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.

17 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. "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.
  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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: 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.

    2. 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.

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. 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.