows, including the first amendment. Because at the point of lobbying, you are now directly trying to influence and control government.

    74. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My personal feeling is, if you're going to lobby the government, then you have to follow all the rules the government follows, including the first amendment. Because at the point of lobbying, you are now directly trying to influence and control government.

      My personal feeling is, let's get the corporate money out of politics.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    75. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which shows the problem with most conservative thinking... turning a complex nuanced problem into a 5 second soundbite

      Except slogan-parroting and made-up terminology is a trademark of the Left.

      Black lives matter... hands up don't shoot... microaggressions are real... everyone's favorite "hey hey ho ho" chant...

    76. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      If a baker has to make cakes for gay weddings, YouTube has to offer an equal platform for diverse users that they might disagree with.

      Fine - show me where a baker has been forced to make cakes for gay weddings. It will be difficult since that case has yet to be finally decided.

      Until it is, you haven't even even validated the premise of your argument.

    77. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Worse yet, due to the nature of wikipedia, there will be hundreds of new applications for editors and contributors and very quickly, Wikipedia's information will be the same as the videos it is linked to.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    78. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People will just learn to ignore wikipedia, which let's face it - is about as useful as citing my grandma's underwear each morning.

    79. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People with any form of intelligence are getting tired of stupid asshats like you thinking your lies and ignorance mean a damn thing. When you wonder why the world is going to shit.... look in the mirror; that's why.

      How funny hearing this from somebody like you.

    80. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      This is why teaching creationism in public schools is outlawed. It is demonstrably false.

      How would you "demonstrate" creationism is false ?

      Or do you mean that teaching creationism in public schools is demonstrably not outlawed ?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    81. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If a baker has to make cakes for gay weddings, YouTube has to offer an equal platform for diverse users that they might disagree with.

      Sigh... Since when has being an idiot been a protected attribute? There I said it, people who believe in conspiracy theories are idiots. Same with people who use the parent poster's excuse, they're also idiots.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    82. Re: Censoring vs. Educating by Stolovaya · · Score: 1

      That's a huge assumption. Some people will see that a black person can take all kinds of pride and do all kinds of things in regards to being black, so why can't a white person do the same? That's called equality.

      And that's not a good XKCD. The author confuses the 1st Amendment with the general concept of Right to Free Speech.

      You've shown that you're not for equality.

    83. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by Tinsoldier314 · · Score: 1

      Parent censored by the very people who claim to vehemently support free speech, because they found the content disagreeable. An act as telling as expected.

      Morons, have you ever heard of an "own goal"?

      1) Anyone who has posted in this thread is unable to moderate so your assertion that Parent was "censored by the very people who claim to vehemently support free speech" can't be entirely true.
      2) You assume the motivation for the moderation is opinionated and not based on some other criteria (e.g. unnecessary personal attacks during civil discourse)
      3) You use similar name-calling, unfortunately debasing an otherwise potentially meaningful argument.
      4) Slashdot.org did not delete the post or take any automated or official action, rather, a random selection of Parent's peers "down voted" the post. Likewise, down votes of videos on YouTube does not constitute censoring by YouTube. While institutions such as the Federal Government and YouTube should not be in the business of deciding what is appropriate speech, ones peers are allowed to pass judgement.


      It is unfortunate that you and Parent were not able to frame your arguments in a more civil manner as they would have been interesting points to discuss.

    84. Re:Censoring vs. Educating by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I would hate to waste time staying conformant to the groupthink on /. Life is too short.

      I don't stay conformant to the groupthink at all, and yet only once or twice in my long /. history have I had low enough karma to lose my posting bonus.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is that they think they know best for everyone else. Their default position is authoritarian and dictatorial.

    The best way to entrench an idea is to tell someone they're wrong, and be a smug, condescending, elitist asshole while doing so.

    So... Basically why the Democrats lost in 2016, and why the left in general is losing the culture war. They can't get over how fucking smart they think they are, and how stupid everyone else is for not thinking the same thing.

    1. Re:Idiots by Notabadguy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The problem is that they think they know best for everyone else. Their default position is authoritarian and dictatorial.

      The best way to entrench an idea is to tell someone they're wrong, and be a smug, condescending, elitist asshole while doing so.

      So... Basically why the Democrats lost in 2016, and why the left in general is losing the culture war. They can't get over how fucking smart they think they are, and how stupid everyone else is for not thinking the same thing.

      This.

    2. Re:Idiots by secretsquirel · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well most of the people who watch those vids are indeed too retarded to be helped. Still, maybe somewhere there's a kid who doesnt know any better, and these messages will save them the time of having to look stuff up and find out the the video is for retards.

    3. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasy. Not all right wingers are racist idiots and not near as many lefties believe what you think they believe.

      I'm a straight hippy and I agree with you on this, as any freedom loving american would. Censorship is definitely not the answer.

      note: Farenheit 451 didn't come from the right...

    4. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you passively agreeing to try to uproot AC's opinion and get him to change his mind?

    5. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, the right burned people outright, both in the shape of the KKK and the Nazis.

    6. Re: Idiots by zilym · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I believe Facebook tried this idea of flagging postings they deemed unfactual, and it backfired. The people considered the flag a âbadge of honor" and were quite proud of themselves when they achieved their goal of getting flagged. The same thing is going to happen on YouTube.

    7. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who says stuff you disagree with is:


      - smug
      - condescending
      - elitist
      - asshole
      - dictatorial
      - authoritative
      - out of touch with middle class Americans
      - SJW
      - MSM
      - snowflake

      Did I leave anything out?

    8. Re:Idiots by iNaya · · Score: 1

      Farenheit 451 didn't come from the right

      I'm not sure what this statement means, but the man that wrote that book was conservative leaning Ray Bradbury.

      https://www.nationalreview.com...

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    9. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not enough of them, obviously.

    10. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you passively agreeing to try to uproot AC's opinion and get him to change his mind?

      This, but unironically

    11. Re:Idiots by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 1

      KKK and Nazis don't represent the right any more than Stalin and Mao represent the left.

      So we all agree KKK and Nazis represent the right to some degree. The difference is the thousands of people that proudly march with KKK and Nazi banners in America, while I've never seen a Stalinist. In other words, one side is reping 'elitist asshole', and it's not the dems.

    12. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, if you like sucking the cock of Hitler worshipers. Good job.

    13. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never met a communist? American unis are filled with them.

    14. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we all agree KKK and Nazis represent the right to some degree. The difference is the thousands of people that proudly march with KKK and Nazi banners in America, while I've never seen a Stalinist. In other words, one side is reping 'elitist asshole', and it's not the dems.

      No, we don't all agree. The KKK was distinctly constituted almost entirely by members of the Democratic Party.

    15. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, dear idiot, wouldn't recognize a communist even if he walked up to you and kicked you in the ass.

    16. Re:Idiots by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      The best way to entrench an idea is to tell someone they're wrong, and be a smug, condescending, elitist asshole while doing so.

      So... Basically why the Democrats lost in 2016, and why the left in general is losing the culture war. They can't get over how fucking smart they think they are, and how stupid everyone else is for not thinking the same thing.

      Whereupon the Trump wing of the Republican party immediately adopted the same attitude because "fuck you, we won."

      8 more months till that comes crashing down, and I'll be throwing the party.

    17. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereupon the Trump wing of the Republican party immediately adopted the same attitude because "fuck you, we won."

      Of course they said that. They learned in 2008 that "elections have consequences".

    18. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be hard pressed to find genuine KKK members. They are likely measured in the hundreds...
        Meanwhile the left holds "parades", and riots which hold no real banner other than hate of anything not them.

  4. Of course it won't work by aglider · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because you need humans for debunking.
    And humans are biased.
    AI won't be of effective help as it lacks trasversale knowledge.
    And in the end, you need humans to train AI and to sample the outcomes.

    It won't work.

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Of course it won't work by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      trasversale knowledge

      ???

    2. Re:Of course it won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's related to covfefe knowledge

    3. Re: Of course it won't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And to idiots like you two

  5. That will work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds just like what someone would do if they were PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!

  6. Censorship & who decides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem with Lauren's proposal is: Who decides. No matter which side of the debate you are on, picking the other side, saying they are lying, and then censoring them, only makes them believe that they are being censored & oppressed. Do that enough and you'll get the Trump supporters who don't believe anything printed about him in the MSM. On the flip side, Bernie's supporters were claiming their votes were being scammed by the DNC, until it turned out to be true. But if the truth had been censored because it was "lies", the truth would never have come out.

    1. Re: Censorship & who decides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You right wing nutters are funny as shit.

      Your party literally gives handouts to corporations. They are in their pockets. Yet when a corporation does something you don't like, all we hear is "but da censorship"

      Corporations are not the government and vice versa. YouTube can sensor what it wants, who gives a fuck? As long as it's not the government, then move on.

    2. Re: Censorship & who decides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replied to wrong post. Sorry.

    3. Re: Censorship & who decides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didn't turn out to be true. Bernie was a shit candidate and Hillary won more votes than both him and Trump.

      Bernie is a Russian shill bent on destroying the DNC and keeping Republicans in office.

    4. Re:Censorship & who decides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No matter which side of the debate you are on, picking the other side, saying they are lying, and then censoring them, only makes them believe that they are being censored & oppressed. Do that enough and you'll get the Trump supporters who don't believe anything printed about him in the MSM.

      The boy who cried wolf.

    5. Re: Censorship & who decides by Stolovaya · · Score: 1
  7. "De-Platforming" by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's how opposing voices are to be swept from public view & dissemination. Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al are all working along the same path to de-platform views conflicting with Leftist/Progressive dogma and silence them. It's not too far down this path where we get to the pogroms, camps, and ovens part.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    1. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hyperbole much? ("It's a slippery slope, I tells ya...")

    2. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hyperbole much? ("It's a slippery slope, I tells ya...")

      Do you even history, Bro?

    3. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why then does YouTube push te fundamentalist christian right view so hard?

    4. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many times does it need to be explained that Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al are private businesses and not the government? If they feel that their bottom line is in danger because users no longer see any value in the service, then they will modify the service to stay in business. They are under no obligation to provide conspiracy nuts, et al with a public platform to spew their crap.

      Your argument holds no more validity then me complaining that the local country and western radio station doesn't play thrash, hardcore punk, new age jazz, or polka.

      And finally, going Godwin ... seriously?

    5. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's how opposing voices are to be swept from public view & dissemination.

      Yep, too bad Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc own the internet. Oh, right...

      Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al are all working along the same path to de-platform views conflicting with Leftist/Progressive dogma and silence them.

      As a leftist/progressive, very little of what Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al push is leftist. Fascist authoritarianism, sure. Leftism would call for Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al to be heavily regulated and probably broken up for having too much power. After all, if the claim is ads bought through Facebook could meaningfully effect elections, it stands to reason that Facebook itself could meaningfully effect elections to is own choosing and that choosing would almost invariably go against the values most leftists and progressives value.

      De-platforming has more to do with appeasing advertisers to appease left-leaning SJWs, which are a very minor but very vocal part of the left. Just like the right isn't composed of tit obsessed fundamentalists.

      It's not too far down this path where we get to the pogroms, camps, and ovens part.

      That explains why the constant attack on sex and "curse words" on TV resulted in genocide. Oh, right, no. That just meant that companies could charge a premium to provide that content. In fact, they obviously love to constantly push "the edge" and then have other properties go "over the edge". De-platform all the homophobes? Then several companies will love to spring up just to cater to them. Plenty of advertisers will love to have them as customers. They won't reach as wide an audience as with Youtube? I think that in the short term that's true, but in the long term they'll just have their own separate *tube and have more views. Or do you think de-platforming porn on Youtube has killed the porn industry?

    6. Re:"De-Platforming" by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 1

      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.

      Right. Because liberals are constantly campaigning for increased police power, more government surveillance, and less protection of civil rights, while conservatives campaign against them.

      Oh, wait a minute, it's the other way around. Well, whatever. I Know I'm Right Anyway.

      --
      "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
    7. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why then does YouTube push te fundamentalist christian right view so hard?

      Hey, don't worry! That sort of Christian and Jewish nonsense will be on the chopping block under the new censorship program. Of course, Muslim extremists can still preach death to infidels & Jews and the NBP and Farrakhan can call for the death of "whitey" as they get a pass.

      See? No worries!

    8. Re:"De-Platforming" by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al are all working along the same path to

      So go to Gab then. You'll fit right in.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    9. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because liberals are constantly campaigning for increased police power

      Proponents of hate speech laws, increased protected classes with special rights that others do not have.

      more government surveillance

      Se above. Also the outing and persecution of "Nazis", "fascists", and "white supremacists".

      and less protection of civil rights

      Anti second amendment. Pro censorship and de-platforming, i.e. anti first amendment. And against equal enforcement of the law via protected classes.

      Yes liberals are doing what you caricature the right as doing, showing the most liberal thing of all: projection.

      Well, whatever. I Know I'm Right Anyway.

      Projection. Why do you think the dems lost so badly in 2016? People from across the spectrum see the reality above, where postmodern liberals are behaving oh so badly and claiming the same righteousness you are by projecting their nastiness on to others.

    10. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because liberals are constantly campaigning for increased police power, more government surveillance, and less protection of civil rights

      Increased police power to punish people for newly invented thoughtcrimes? Check.

      Government surveillance to track and ID thought criminals so they can be denied employment? Check.

      Less protection of civil rights? Check, absolutely check.

      Liberals? Bzzt, wrong. What passes for "progressive" in the Democratic Party today is not at all liberal.

      The oddest thing in the culture war is seeing kids quote hippie slogans from the '60s and call themselves alt-right because that's what the media calls liberals these days.

    11. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't they just happen to be louder. Youtube pushes extreme viewpoints in both directions to make you 'change the channel'. Its a way of trying to gauge how extreme you are. Another way youtube tries to find out whether your watching is to show you the same video you have already watched.

    12. Re:"De-Platforming" by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Right. Because liberals are constantly campaigning for increased police power,

      A.k.a. Gun control. So yes.

      Also licensing laws for professions, telling people what health care they must purchase, prohibiting plastic grocery bags, mandatory recycling, etc., etc. etc.

      more government surveillance

      Snowden caught which president’s administration spying?

      and less protection of civil rights

      Gun ownership is a civil right.

      while conservatives campaign against them.

      Oh, wait a minute, it's the other way around.

      50 years ago maybe you could make this argument. The facts don't support it now, and they haven't for a long time.

    13. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many times does it need to be explained that Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al are private businesses and not the government?

      How many times does it need to be explained that they are monopsonies with more power than the government did at the time the first amendment was passed?

      We need the Nehlen law, no interference with legal political speech by any company big enough to dominate a public square.

      If they were private companies small enough to be outside a precedent of regulation, then we wouldn't be having this discussion because they would not be able to promote your political views by censoring me. The discussion would simply move elsewhere. They dominate web search and social media and are able to shut down public discussion, and that's the only reason you're defending their right to censor. These aspie arguments about definitions are in fact disingenuous propaganda.

    14. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      De-platforming has more to do with appeasing advertisers to appease left-leaning SJWs, which are a very minor but very vocal part of the left.

      We know from the Veritas expose of twitter and the firing of Damore (who self-describes as a liberal) that extremist left SJWs dominate the decision-making of both companies. They shut down contradictory internal discussion to such an extent that the extreme political discrimination they are practicing, with the "bot" purges on twitter and the weekend shutdown of Sargon of Akkad on youtube, looks like basic spam-filtering to the kool-aid drinkers inside the ideological filter bubble.

    15. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My grandfather brought back a Nazi flag and buried it. My father left it there. And now you want to fly it again. You are still a Nazi.

    16. Re:"De-Platforming" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or stay in slashdot. We like them here.

      As for you... git off mah lawn!

    17. Re:"De-Platforming" by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Name calling is not an argument. People aren’t going to surrender to totalitarians like you for fear of being name-called.

    18. Re:"De-Platforming" by Altrag · · Score: 1

      A.k.a. Gun control. So yes.

      So liberals want to regulate dangerous weapons. Conservatives want to regulate your penis/vagina. Which do you think is worse for society, or even for you personally?

      Snowden caught which presidentâ(TM)s administration spying?

      Obama's. And Bush2's. It went at least as far back as post-9/11 paranoia. Not to mention the government has been trying to spy on people for decades now, consistently and under both parties. Anyone remember Joe McArthy?

      Gun ownership is a civil right.

      So is freedom of religion, yet the right wingers have no problems denouncing Islam every time there's a terrorist attack (even when the attack was perpetrated by white Christian dudes against other white Christian dudes -- they still try to find a way to either blame Islam or shift the conversation to "Muslim terrorists."

      50 years ago maybe you could make this argument

      You can still make the argument today, as I just did. Conservatives may want to regulate and remove a different set of your rights, but at the end of the day you still have less rights.

      The main difference is the purpose of doing so: The left wants to do so for (yes, sometimes misguided) public health and safety reasons, while the right seems to want to remove your rights mostly for religious reasons. That latter part is a big problem since the US is supposed to be secular. (And of course both parties are happy to remove your rights if it nets their donors a payday..)

    19. Re:"De-Platforming" by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Conservatives want to regulate your penis/vagina.

      You mean 50 years ago? I had neither of those 50 years ago.

      Liberals support a vast police power over individuals. Why do we have to submit to the gun control police OR the historical sex police (or, for that matter, the plastic bag police)? Why don't liberals stop bullying people so you don't have to defend bullying people? Conservatives have (mostly) stopped. Liberals are ramping it up.

      Gun ownership is a civil right.

      So is freedom of religion, yet the right wingers have no problems denouncing Islam every time there's a terrorist attack (even when the attack was perpetrated by white Christian dudes against other white Christian dudes -- they still try to find a way to either blame Islam or shift the conversation to "Muslim terrorists."

      "Denouncing" is free speech. Liberals denounce whites and Christians and try to divide us all the time. They should stop it (in my opinion), just like the Conservatives trying to divide should stop it.

      You should stop defending the bad guys with "everybody does it" arguments. I'm not defending them. I'm saying everybody should stop doing it.

    20. Re:"De-Platforming" by Altrag · · Score: 1

      I had neither of those 50 years ago.

      You didn't have a gun 50 years ago either. You're well aware that I was using the collective "you" in that statement.

      Liberals support a vast police power over individuals.

      Say what? Its one hell of an extrapolation to claim that say, Sweden (pretty liberal) and North Korea (vast police power) are somehow even remotely similar.

      Why do we have to submit to the gun control police

      For the same reason you have to submit to the "car control police" or the "food safety police" (if you work in a restaurant.) Any time you have the power to injure or kill people, there should be some sort of check on that power to balance it out.

      the historical sex police

      You tell me. I'm not the conservative here. I fully support people expressing their sexual desires in any form they like providing its consensual. And its definitely not "historical." There are plenty of states with anti-sodomy laws on file. Trump himself has made specific attacks against transgender individuals. There's continual attacks on gay and lesbian folk. Never mind when you get into things like abortion rights. That's all happening right now, every day in the US. Its hardly "historical."

      Why don't liberals stop bullying people

      Say what? I'm not sure how you construe "we need to stop letting our kids get killed" as "bullying."

      Conservatives have (mostly) stopped

      Yeah. Conservatives are all perfectly nice to the Muslim community, the Mexican community, the LBGTQ community, etc.

      "Denouncing" is free speech.

      Yes. So?

      Liberals denounce whites and Christians

      We denounce bigoted asshats. The fact that most of the bigoted asshats in the US happen to be white Christians is coincidence. We'd just as quickly denounce say, a Myanma Buddhist if they were being a bigoted jerk. Of course conservatives like to read the liberal disgust over the Rohingyan genocide as "loving Muslims" rather than what it actually is -- denouncing hatred in _all_ its forms.

      try to divide us all the time

      Now you've run into a bit of a problem. On one hand, you have the bigots who are intentionally trying to divide us. On the other, you're that denouncing the bigots divides the bigots from the rest of us. There's one big difference though: Bigots can learn to be less hateful but black people can't learn to change their skin color and gay people can't change what shape of genitalia turn them on.

      You should stop defending the bad guys

      When did I do that? Unless of course your definition of "bad guys" is gay people, Muslims, etc who have done nothing wrong beyond not being like you. If that's your definition then I definitely will not stop defending them until such time as they no longer attacked for merely existing.

      Conservatives always want to see things through an "if you're not with us, you're against us" lens and they try to force what they see of liberalism into their viewpoint. But we don't fit that mold at all -- we _just don't care_ who you are. We only care what you do.

      Your skin tone, your religion, your sexual preferences. In the liberal view none of those make up a person. Only how you act and how you treat others makes up a person and if that person is an asshole, then we feel fully justified in calling you out in the (admittedly rather small) hope that you'll recognize something in yourself that you need to change to become a better person.

      Of course, that entire wall of text has a big caveat on it: We use the conservative/liberal dichotomy in more than one way, and we're not very good at distinguishing our usage. A person can be socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Or the other way around. You can support gay marr

    21. Re:"De-Platforming" by Kohath · · Score: 1

      TLDR. But for this

      Why don't liberals stop bullying people

      Say what? I'm not sure how you construe "we need to stop letting our kids get killed" as "bullying."

      Gun owners are innocent. That’s why sending government agents after them is bullying. Gun owners are just as innocent of shooting kids as Muslims are innocent of terrorism and gays are innocent of molesting children. Safety isn't a justification to go after innocent Muslims or innocent gays or innocent gun owners.

      Why do you support government persecution of innocent gun owners? You support it because they're not like you.

    22. Re:"De-Platforming" by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Gun owners are innocent. Its the guns themselves that are the problem. Simply by existing, those weapons pose a threat. Its kind of what the word "weapon" implies. That's why I will continue to insist that we should be taking measures to ensure and yes, if necessary enforce, responsible use and storage of those weapons. A hell of a lot of crimes committed with illegal firearms would be eliminated (or at least committed with a less deadly weapon) if "illegal" meant "had to go find a shady black market dealer" rather than "nicked it from my friend's dad who keeps it in his unlocked kitchen drawer" or "bought it from some kid at school who did that."

      As for your comparisons.. lets pick an easy one: If "terrorism" was a physical object that we could just say "OK ban that" then I'd be all for it as well. And we still do what we can to prevent potential terrorists from getting their hands on things like large quantities of chemicals that are common used in bombs. Even something like simple garden fertilizer.. if someone notices you buying it in what they consider to be excessive bulk, the FBI may be flagged and if you're not an active farmer you may well get a visit or be put under surveillance for a while.

    23. Re:"De-Platforming" by Kohath · · Score: 1

      If banning guns and sending government agents out to take guns from people by force isn't bullying innocent gun owners, then banning the Koran and sending government agents out to confiscate Korans by force isn't bullying innocent Muslims.

      Of course it’s bullying them. You should stop advocating it. You should stop trying to justify it. Don't bully innocents.

      (That goes for Conservatives bullying innocent Muslims and innocent gays too — just in case someone is keeping score.)

  8. Well this debunkinof conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This debunking of conspiracy videos by YouTube was instigated by the trifecta of the Illuminati, the Catholic Church and the United Nations all coordinated by the Girl Scouts of America.

    You THINK you're buying cookies but you're really getting the annual booster of the mind controlling drugs they put in the cookies.

    I won't even begin to tell you guys what Ben &Jerry have been doing - that DAMN ice cream!!

  9. Why not try these instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. New category called Bunk, or Yet another conspiracy theory.

    2. Use AI, or modify existing algorithms to mimic an AI that can figure out what appears to be a conspiracy theory.

    These are just as asinine as what has been put forward. The third option is best viewed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyyoaBa7DaE

  10. Even if Youtube cited peer reviewed sources by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The conspiracy theorists would say that "they" are wrong. "They" often being Jews, which is the line of thinking that led to the holocaust. You can't win, just let them live in their bubble and make sure they don't hurt anyone in the real world.

  11. Antagonism helps Conspiracy by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    A single video with some far-out theory? Crackpot.

    A far-out video with a host of other videos and links claiming it's false? Obviously a kernel of truth someone is trying to cover up, they can't tell me what to think...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Antagonism helps Conspiracy by lgw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Far better is to link to equally far out crackpot conspiracy theories that disagree with the first. It's the style of these things that appeals: let me tell you the secret that will make you smarter than the smug assholes who look down on you. Simply present the truth in that style.

      Shit, I just figured out why 12 Rules for Life is selling like it's printed on money. Damn psychologists knowing more about psychology than me and getting there first.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Antagonism helps Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I agree that would be a great solution. It would be a lot easier to train a classifier for that criteria, and it would help it be more impartial to content. Some NLP features could even help cluster topics together, so something closer to direct counterpoints could group.

      If you think about what is actually being attempted, it doesn't really have much to do with the video posters themselves. The goal is to influence the viewers as a community, but the current approaches are trying to address the specific instances of a poster or a viewer. "Going viral" is when something is rapidly mass shared; comments allow social re-inforcement as well as in-group signaling and normalization. These are social functions of a community.

      So, identify intersection points of community (the posts, videos, etc about which users are related) weighted to adhere to a quantifiable stylistic norm time series. Use the topical semantic classifier to force antithetical communities into each others' spaces. Not actually force, but make the domains "one click away" through in-platform recommendations.

      In this way, communities of strife would be further separated from less contentious ones. They would hopefully, expend themselves against each other, and normalize out. Or the less contentious individuals of the communities would leave, and the hardcore zealots that remain would game the algos, breaking their content into the recommendation feeds of mainstream trends, spreading their virulent psycho-warfare battles through the platform until it burned down. I guess that's what they're worried about now, so no harm in trying something new.

    3. Re:Antagonism helps Conspiracy by lgw · · Score: 1

      So, identify intersection points of community (the posts, videos, etc about which users are related) weighted to adhere to a quantifiable stylistic norm time series. Use the topical semantic classifier to force antithetical communities into each others' spaces. Not actually force, but make the domains "one click away" through in-platform recommendations.

      In this way, communities of strife would be further separated from less contentious ones. They would hopefully, expend themselves against each other, and normalize out.

      That's a damn good idea. Sadly, there's no evidence that Google algorithms use anything but the video description/keywords and thumbnail to learn about the content, and related links seem to be based on clickthrough, so opposing views get filtered out by the algorithm.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Antagonism helps Conspiracy by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Now can you figure out why Michael Isikoff's book about the collusion between Trump and Russia is selling way more than 12 Rules?

      Telling gullible people exactly what they want to hear has paid off many times throughout history.

    5. Re:Antagonism helps Conspiracy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Telling gullible people exactly what they want to hear has paid off many times throughout history.

      That's never been more true.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Antagonism helps Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  12. Same retard who thinks ad blockers are unethical ! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the same retard who thinks:

    https://plus.google.com/+Laure...

    "For the record, I don't run any ad blockers. Basically, I consider them unethical"

    /sarcasm Apparently going to the bathroom during an ad is unethical.

    And now he thinks censorship will work?

    Only cowards censor.

    Why?

    Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.

    ONLY by having a rational discussion, where people are FORCED to confront their biases will they ever learn to see the pros/cons of BOTH sides.

  13. All the conspiracy stuff just moving to torrents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seen the "top torrents" list on Demonoid lately? Packed with conspiracy videos.

  14. Please find some other phrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Conspiracies" are real things. For example, the October Revolution; 9/11 official story, assassination of Julius Cesar, failed Cuban coup attempt by the CIA, etc. The entire program is instinctively ignored when the very words used communicate to users that there is some kind of attempt to manipulate them.

  15. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Youtube are idiots who're really busy virtue signalling in a way that doesn't get them called out on censorship.

    Lauren Weinstein is a complete and utter fuckwit who thinks the content of the proposal matters somehow and proposes to censor, thereby making youtube arbiters of who gets to have free speech and who doesn't.

    Both are idiots and for their sins need to get off the internet.

  16. Who at Google decided these videos are "theories"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It implies that someone over at there has inside knowledge of all and any conspiracies and can arbitrarily decide on their validity.

    Sometimes the best course of action is no action at all..

  17. Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people most against free expression always have similar sounding last names

  18. Eat it? Then the cake will be gone! by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Google wants all the revenue generated by the conspiracy theory peddlers and some minor peg for a media spin doctor to rattle off a long list of things Google has done to provide access to the accurate information. That is all.

    Whatever solution or mitigation one suggests, if it cuts into google ad revenue it is a non starter. As far as Google is concerened.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  19. Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    You can go on YouTube and see all shows of videos "proving" the Earth is flat. The shape of the Earth being round doesn't require complicated physics and a graduate degree yet people insist it is flat. There is nothing you can do to change the minds of these people.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    1. Re:Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Flat Earthers don't believe the Earth is flat. It's a joke, and it's fun to try and contrive ridiculous explanations for physical phenomena (moon, stars, day/night cycle, etc.) that pass increasing levels of scrutiny.

      They offer nullable hypotheses, accept contradicting evidence, and revise. They're following the exact style of reasoning that astronomers did up until a century or so ago. They're just having a laugh by anchoring to the presumption that the Earth is flat.

      If you don't get the joke, you're dumber than you think they are.

    2. Re:Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      If you don't get the joke, you're dumber than you think they are.

      You were saying?

      Clearly you don't actually talk to these people. There are some people on this world that don't believe in basic science. You apparently think they don't exist.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      To be fair, his username is "UnknowingFool", so his position on this is appropriate...

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    4. Re:Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by tomhath · · Score: 1

      There are some people on this world that don't believe in basic science.

      There are also people on the world who can't see a joke when it hits them in the face.

    5. Re:Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Have you talked to these people? Some of them are not joking. They truly believe in things like the Earth is flat. They are also are the same people who don't believe in blood transfusions and people are possessed by "evil spirits". The problem is that these people take these "joke" videos seriously as fact.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    6. Re:Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by joemck · · Score: 1

      No, you can't convince many flat earthers to change their minds. But their videos are roundly laughed at by almost everyone else and make great fuel for Professor Stick videos.

      Any sufficiently outlandish conspiracy theory will eventually out-satire any attempts to satirize it. The better response is to allow people to see how ridiculous it is for themselves. Hiding it only makes people seek it out more because they aren't allowed to see it, and seeking it out makes them more receptive to it.

    7. Re:Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      And how many Flat Earthers do you personally know? I know quite a few. They are not joking.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      My teenage kids debate it with their friends. They're completely joking and so are their friends. It's used to make obscure physics references.

      The newsworthy guy with the rocket recently, he was completely joking.

      So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    9. Re: Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So to be clear you don't know any actual Flat Eathers but somehow you can assert that they are all joking?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    10. Re:Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people who manage to tie it back to NWO and Blidergburg etc. are not joking. The only way "NASA" could be keeping people away from the ice wall would be to have massive resources - the same that can fake the space station, etc.

      Of course, I know of other CT's who claim Flat Earth is a disinformation campaign from "them" used to lump in all the "rational" CTs (truthers, sandy hook disbelievers, etc) with "those idiots over there".

    11. Re: Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that these people take these "joke" videos seriously as fact. And nothing of value was lost.

      If everyone who repeatedly believed stupid shit was canceled out of the gene pool, would we really be worse off?

    12. Re: Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Do you always resort to argument by trying to define conversational terms to exclude what you're arguing about? You know that's not actually an argument, right?

      We were talking about "Flat Earthers", not "actual Flat Earthers". The kind who post videos on Youtube with whimsical arguments they don't actually believe about flat earth theories. Yeah, I know some of those kinds of people.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    13. Re: Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Do to try to weasel out of admitting your flaws in logic by trying to impose conditions that didn't exist until you made them up? If I said scientists overwhelmingly support climate change would you say your buddies don't support it so not all scientists support it. If I asked what fields of science they work in, then you'd admit they have no science backgrounds but read science news stories but they're "scientists". Because rather than admit you don't really know Flat Eathers and at the same time you can't possibly know who or what I know you made an assertion about what I know.

      1. Flat Earthers are all joking
      2. I don't know Flat Eathers

      You cannot prove #1 and you certainly cannot know #2. Yet you are certain about both.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    14. Re: Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      You're projecting quite a bit here.

      I've never made either the statements (#1 nor #2) in your post which I am replying to, so it's pretty amusing that you're using things you just made up about what you apparently believe I think to claim that I am certain about you in regards to them.

      How about you try quoting what I've actually posted in this topic and then explaining why you disagree with it, rather then attempting to put words in my mouth and then claiming I'm the one who is being illogical.

      I definitely stand by my original claim that your username is very appropriate for your statements, as demonstrated by the way you're trying to argue here.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    15. Re: Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I've never made either the statements (#1 nor #2) in your post which I am replying to,

      When you posted: "My teenage kids debate it with their friends. They're completely joking and so are their friends. It's used to make obscure physics references.The newsworthy guy with the rocket recently, he was completely joking. So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd." You are indeed admitting that you don't know any Flat Earthers. How can you know that the people who post videos are in fact joking? You can't know. This is my point #1.

      So when you posted this: "To be fair, his username is "UnknowingFool", so his position on this is appropriate..." What were you trying to say? You were saying I didn't know anything even though I do know actual Flat Earthers and you do not. This is point #2.

      How about you try quoting what I've actually posted in this topic and then explaining why you disagree with it, rather then attempting to put words in my mouth and then claiming I'm the one who is being illogical.

      I did above. Please reference what you wrote. However instead of admitting #1 and #2 you got defensive when it was #1 and #2 you were saying all along.

      I definitely stand by my original claim that your username is very appropriate for your statements, as demonstrated by the way you're trying to argue here.

      I see you are indeed doubling down on your own ignorance. You cannot possibly know that any or all of the people who posted the videos are joking. And you cannot possibly know who I know. Yet you won't ever admit this, will you?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    16. Re: Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      While you posted what I said, once again, all you did was try to put words in my mouth, rather than responding to what I actually wrote.

      You are indeed admitting that you don't know any Flat Earthers. How can you know that the people who post videos are in fact joking?

      I didn't say either of those things. In the sentence "They're completely joking and so are their friends.", "They're" refers to the subject of my previous sentence "My teenage kids".

      You were saying I didn't know anything even though I do know actual Flat Earthers and you do not.

      It's pretty funny that you quote what I say, then turn around and give your "interpretation" of it, ignoring the words I actually wrote.

      I did above.

      Actually, you didn't. You couldn't even respond to what I actually wrote even after quoting it yourself. That's one serious mind reading complex you have.

      you got defensive

      Mind and emotion reading! Quite the assortment of super-powers you have there.

      You cannot possibly know that any or all of the people who posted the videos are joking. And you cannot possibly know who I know.

      Once again, I never wrote anything about "all of the people who posted the videos". Also, if you'd ever bother to read what I actually wrote, "So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd." would imply that I am "guessing" that you know a different group of people. That statement doesn't imply any claims on my part about "knowing" who you know or don't know, but simply a guess which actually guesses in the opposite direction you seem to want to falsely attribute to me.

      Please consider a reading comprehension course, 'cause you're flunking this one.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    17. Re: Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      While you posted what I said, once again, all you did was try to put words in my mouth, rather than responding to what I actually wrote.

      I posted what you wrote. You can resort to denial all you want.

      I didn't say either of those things. In the sentence "They're completely joking and so are their friends.", "They're" refers to the subject of my previous sentence "My teenage kids".

      In response to whether you actually know Flat Earthers, you respond with "My teenage kids" but then admit they are not Flat Earthers. So to the topic of Flat Earthers, you start talking about other people than Flat Earthers.

      It's pretty funny that you quote what I say, then turn around and give your "interpretation" of it, ignoring the words I actually wrote.

      What you posted is clear above.

      Once again, I never wrote anything about "all of the people who posted the videos".

      Again my point: You don't know anything about the people who posted the videos, do you? Therefore you cannot know whether they are or are not joking.

      Also, if you'd ever bother to read what I actually wrote, "So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd." would imply that I am "guessing" that you know a different group of people.

      Again my point: I know Flat Earthers. But when you say: "To be fair, his username is "UnknowingFool", so his position on this is appropriate..." you are trying to insult someone who has MORE knowledge than you by implying that I know less.

      That statement doesn't imply any claims on my part about "knowing" who you know or don't know, but simply a guess which actually guesses in the opposite direction you seem to want to falsely attribute to me.

      Explain why you felt the need to try to insult someone.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  20. WTF- this is what authoritarian dictators do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No- no- you shouldn't be censoring results. People should discern for themselves what is and isn't true. There is a far greater danger to implementing censorship to democracy than there is from dumb fuckers believing some conspiracy non-sense. We already have tyrants in power- we don't need to further erode our freedoms to a point where we're all living in a NAZI or Soviet like shit hole. The United States is already well on that path and other countries like the UK have certainly achieved a great deal of this already. What we fought against in ww2 and during the cold war has been resurrected for implementation in Europe and is being pushed in the United States today. Censorship and redistribution of wealth schemes. At least with these older systems you could pay people off and they'd go away. Not so much with the European-style theft.

    1. Re:WTF- this is what authoritarian dictators do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believed this for a long time - that is our culture. However, we need to keep re-evaluating our greatest problems and our trajectory. We're so concerned with pristine/perfect approaches to all things in a generic manner (i.e. "slippery slope", "who's the arbiter of truth?", and all that) that we can't even tolerate any process that rejects flat-earth theory on the grounds of it being bullshit. Which should be alarming to us.. because it is bullshit (it really, actually is -- it is a falsifiable theory which scientific process has debunked many times over and run up the score to astronomical heights), and many of its proponents become so distrustful of mainstream society that they're in many ways operating outside of any empirically verifiable thought. It's not clear that they'll always be the fringe, and we've got real problems in this world that could use some real solutions.

      Anyway, my view is that we've had a good run of trying to pursue things in the cleanest, most elegant, idealistic manner when it comes to free speech and expression.. and we've discovered some cases where it ain't working out so hot. We can't keep pretending that we had all the answers from the beginning, and I don't think people would have wanted it that way.

    2. Re:WTF- this is what authoritarian dictators do by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that YouTube which is owned by Google, a private company can't do what it wants because you object to it. So who is being "authoritarian" here? Google can ban all videos who are opposed vanilla ice cream but that doesn't make them any more authoritarian as the next private company that does.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:WTF- this is what authoritarian dictators do by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No- no- you shouldn't be censoring results. People should discern for themselves what is and isn't true. There is a far greater danger to implementing censorship to democracy than there is from dumb fuckers believing some conspiracy non-sense. We already have tyrants in power- we don't need to further erode our freedoms to a point where we're all living in a NAZI or Soviet like shit hole. The United States is already well on that path and other countries like the UK have certainly achieved a great deal of this already.

      You don't realize that the recent turn toward tyranny is caused in large part by the ideas in those videos?

      There is some merit to censoring content meant to exploit people who are basically immune to factual information. Throwing facts at them does nothing. Discussing the issue has no effect on people who believe in an objective reality other than perhaps entertaining them, but helps to expose more people to it, some of whom are unmoved by facts. If you censor it, drive it underground, that helps reduce the exposure of the conspiracy-vulnerable to destructive nonsense ideas they can't be cured of, and it has no adverse effects on the rest of society. Disagree with censorship categorically if you want, but it does work for keeping those dumb fuckers from being infected with conspiracy nonsense.

      In the past we had this censorship. It was carried out by the professional and level-headed editors of magazines, newspapers, and TV stations, and nobody batted an eye. It's only relatively recently that any yahoo has been able to broadcast their own content cheaply and easily that has led to an explosion of what we now call post-truth thinking, since that censorship is no longer present.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:WTF- this is what authoritarian dictators do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's really difficult to believe you'd be ignorant of the Streisand Effect and the differences between blacklisting and whitelisting.

      You don't realize that the recent turn toward tyranny is caused in large part by the ideas in those videos?

      "Recent?" Nevermind. No, the turn toward tyranny is being caused by the same thing it always is: someone capitalizes on a population's issues, taking weary people and giving them a face to hate, something tangible to blame and fight. Give people something to look up to, and someone to look down on, and never make them face that their problems may require more complex solutions than can fit in a tweet.

  21. Re:Same retard who thinks ad blockers are unethica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Devil's advocate: Adblockers go to great technical lengths to let you ignore the problem of too many ads on too many websites.

  22. Tax doesn't fund spending. by tonywestonuk · · Score: 2

    The economics doesn't lie - Tax doesn't fund spending, and cant fund spending.

    Yet this is against the mainstream politics view that it does and we need to cut spending, or increase tax to reduce the deficit.

    Will the mainstream attempt to limit visibility of these 'fake' articles that say tax does not fund spending?

  23. Sheeple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big corporations and government, protect us from people who lie or who we disagree with on the internet. It's too hard to do our own research into facts or be educated enough to make valid counterpoints. Love, the Sheeple

  24. Re:Well this debunkinof conspiracy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    You THINK you're buying cookies but you're really getting the annual booster of the mind controlling drugs they put in the cookies.

    In my sleepy little California town, the Girl Scouts are selling their cookies directly outside the door of the weed dispensary. HOW DEEP DOES THIS RABBIT HOLE GO?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  25. Agree. by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Originally, I was very supportive of the whole LGBT movement and feminism etc., but, it seems like they've just veered into a place where they are anti-free-speech, anti-white-man, anti-man, anti-normal. If you don't have some kind of social dysfunction, then you are the problem. It couldn't possibly be that they are wacko!

    1. Re: Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cutting off my cock and calling myself sally isn't normal? Well fuck me.

    2. Re: Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cutting off my cock and calling myself sally isn't normal? Well fuck me.

      Your comment deserves a "+5 hilarious" mod.

      Your comment also points out the underlying TRUTH that stuff like gender changes is some seriously messed up shit, and no amount of Hollywood propaganda is ever going to change this reality.

    3. Re:Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      I used to be quite tolerant of LBGT people myself, until I lived in a town which contained an unusually high percentage of these people.

      While living in the aforementioned town I learned some new things.

      Many of these people are very psychologically sick, and the sickness extends FAR beyond their sexual preferences. These people are often emotional cripples and they have an alarming propensity to literally force their views on others. I now understand why LBGT people are hated by some people : their very behavior makes them easy to dislike. I doubt it is possible for a person to understand how distasteful the behavior of the LBGT people is unless that person experiences an environment in which the LBGT are the majority. Believe me, when you are in that scenario, these LBGT people are very unpleasant indeed : they are so unpleasant that it becomes very difficult or even impossible not to have negative thoughts about them and their weirdness.

    4. Re:Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm glad there are others that think the same way, I am a full supporter of universal healthcare and Bernie Sanders ideology, but this whole SJW witchhunt movement has alienated me.

    5. Re:Agree. by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      I live in a town that contains an unusually high number of people who like to label others and claim everyone who gets a particular label is the same.

    6. Re: Agree. by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "gender changes is some seriously messed up shit"

      Don't you mean sex change?

    7. Re:Agree. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Feminist here. Against censorship and pro-free-speech. Being a white man myself in somewhat in favour of them too.

      Anyway, what she seems to be saying it's don't promote these videos. Don't remove them, but don't give them front page billing or put them high up the recommendations.

      Who decides? A better question would be who decides what gets promoted. Should popular TV news channels be giving equal time to flat earth and fake moon landing theories every time NASA gives a press conference? It's a spectrum, some conspiracy theories are more mainstream, e.g. climate change denial. There is no easy answer.

      As for the above conspiracy theory, if she was a Google shill why would she be saying YouTube's plan isn't going to work?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      No. You cannot change your sex. Sex is biological fact. Gender is made up sociology nonsense that means whatever some SJW needs it to mean.

    9. Re:Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feminist here.Being a white man myself

      Sorry, thanks for playing Ally.

    10. Re:Agree. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Originally, I was very supportive of the whole LGBT movement and feminism etc., but, it seems like they've just veered into a place where they are anti-free-speech, anti-white-man, anti-man, anti-normal. If you don't have some kind of social dysfunction, then you are the problem. It couldn't possibly be that they are wacko!

      There are a lot of people with differing views in feminism and in LGBT. Don't assume that all (or even more than a minority) are against free speech, men, white men, or anything else. I know a number of feminists, and those who are LGBT, and it is not reasonable to generalise either of these groups, let alone lump feminism and LGBT together. It's not necessarily reasonable to lump L, G, B and T together, other than they tend to face similar challenges.

    11. Re:Agree. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      A gay friend of mine is universally loved, so doesn't seem to fit your stereotype. In fact, it's true of many of the friends I have in the LGBT community. There are irritating people, though, no matter what their sexual orientation, colour, or political views are. Hopefully I am not one of the annoying ones!

    12. Re: Agree. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      It's not faith, it's trust that climate scientists are following scientific principles. I both know some climate scientists, and have worked with them, and they are much the same as other scientists. Most are pretty much normal people, as much as any group is. They don't always get it right, but no one in any scientific field gets it right all of the time. Faith does not come into it, though it's trust, which is a form of laziness in terms of not reproducing the work of tens of thousands of people all myself.

    13. Re:Agree. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Feminist here. Against censorship and pro-free-speech. Being a white man myself in somewhat in favour of them too.

      I'd place myself in the same grouping. It seems to be the logical one - to assume people are of equal worth until their actions prove otherwise, but to also give people second and third chances whenever it is reasonable to do so (love the sinner, if not the sin).

    14. Re: Agree. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      It's funny... My wife pointed out just yesterday that almost every man she has ever heard call themselves a feminist turned out to be a sexual predator.

      That seems an odd assertion. Of my circle of friends, pretty much all would, if asked, consider themselves feminists, but none seem to be sexual predators. We're talking about dozens of men, here.

    15. Re: Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. I was pretty in favor of gay rights etc before I moved to SF. Living in a "queer"-majority city definitely changed that. Talk about vicious intolerance!

      Sorry, GayBLT power movement - you treated an erstwhile supporter with the same bigotry you purported to fight - and thereby you lost an ally and gained a detractor.

    16. Re: Agree. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Ignore the AC. This is just the latest shitty bit of trolling they get up to. Seems to be some kind of reaction to guys like Weinstein finally getting called out. Sad to say it was started by Mashiki, who was the first to imply that I'm some kind of sexual predator.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    17. Re: Agree. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      I find it hard to ignore.

      Personally, I am simply for equal opportunity, whatever shade your skin, or plumbing. Apparently that makes me a feminazi and sexual predator and anti-free speech, and a dozen other things I don't believe in, somehow.

    18. Re: Agree. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's their favourite tactic. Try to paint you as some kind of monster.

      I really recommend this series of videos:

      https://youtu.be/4xGawJIseNY
      https://youtu.be/CaPgDQkmqqM
      https://youtu.be/wmVkJvieaOA

      TL;DR ignore them, make your compelling case. Don't apologise or try to defend against their accusations, because it's a losing proposition. I actually screwed up by doing that in my post above, although at least I didn't engage too much with their nonsense directly.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re: Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess there just never ever was a true Scotsman... eh?

    20. Re: Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that sexual and gender minorities have a dysfunction, then you did not actually ever support them.

    21. Re: Agree. by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Sex is often a facet of gender but I don't think it can determine it. There are so many factors that fall under biological sex that changing some facet(s) by surgery or other means, will always be change but it will never be a comprehensive or complete biological change, likewise philosophically as one's biological sex isn't a binary expression (genetically).

      On seriously messed up shit, assuming that's a thing, I guess that depends on who's doing the judging and what they're judging, likewise for gender change, which includes things like a women wearing pants, a man a skirt, or things of similar nature today, and surely that falls close to the mundane for most everyone.

    22. Re:Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a number of feminists, and those who are LGBT, and it is not reasonable to generalise either of these groups, let alone lump feminism and LGBT together.

      See: TERFs. Never mind the people who are just unintentionally horrible to trans people.
      It's a mistake to assume people will be sympathetic to those in the same bad situation, never mind different situations of equal badness (not to imply cis women, as a group, are nearly in as bad a situation as trans women, not by a long shot)

    23. Re:Agree. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the one irritating person in the group of 100 gets everyone's attention. Nobody notices the 99 members of the group who aren't annoying pieces of shit.

      This is just basic reality, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. This is also why it's important to treat people based on their words and actions, and not what they identify as. If the "normal" (for whatever that means) majority of the LGBT community would stand up, after the vocal sick minority, and declare "they are not one of us, we are not like them" rather than accepting them "because they identify as us", there would be a lot less hate toward the lot of them from people who don't know better.

      This is called education and it is up to them to be the educators of those who are ignorant of their reality. As an outsider to their world, people like you me cannot widely educate the ignorant on their behalf, because the ignorant simply turn around and call us ignorant (being outsiders and all), declare themselves right, and go on hating.

      Some of my best friends are as gay as the day is long. These are people who would bend over backwards (or forward, I'm sure) for me in my time of need. These are people who, yes, joke about trying to "turn" me but still respect me and my sexuality as a straight male (any my marriage, for that matter) and, therefore, deserve my respect as well. These are, above all else, people; they do deserve to be treated based on their individual actions, and not on the actions of a few sick and twisted individuals who have chosen to usurp their political, social, and gender identities.

      But, again, it's up to them to make themselves heard and let themselves be seen by the larger audience the sick and twisted individuals foist themselves upon. The best thing you can do for your LBGT friends is to make sure they understand this, and make sure they know they have your support.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    24. Re: Agree. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Most sexual predators don't seem to be sexual predators until they're drugging and raping you. They're good at hiding it, otherwise it would be extremely difficult for them to practice their craft as they'd be spotted from a mile away and avoided.

      I say this as a (male) victim (of a female), myself. Yes, the knife does cut both ways. And no, I don't hate or avoid women for it; I just recognize the fact that the crazies and the sickos among us are very good at hiding their proclivities until the moment when they've chosen to victimize you.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    25. Re:Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pro-free-speech

      No you aren't. You've repeatedly posted support for censoring neo-nazis. You cannot be pro free speech if you want to censor the speech you disagree with.

    26. Re: Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to paint you as some kind of monster

      And then you link to something called "The Alt-Right Playbook".

      Why does pot and kettle pop in to mind?

    27. Re:Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      San Fransisco?

    28. Re: Agree. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so tolerant of others eh?

      There are different kinds of support - emotional, political, financial... And your statement that it's not possible for someone to think a thing and also support a group at the second time shows that you are a narrow minded fool.

      To say that something is a dysfunction you need to start with a position about what is the correct function. But you don't need that same position to provide support. You just need to do it.

    29. Re:Agree. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 2

      I'm glad there are others that think the same way, I am a full supporter of universal healthcare and Bernie Sanders ideology, but this whole SJW witchhunt movement has alienated me.

      AC, that's one of the funniest things I've read today. I bet you don't even know what he's for. Bernie doesn't even know what he's for except he peddles the communist BS. Did you know that his honeymoon was spent in the USSR? Just google it. He's a commie and makes a lot of capitalistic money on useful idiots that believe him. Maybe even you.

      The SJW witchhunt is just more socialist bullshit. They are there to divide. They only do it because they see it as a license to be an asshole. Used to be a bully would have taken care of that type of person in school.

    30. Re:Agree. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      A white man, who's a feminist, named AmiMoJo.

    31. Re: Agree. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      The only way sex doesn't determine gender is if you are so mentally ill you can't recognize the image in the mirror.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    32. Re: Agree. by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Obviously biological sex doesn't determine gender which is typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.

      "if you are so mentally ill you can't recognize the image in the mirror"

      Assuming you mean 'you can't recognize biological sex in the mirror', you'll probably need to look at more naked humans to realize it's not always that easy or even possible to determine sex visually.

    33. Re: Agree. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      it's pretty darn easy for me, has been most of my life, and I'm 100% face blind. I find biological sex easier to determine than the mythical "race" based on skin color.

      What mental illness do you have that you can't recognize your own biological sex?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    34. Re:Agree. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Of course, they're ALL like that - which is convenient, because if they weren't you'd have to think about things in a nuanced way, and you clearly don't have the brain cells to achieve that.

      It's nice when the world is simple enough to fit in your limited brainium isn't it? Phew!

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    35. Re: Agree. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I love your sig. Definite "I'm 14 and this is deep" material.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    36. Re: Agree. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      It's funny... My wife pointed out just yesterday

      Stop talking to your hand, neckbeard. It creeps people out.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    37. Re: Agree. by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "it's pretty darn easy for me"

      Is your sample too small? Because it's not always easy for qualified scientists and medical doctors to assign a sex based on visual appearance.

      And it gets even harder when more than external appearances are taken into account.

      https://www.nature.com/news/se...

    38. Re: Agree. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Except I'm 47. And at 14, I would have *COMPLETELY* disagreed with both halves of that statement. At that age, I was more likely to be a rapist than to be moral.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    39. Re:Agree. by Stolovaya · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is that the loudest ones, the ones that are generally covered in the media, are regressive rather then progressive. Level-headed progressives aren't as interesting or stir up the controversy that extremist regressives do. Someone saying that they want equality isn't a huge deal these days. Someone saying that there should be black-only segregated housing on college campuses is going to rile people up, and then other people will get riled up because of that. That all leads to sweet, sweet revenue.

      The shitty thing is that there's a lot of groupthink going on. I live in Seattle. Over the past 10 years, I've seen level-headed progressives turn into hate-filled regressives; they became the bigots that they so hated, and if you don't hate, you're not a part of the solution.

    40. Re: Agree. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      If it's that hard, take a DNA sample. But you're really talking about the .00001% corner case, aren't you? In which case I have to say, harming the majority for a small minority is called TYRANNY.

      Besides, it's well known that Nature is a partisan tabloid that has no basis in fact.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    41. Re: Agree. by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      "If it's that hard, take a DNA sample"

      Doesn't decide sex in the way you're thinking it does. Development from DNA through biology and epigenetics in the womb make a clear or comprehensive distinction impossible.

      "But you're really talking about the .00001% corner case, aren't you?"

      That's one in 10,000,000 but it's more like one in a couple of thousand for genetic/biological facets to be ambiguous, and one in 100 once the genetics and biology get played out through growth and development into various behaviors that don't conform or fall into clear male female categories.

  26. Re:Same retard who thinks ad blockers are unethica by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    And how do you propose forcing someone to confront their biases? Like this?

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  27. Democrats believe the Dossier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost all debunked by now.

    And that's propagated by the mainstream Fake News.

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. Gay wedding cakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't legally call yourself a business if you disriminate.

    If you want to bake wedding cakes as an amatuer for your straight friends, that's perfectly legal.

    1. Re:Gay wedding cakes by mmdurrant · · Score: 1

      Goddamn.... still don't understand the 14th Amendment after so many real-life examples are paraded in front of you every day?

      --
      I see my shadow changing, stretching up and over me...
    2. Re: Gay wedding cakes by TrumpThemAll · · Score: 0

      But it's totally OK that refuse to serve cops?

    3. Re:Gay wedding cakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youtube isn't a business? Who knew?

    4. Re:Gay wedding cakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, he was happy to make cakes for gay people, he just didn't want to make a cake with that message.

      If he can be compelled to be a platform for ideas he disagrees with, Google can be compelled to be a platform ideas they disagree with.

    5. Re:Gay wedding cakes by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      It's a business, but those posting videos are not necessarily customers.

  30. Excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All those activities are what one *expects* to do with their computer.

    Why would this make me want to switch to Ubuntu? What makes it unique?

  31. Yay censorship by brucekeller · · Score: 2

    Nothing like a good ol' call for censorship early in the morning. If we get rid of conspiracy theory videos, might as well get rid of any religious videos. Also, if someone really does find out something and tries to publish it on youtube at least... instantly crushed. :) Maybe one day we'll be like Germany and the US government itself will be threatening fines for unliked information.

  32. Re:Well this debunkinof conspiracy by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Munchies, maaan....

  33. Defamation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If YouTube gets it wrong and besmerches someone with their fact checking couldnâ(TM)t that open them up to libel or slander claims?

  34. Americans are morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We know. EVERYONE knows guys.

  35. Yup by sexconker · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Wikipedia articles ARE wrong.
    They ARE planted lies.
    That's WHY Google is doing this.

  36. time for a free for all platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... oh, 'yeah ... Reddit ...

    This is the challenge, where the alternative to YouTube is Breitbart... And where YouTube would censor half of what's on the onion for being mean spirited.

    Yuck. Just. Yuck.

  37. Re:Same retard who thinks ad blockers are unethica by DogDude · · Score: 0

    There are no pros/cons of "both sides". There is no "both sides". That's bullshit. I'm not going to politely explain to a Nazi why he's wrong. That's insane.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  38. Easy to explain by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Now can you figure out why Michael Isikoff's book about the collusion between Trump and Russia is selling way more than 12 Rules?

    Yes, because people enjoy a good fantasy that meshes with ideological beliefs.

    Myself, I like Trump but think people who spend their precious free time thinking about him are insane. Doubly so if they hate him...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Easy to explain by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, because people enjoy a good fantasy that meshes with ideological beliefs.

      So, let me get this straight -

      Sales of a book that supports your worldview is proof that your worldview is correct, but... ...greater sales of a book that does not support your worldview is also proof that your worldview is correct.

      Oh, how I wish I had your perfect ability to surrender to confirmation bias. I've tried it, but having a conscience gets in the way.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Easy to explain by lgw · · Score: 1

      The Trump Russia book is exactly one of those conspiracy theories that make you feel smarter than those smug assholes that look down on you. There's no surprise why it's selling well.

      It is a bit surprising to see a self-help book selling well, but the answer is it's not mainly a self-help book - that's just an excuse to ramble on about interesting topics in psychology. By its very nature, studying psychology makes you feel smarter than normal people who aren't in on the secrets. Further, some of the psychology might even be true! (Color me skeptical of the entire field, but there is at least real science involved in neurology.)

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Easy to explain by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Jordan Peterson is what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like. And, he loves making pronouncements on things about which he's completely ignorant.

      My favorite example is when he said that Disney's Little Mermaid is superior to Disney's Frozen because one comes from classical mythology and one was written by SJWs. They were both written by Hans Christian Anderson.

      And it's really rich that the alt-Right have made Jordan Peterson their champion. People who claim climate science is bogus are embracing..psychology!

      Jordan Peterson is the televangelist of the alt-Right. Like Christina Hoff-Summers, he basically tells his flock what they want to hear and makes a nice living doing it. Fleecing the yokels is always a booming business.

      https://www.themarysue.com/jor...

      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Easy to explain by lgw · · Score: 1

      None of which has anything to do with his self-help book, which has as little to do with politics as any book about human behavior can reasonably be.

      But, hey, if he disagrees with your deeply held beliefs about which Disney Princess cartoon is better, by all means condemn him as an evil blasphemer! I'm not trying to start a holy war about such important topics here.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    5. Re:Easy to explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like pope is copy-pasting what his cult leaders are telling him to, word for word. We all knew you didn't have a mind of your own, but it's getting downright lazy on your behalf.

      So does your monthly newsletter tell you that JP your new boogeyman now? It's really quite amusing that when someone argues facts to a leftist, the response is to declare some sort of jihad against that person and mount an attack against everything except the original argument that you lost.

      I think Saul Alinksy told his disciples something along those lines, "If you can't make a convincing argument, throw a tantrum."

  39. Not going to want to minimize their visibility. by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    You'd lose the views and the adverts sold on those things are bound to be profitable. If you're gullible enough to think the last two or three school shootings were false flag operations you're probably in the market for some expensive supplements, some gold, or a bucket of food for that shed you call a bunker.After all, there's a sucker born every minute.

    The way you stop this is funding schools, especially the liberal arts. e.g. reading. Critical thinking is a skill and like any skill it can be taught. You're not going do do that with STEM. If you're bright enough for STEM you're usually bright enough to figure out critical thinking on your own. There's a reason the well to do always insist on a solid liberal arts education for their kids. It's how you teach dumb people to think.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  40. Whoes to say by gabrieltss · · Score: 1

    What is truth and what is conspiracy theory? Or what is Truth or what is PROPAGANDA?

    Just because the government or the media says it makes it true? Is there REAL video of the incident or is it staged like a Hollywood film? How do you know Trump is REALLY president? You saw something on the Television, video, on the news? How do you know it's not a Hollywood staged video? Where YOU personally there WHEN it happened?

    You were ON SITE and physically SAW JFK shot by Oswald right? You PERSONALLY were on the 6th floor of the Texas Book Repository and WATCHED Oswald shoot JFK correct? You personally saw Oswald take 3 shots in 5.6 seconds with a Carcano bolt action rifle (which by the way too many experts have said and shown it CAN'T be done)?

    Just remember - how many people who heard the radio broadcast of "War of the Worlds" that it was REALLY happening? Millions.....

    The truth is what YOU PERCEIVE it is, it doesn't make it fact. The truth is what YOU want to believe, it doesn't make it fact.

    "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."
    - Adolph Hitler

    "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
    - Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

    "The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State."
    - Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

    "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
    - Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

    "It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion."
    - Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

    "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."
    - Josph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

    "Education is dangerous - Every educated person is a future enemy"
    - Hermann Goering

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  41. Wikipedia links are useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All they will do is serve as a friendly reminder to everyone watching the video to update the wiki with the information learned in the video.

  42. Wrong... by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    I know several Flat Earthers... they certainly don't believe it is a joke. They are very serious. Almost all serious Flat Earthers are that way for religious reasons... they already believe totally bizarre stuff and the trip to Flat Earth isn't that far of a walk.

  43. Re:Same retard who thinks ad blockers are unethica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You should be able to, but not for his sake. If a Nazi can politely explain why multiculturalism is wrong and will lead to failure, and you can't provide any sort of counterargument then he will end up winning that debate. It doesn't matter if there isn't ever any formal debate, the idea of using censorship in the modern era is so self-defeating and stupid I almost think it's being done on purpose.

  44. Its not possible to "debug" conspiracy theories by Vektuz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Once a person has been "caught" in a conspiracy theory is like being caught in a cult. They become evidence immune.
    1. All evidence that disproves the conspiracy is planted and thus part of the conspiracy. It must be suppressed.
    2. All evidence that can be construed as even remotely supporting the conspiracy is the only true evidence. It must be echoed.
    3. All lack of evidence either way is proof of a cover up by the conspiracy. The lack of it proves the conspiracy.
    4. Any authority figure that speaks out against the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy. They must be suppressed.
    5. Any authority figure that agrees with the conspiracy is part of the enlightened ones and is the only trusted source of truth. They must be echoed.


    Once someone has sunk that deep into a conspiracy theory (and I'm sure several readers have) there really isn't any point arguing with them or disagreeing with them or trying to engage with them in any meaningful way, they are lost.

    1. Re:Its not possible to "debug" conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those mechanisms are real, but people who believe conspiracy theories aren't always permanently lost to them.

    2. Re:Its not possible to "debug" conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough - this seems to work both ways.

      By the way - did you know that just by using the term 'conspiracy theory' - you are participating in an effort to discredit any voice that dissents with the accepted narrative?

      All I can say is that it is more important than ever to not take any ones word for anything. Keep an open mind and research all avenues.

      Never in our history has propaganda been so widespread, and rapidly consumed.

    3. Re:Its not possible to "debug" conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once a person has been "caught" in a conspiracy theory is like being caught in a cult. They become evidence immune.
      1. All evidence that disproves the conspiracy is planted and thus part of the conspiracy. It must be suppressed.
      2. All evidence that can be construed as even remotely supporting the conspiracy is the only true evidence. It must be echoed.
      3. All lack of evidence either way is proof of a cover up by the conspiracy. The lack of it proves the conspiracy.
      4. Any authority figure that speaks out against the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy. They must be suppressed.
      5. Any authority figure that agrees with the conspiracy is part of the enlightened ones and is the only trusted source of truth. They must be echoed.

      Once someone has sunk that deep into a conspiracy theory (and I'm sure several readers have) there really isn't any point arguing with them or disagreeing with them or trying to engage with them in any meaningful way, they are lost.

      I don't like to give up hope on people. I've had some success bringing people out of these cults. Just this year I count one that I broke out of the "Russian hacking" conspiracy theory and one that finally saw the truth to the whole "Global Warming" bullshit. Even late last year I helped two friends escape the greatest conspiracy theory of the modern day: "Government is necessary for civilisation."

      Strategy: Don't just tell people that they're wrong. Instead, share what you think and respect their opinion. Sometimes, just having a friend try to convince you of their own conspiracy theory can be enough to bring them out.

    4. Re:Its not possible to "debug" conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be caught in the cult of "there's no such thing as a conspiracy." You realise that conspiracies actually do happen, and believing in conspiracies is just demonstrating a good understanding of history. Not that I'm saying I believe the earth is flat, or the moon landing was faked, or the Illuminati rule the world. But there are definitely conspiracies. The spurious reasoning for the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions was a conspiracy. The attempt to cover up the Clinton email server thing was a conspiracy. The attempt to cover up the wikileaks leaks was a conspiracy. Conspiracies happen all the time. You should believe in some of them.

    5. Re:Its not possible to "debug" conspiracy theories by Vektuz · · Score: 2

      Oh for sure there are, but I'm talking about people who are in the mindset that matches the points above. Showing them evidence has zero effect.

      There ARE some real conspiracies (see watergate, bigfoot, etc) which generally involve a small number of individuals, and in general are discovered somewhat quickly (timescale is hours to a couple years), but then you get the "grand" conspiracies which involves the to-the-deathbed collaboration of hundreds or thousands of people and multiple different international government and non-government institutions (some of which aren't our friends).

      The problem is that once a person has fallen to "grand" conspiracy belief, they tend to be the kind that believes all others, big and small.

      Basically, if you ever find yourself in a debate with someone who believes in a coverup of something that would take many thousands of people their entire lives to cover up from many different nations, you may as well stop debating. A conspiracy of that size unravels in months at most, hours more likely. The biggest such conspiracy to hold together was the landing by the allies during WW2, and that wasn't really a campaign to say something the opposite was happening, just that the landings were happening in a different place at a different time. And it only lasted just long enough to execute.

  45. Re:Well this debunkinof conspiracy by dgatwood · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Now if the weed dealers were dealing outside the school... oh, wait.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  46. Marxists+Mohammedists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They cannot stand differing views.

    In the minds of these brutes, there is One Truth.

  47. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STUPID WHITEY can be seen in many countries, including Germany.

    I here it is also prevalent in Sweden.

    And Londonistan.

  48. HAAHAHAHAHAHA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Mohammedists openly shit on everybody else and call for the enslavement and/or killing of everybody else.

    As they are very cunning and ocassionally wealthy, they do get away with it.

    Happy circumcision, STUPID WHITEY !

  49. Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only due to Old White Men, Hillary, Lockheed Martin and General Atomics were stopped from showing their full potential !

    Imagine all the money and all the nice careers arising from MORE WAR. War with Iran, War with Yemen, War War War !

    You leftists really must make sure more Matriachic warmongers will be lifted into high office !

    1. Re:Exactly by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      Non sequitur
      Did or did not Faux Noise lie about Hillary during the Election?

  50. Union of Soviet Americas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets hope you Marxists will drag down America into the shithole she belongs after destroying the peace in so many countries !

  51. Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mao and Stalin killed 3x of whom Hitler killed. And they were the teachers of Hitler. He witnessed their acts in the 20s, when he was still a low level guy.

    Same with Mohammedism: extremely deadly for those who do not comply.

  52. Speaking of Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jews killed millions in Russia from 1917 onwards. Basically the entire Russian elite was killed or driven out of country.

    They also screwed you over in 1929 and 2008.

  53. So ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need to set up a Ministry Of Truth to "protect them from themselves" ???

    Because that is essentially what the Marxist 1% supporters like Weinstein suggest.

    In other words, accept what the New York Moneymen and their Propaganda Artists declare to be the Truth.

    FUCK THAT !

  54. Allright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now lets ban all pro-fagott, pro-lesbian propaganda on y-tube and we will see what happens.

    After all, it is "googles private platform", har har.

    1. Re:Allright by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      So again Google can't do what it wants because your feelings will be hurt.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  55. Yes, Uljanov ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we only had a slightly better censorship system, nobody would have to be sent to the GULAG !

  56. How Cute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You Murricans still suffer from being allied with the jews who killed millions in Russia before Hitler came to power ?

    Look up Uljanov and his henchmen.

    Or the french revolution.

    1. Re:How Cute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you don't know how things work.....

  57. Of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A "soviet" of elite Hollywood movie makers will decide what is the truth and what is not.

    Another soviet will decide which people are enemies of the state and will be shipped off to an extermination camp. You cannot call that a KZ, though. It is a much more noble institution, which we call a GULAG. Also, it predates the KZ.

  58. If it's the weekend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  59. Off to Dtube by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Farewell, youtube

  60. Re:Same retard who thinks ad blockers are unethica by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    Well, I can tell you how NOT to do it.

    By trying to ignore the issue.

    That doesn't work.

  61. stupid move by gravewax · · Score: 1

    seriously if you are getting your information on topics from youtube videos you are already too far fucked up to be worth saving. Besides which throwing a spotlight on conspiracy theory garbage has the opposite effect, it reinforces it as after all why give focus to something and spend time debunking unless you have something to hide. You can't win arguments with people that have already burned out most of their logic brain cells.

    1. Re:stupid move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I beg to disagree. Youtube has a lot of rational high quality opinion and educational pieces, lectures and documentaries. It's not a bad source for information, although one should of course never base ones worldview on a single source, and censorship and retarded algorithms will of course have a adverse effects.

  62. People like freedom by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The freedom to publish.
    The freedom to comment.
    The ability to search and find a result with out another site getting placed over the results for political reasons.
    The freedom to search for any topics like history.
    The freedom to comment on politics.
    To talk about topics like illegal immigration.
    To talk about their OS.
    Cryptography and maths.
    About cars and trucks.
    The more a US party political brand attempts to get between the user and their use of search the more users will look for a better search brand.
    Stop putting party political SJW politics between the user and the way a user wants to use the internet.
    Give the user the results they want not new layers of your brands politics.
    Freedom sells. Censorship makes users seek out freedom.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  63. Sensorship is NOT the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The author may well be right that the Wikipedia links are ineffective.

    But then the author asserts the *right* way to do it is by big-brother suppression as if YouTube knows what should and shouldn't be suppressed. RED FLAG!!!!

    Let's not support THAT approach, as YouTube has it's own profit-motive Ed bias and no other qualifications as an arbitor of truth.

    For God's sake, let's not ever encourage sensorship!!!

    Already YouTube is suppressing independent media in search results and is allegedly unsubscribing users without consent. I'm sure lots if other channels have experienced this.

  64. Remove 'push' tech by evanh · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia went through their hurdles long ago. As in 10-15 years ago. It is being managed at surprisingly good levels. It hasn't outwardly programmatically changed in all that time.

    This is testament to the basic 'pull' tech of ordinary HTML.

    The only real problem is the 'push' technologies that support rapid spread of ideas, any idea, good or bad. Eliminate 'push'ing and the fake news problem mostly goes away.

    Let the Web go back to what it was intended to be - an information repository.

  65. But how loose are adaptations of HCA stories? by tepples · · Score: 1

    My favorite example is when he said that Disney's Little Mermaid is superior to Disney's Frozen because one comes from classical mythology and one was written by SJWs. They were both written by Hans Christian Anderson.

    But does Disney's The Little Mermaid preserve the themes of H. C. Andersen's original story more closely than Frozen keeps the themes of "The Snow Queen"?

    1. Re:But how loose are adaptations of HCA stories? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      But does Disney's The Little Mermaid preserve the themes of H. C. Andersen's original story more closely than Frozen keeps the themes of "The Snow Queen"?

      No. In fact, the opposite is true. Anderson's Little Mermaid ends with her dissolving into sea foam, whereas Disney has her marrying the prince or some shit. Frozen is more faithful to the original.

      But none of this speaks to the point, that everyone the alt-right embraces as some intellectual leader ends up being some flim-flam artist who wants to sell them special brain pills or self-help fairy tales. It's why fake news works on them, and it's why Donald Trump is their god-emperor. As long as there is sufficient reverse-virtue signaling, they will willingly suspend disbelief and discernment and follow in lockstep. It's "Listen and Believe".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  66. Re:Same retard who thinks ad blockers are unethica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are no pros/cons of "both sides". There is no "both sides". That's bullshit. I'm not going to politely explain to a Nazi why he's wrong. That's insane.

    1) There are clearly at least two sides, one containing you and another containing Nazis.
    2) It's not "...why he's wrong." but "...why you disagree with him."
    3) It's not insane, it's tolerance, a key element of civility.

    and, because I can tell you're a lefty,

    4) "...to a Nazi why he's wrong." implies all Nazi's are men. This is sexist. You must use "...to a Nazi why they're wrong."

  67. History teaches that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ALL totalitarian mass-murdering governments are creatures of the LEFT.

    Soviet Union which mass-murdered tens of millions while spying on everybody - Communist (Marxist, and therefore LEFT wing)
    Pol Pot who massacred millions - Communist (Marxist, and therefore LEFT wing)
    Chairman Mao who massacred tens of millions while spying on everybody - Communist (Marxist, and therefore LEFT wing)
    Benito Mussolini - Italian leading socialist (Marxist, and therefore LEFT wing) who invented fascism as a "better" form of socialism.
    Adolph Hitler who massacred millions and ignited a world war - National Socialist German Workers Party (Marxist, and therefore LEFT wing)

    Left wing politicians, educators, and historians has spent decades trying to re-write history to assign Hitler to the right wing, in a very dishonest attempt to pretend that both the left and the right have their bad guys and that the one on the right is the worst. This does not erase all the millions of captured NAZI documents, audio recordings, and films in archives all over the world in which the NAZIs push NATIONAL SOCIALISM and their track record of socialist policies, and all the documents pre-WWII in which left wing elites in the US and Europe praised "Herr Hitler" for his socialist "miracle" in the 1930s.

    The ONLY legitimate way to claim Hitler was "right wing" is from the perspective of the very warped political spectrum of Europe where the political center is so far over on the left that it it to the left of Hitler's national socialism and thus to the further left of the average European you see communists and to the right you see Hitler and the populace is on a very narrow knife edge between these two evils WAY over on the left of the human political spectrum.

    1. Re:History teaches that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moron. What an exceptional study in ignorance and stupidity. You must be brain dead.

      In your disgusting little brain, East Germany and North Korea must be outstanding examples of democracy, I take it? After all they, and a whole host of countries like them all have "Democratic" in their name, that's evidence right there, isn't it? You fucking oxygenthief.

  68. Religion Videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they are going to also debunk videos about religion since magic is not real.

  69. converting free speach investigations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if it wasn't for free speach, I would have never learned about how the ix86 BIOS and interrupts work on x86 architecture DOS tsr programs. A conspiracy is nothing more than a plan in motion, whileba theory ofbsuch only predicts the damages as does a weatherman.

    When you spoke in terms of 'conspiracy theory', you just converted a right into a privilege. What is worse, a multi-national corp announcing a conclusion of a calamity with it's own assessments is nothing more than propoganda competing with another assessment.

    Free speach isn't supposed to garble a message in transit like how Youtube does. by the way, Youtune protocol allowed pop-up captions earlier and discontinued it 10 years ago, now re-enabling it for privileged governmental use.

    gtfo.

  70. Re:Same retard who thinks ad blockers are unethica by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is the same retard who thinks:

    https://plus.google.com/+Laure...

            "For the record, I don't run any ad blockers. Basically, I consider them unethical"

    The right to not be subject to unsolicited advertising arises under the 9th Amendment, as a right retained by the people, and the 10th Amendment, as a right reserved to the people. While Congress is limited by the 1st Amendment, the Bill of Rights is a higher legal authority and does have the authority to limit advertising, even that delivered through speech or the press.

    Hence, he has things exactly backwards: it's not only ethical to use ad-blockers, it is protection of a right that is routinely being violated by businesses in this day and age. It's the businesses that are being unethical - and the lawyers, and the government, in allowing the Bill of Rights to be violated on a routine basis. Every time I get an unsolicited email offer, or I get junk mail from businesses and have to spend time and money to throw it out, my rights are being violated. It's no different from people leaving their garbage in front of my door because they're too lazy to throw it out themselves. Sociopaths.

    If a specific citizen wants to receive advertising from a specific business or class of business, they can sign up for it. All marketing should be opt-in - and opting out should be easy.

    Further, the type of advertising to be received must be governed by an opt-in provision. If one does not wish to receive loud audio advertising that can cause permanent hearing damage, one should not have to do so by opting out of advertising with an audible component. The advertisers have no way of knowing what sound level the audience is using - people who are already hard of hearing will probably have the volume up and thus will be vulnerable to sound levels that might not cause harm to others.

    This should have been addressed long ago - and would have been addressed by any sort of ethical and competent government. The US legal profession has taken the massively unethical position that their time is valuable - and thus they can charge others for it - but the time of others is not valuable - and thus people can not charge others for sending unsolicited advertising to them in violation of their rights.

    If websites wish to be paid on advertisements, to be compliant with the Bill of Rights they must give people the option to opt-in to advertising from specific vendors, or a specific class of vendors - and until they implement that, they're breaking the law.

  71. Re:Same retard who thinks ad blockers are unethica by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    +1 Excellent points! Mod up!

    > The US legal profession has taken the massively unethical position that their time is valuable - and thus they can charge others for it - but the time of others is not valuable

    Indeed. The greed of the legal system and their desire to maintain the status quo (It is illegal to "practice" law without having _their_ permission while ignoring the fact that founding fathers WERE lawyers is conveniently ignored.)

    The problem is they don't respect anyone else. That reminds of an old joke:

    Q. Why don't sharks attack lawyers?
    A. Professional courtesy.

    Notice what Tacitus said a few thousand years ago.

    The more numerous the laws the more corrupt the state.

    These scum over-complicate EVERYTHING. The tax code is 73,954 pages!!! WTF!?!?!

    The code is now nearly 74,000 pages long. That's about 185 times longer than it was in 1913, when the code was 400 pages. Source: CCH

    Instead of having ONE, EASY, sentence: "10% of all income is taxed" instead we get this bloated shit with so many loop-holes you have to pay an expert to "legally minimize" your fair share.

    > All marketing should be opt-in - and opting out should be easy.

    Agreed !

  72. What about Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should Slashdot delete openly racist, sexist, antisemitic posts? Obviously their policy is not to. They're also not reliably hidden. I'm reading at +1 and I see comments to this story whose only content is antisemitic propaganda. If Slashdot chooses to publish these, why shouldn't Google?
    I know TFA is about "conspiracy theories". I think that's not the real issue. We all know what sort of conspiracy "theories" we're talking about. It's a euphemism. OTOH I wouldn't dismiss any opinion only because it postulates a conspiracy. Conspiracies have happened in the past and were uncovered and proven beyond doubt.

  73. Tinfoil hat on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only should they be prevented from ever getting into the trending lists, they should be deranked, demonetized, and excised from the YouTube recommended video system.

    This is going to be the precise reaction to this line;

    LAUREN (((WEINSTEIN))) IS IN ON THE (((MOON LANDING))) AND (((CLIMATE CHANGE))) LIIIIEEEESSSS! Look at how we're being oppressed, they're cutting off our money for exposing the truth! - Conspiracy theorist

    It sickens me that her idea is "TAKE AWAY THEIR MONEY HIDE THE VIDEOS REEEEEEEEEEEEE" instead of "Refute and respond, prevent YouTubers from deleting or disabling comments from their videos". Do you have any idea how many scammers put vids up and disable comments in order to prevent their lies and scams from being pointed out? Here's a hint; every fucking one of them. For starters; that vegan woman who pressured her aunt into abandoning cancer therapy, resulting in her death. All comments disabled on her lies.