Slashdot Mirror


YouTube Kids Has Videos on How Reptilians Rule the World, Moon Landing Was Fake (gizmodo.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: YouTube Kids, the supposedly child-friendly version of YouTube that's been shown to often play host to troves of slop content and disturbing videos, apparently was showing videos from British conspiracy theorist David Icke, a guy who believes reptilian aliens secretly control the world and are responsible for the Holocaust. According to a Saturday report in Business Insider, searching for the term "UFO" on YouTube kids turned up a video purporting "to show a UFO shooting at a chemtrail." The suggested followups for that video featured a number of Icke's clips, including a nearly five-hour lecture on how aliens built the pyramids and secretly run the planet through a ruling class extraterrestrial-human hybrids. The video also delves into a number of other conspiracy theories, including claims Freemasons indulge in human sacrifice and President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by his own government.

According to Business Insider, "Two other conspiracy theory videos by Icke appeared in the related videos, meaning it was easy for children to quickly go from watching relatively innocent videos about toys to conspiracy content." Searching for the term "moon landing" also resulted in a number of conspiratorial videos emerging, including one making the claim that CERN's Large Hadron Collider had opened a portal to another world that an unfortunate employee then vanished in.

109 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Demonetization by SmaryJerry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought YouTube had already turned their whole website into YouTube Kids by demonetizing anything for adults.

    1. Re:Demonetization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It may come as a surprise to you, but a 'log' of adults are interested in things besides the progressive-left's neo-marxist propaganda.

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

      It may come as a surprise to OP+1 but demonetizing content makes it cheaper to buy ad space and one can always monetize later

    3. Re: Demonetization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It may come as a surprise to you that they demonetize mostly videos that have nothing to do with politics.

    4. Re:Demonetization by Z00L00K · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Especially the gun related channels - even if most of them are actually pretty informative, like "forgotten weapons".

      Another channel that I do follow is bosnianbill.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re: Demonetization by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Yes, the videos that I've noticed demonetised the most are music theory educational videos who use a 61 second excerpt of some obscure jazz record from the 50s.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    6. Re:Demonetization by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That one has been very weird, considering that some advertisers were reporting that they were unable to advertise even through they wanted to.

    7. Re: Demonetization by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      I believe under US copyright law you can only use up to 2 seconds of any sound clip under fair use.

      This is often held to be 30 seconds but a quick google shows there is no basis in law for 30 seconds. I can't find anything for 2 seconds, but it was on a youtube video by someone mocking copyright law and the concept of fair use and how it's mostly useless. I assume they did the research.

    8. Re:Demonetization by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Funny

      Did YouTube demonetize them or did advertisers ask not to be on gun related channels? The advertisers are the ones driving this. After a serious of scandals they want to protect their brands and are quite conservative.

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

      I'd have to guess demonetization or that YouTube's ability for advertisers to pick which channels they want to target are severely lacking. Otherwise you're basically telling me that there aren't any companies that want to advertise to gun owners, which given the number of NRA ads I've seen on YouTube recently seems patently absurd.

      They're really screwing themselves over with it as well as channels are going to start reading some ad copy before videos similar to how many podcasts support themselves financially. Why bother with a YouTube middle man that takes a cut when they'll continue to give away that platform at no cost to the people who upload videos when you can get sponsors to pay your directly? If they wanted to be serious about making money with YouTube they'd be finding a way to get advertisers on every channel, even the idiot neo-nazi ones. Presumably those people are going to need to buy their tiki torches somewhere, so YouTube may as well make a buck. Make it so easy for everyone to get paid just a little bit that no one thinks about skipping out on the YouTube ads and contacting advertisers directly.

    10. Re: Demonetization by Falos · · Score: 1

      Messages [1]

      Notice: Your post has been found to match content produced and owned by Lanthanide (4982283).

    11. Re: Demonetization by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why should it be "fair use" to use some others work for 2 seconds in your own "commercial use"?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re: Demonetization by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First let's take a step back - why should anything be protected by copyright in the first place? The answer is of course that we want to encourage people to create things. All the rules should pretty much follow from there: will this usage impact the incentive to create in some significant way? As an example, creating a video where you compare the beats in two songs, playing a small sample from each song, has zero commercial impact one way or another on the value of the two songs. The creators will continue to create.

      So don't ask, "Why should x be allowed to use x's work?"

      Ask, "Why should our government expend time and money protecting x's work?"

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    13. Re: Demonetization by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The government does not expend time and money protecting x's work.

      They most certainly do - there are criminal as well as civil aspects to copyright law. But even if there were no criminal cases, without the government there would be no such thing as IP at all. We as a society spend a lot of time and money dealing with IP. You can argue cost-benefit, but you can't argue that we don't spend a fortune on it.

      But that's all a tangent - my point was that the GP had it backwards... the person with active government support is the one that needs to justify that support, not the other way around.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re: Demonetization by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Let's take a step back and get on topic. Clearly YouTube for kids is just a google marketing scam, this is all they care about https://support.google.com/you.... So Google you pack of privacy invasive democracy hacks, who vets you ads to make sure they are kid safe and not harmful, or is it just higher bidder to target a captured audience. I also note zero mention of whether they monitor you children's activity and push specifically targeted manipulative ads at them. Why would anyone trust a for profit known corporate manipulator with this.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    15. Re: Demonetization by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      The government does not expend time and money protecting x's work.

      Unlike the tides and the seasons, laws and legal systems are human constructs. In the USA this involves branches of the government to create and maintain.

    16. Re:Demonetization by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      "Mr. President, we can't allow a fake moon landing gap!"

    17. Re:Demonetization by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I'd have to guess demonetization or that YouTube's ability for advertisers to pick which channels they want to target are severely lacking. Otherwise you're basically telling me that there aren't any companies that want to advertise to gun owners, which given the number of NRA ads I've seen on YouTube recently seems patently absurd.

      They're really screwing themselves over with it as well as channels are going to start reading some ad copy before videos similar to how many podcasts support themselves financially. Why bother with a YouTube middle man that takes a cut when they'll continue to give away that platform at no cost to the people who upload videos when you can get sponsors to pay your directly? If they wanted to be serious about making money with YouTube they'd be finding a way to get advertisers on every channel, even the idiot neo-nazi ones. Presumably those people are going to need to buy their tiki torches somewhere, so YouTube may as well make a buck. Make it so easy for everyone to get paid just a little bit that no one thinks about skipping out on the YouTube ads and contacting advertisers directly.

      Well, YouTube probably wouldn't give advertisers a chance to pick which channels they would sponsor, because this would mean everyone else gets demonetized. Unless you have a big channel with lots of followers and is super well known, you're not going to get any money if advertisers simply picked and chose their channels. While YouTube requires a minimum view count of videos first before monetization (to counter a disturbing habit of scammers to upload popular videos to catch an odd click), anyone with a small but decent channel can be monetized, but if your channel doesn't make it big beyond a small group of people, no advertiser will sponsor you directly, so YouTube's general sponsorship can be the only way to get some money out of it.

      And channels DO put ads in their videos. It's really annoying. YouTube I believe doesn't care, because they're not going to make good tools for skipping those ads, so channels that do it to bypass YouTube's monetization scheme have to carefully balance annoying their audience with what is an unskippable ad, as well as basically only being paid once for that video - YouTube does not allow you to edit out the ad and replace it if you get a new sponsor, so if your sponsorship deal goes south, you either have to remove, re-edit, and re-upload as new videos all the old content (and reset all the view counts, break all the video links, etc) or leave the video up with the old sponsor information up until time immemorial. Either way, you're making a ton of work for yourself, having to go out, find a sponsor, get paid, and then worry when that sponsor leaves/gets acquired/goes bankrupt/etc.

      Think about it - the sponsor paid you for 100 videos, then you split from them because you don't like them anymore. Do you really go through and remove those 100 video and re-upload them (losing view counts, comments, and breaking links) or do you grin and bear it, knowing those old videos will be advertising something you no longer support?

      (Videos with no monetization also do not show up as high in the searches, for obvious reasons).

      I say YouTube knows what they're doing, and if you wish to hard-code ads into your video, you're free to do so given viewers cannot easily skip the ads (the unskippable 30 second ad was rated the most annoying), and content producers cannot edit the ad out if things go south, so it's either put up with it, or put up with losing it all.

    18. Re: Demonetization by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Itâ(TM)s a lot more complicated than that. 2 seconds applies to sampling. However researchers, educators and critics can use arbitrarily larger segments within reason. Musics a complicated case because of the separation between performance vs publishing rights , but a 20-30 second excerpt to analyse chord structure or scale use is permissible for sure

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    19. Re:Demonetization by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

      It may come as a surprise to you, but experimental archaeology has nothing to do with alt-right, nazis or propaganda... https://www.change.org/p/googl... This time they were forced to reinstate it, but what if they ban all such channels at once next time, and they won't have a chance to rally their supporters?

      --
      What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
    20. Re:Demonetization by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      I don't understand. Why would demonetization make the videos more suitable for children? AFAIK, it just leads to less clickbait.

    21. Re:Demonetization by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      I think the OP wanted to say (or should have said) is that almost nobody is interested in either propaganda, whether "progressive-left neo marxist" or "alt-right neo-nazi" and that it's totally okay for the vast majority of people on earth when neither progressive-left neo-marxists nor alt-right neo-nazis make money from advertisement on their channel.

      Note that demonetization doesn't mean that the propaganda is removed.

      That being said, I'm personally also fine with remove all this trash. I have watched ISIS videos on Youtube, for instance, but they are not really illuminating or informative in the end. The same for alt-right neo-nazi videos or "progressive-left neo-marxist propaganda". Nothing of value is lost by sending this trash to the digital nirvana where it belongs.

    22. Re: Demonetization by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      It may come as a surprise to you that they demonetize mostly videos that have nothing to do with politics.

      Really? Did they take down all the videos where Elsa and Spiderman poop, get drunk, and inject each other with needles...? No. But they have to take down conspiracy theory videos. Just make sure you believe it's "for the children".

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    23. Re: Demonetization by doccus · · Score: 1

      I read your link to the wikipedia page.. I knew that terms had been extended, but reading it literally made me sick. Who needs a hundred years after they die? Who is this protecting, exactly, other than the publishers, but what right do they have to milk all these dead authors for almost a hundred years? The opposition to the 1998 bill would have been enough to sink any other bill, but some poweful bodies must have wanted this passed, and had some cooperating insider member also. Well, looks as tho Sonny was the perfect choice, the record companies and the unsuccessful (IMHO) musician ... "You and me babe.. " surre....)

    24. Re:Demonetization by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      "neo-marxist"?
      as in "Healthcare for Americans shut out of the financial sector profits"?
      This is why they invented 1 D 10 T

    25. Re: Demonetization by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      My governmet is not spending any time or money to protect X's work.

      X has himself to go to court to protect his work or demand compensations ...

      Regarding comparing two songs in a video and only sampling a few seconds: that is completely legal.

      So: no idea what your point is.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re: Demonetization by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      My governmet

      I don't know what government that is - in the US, there are criminal copyright laws and even an entire government body.

      X has himself to go to court to protect his work or demand compensations ...

      And who pays for these courts? The only reason they have any protection of their work at all is the government. And of course we the people need to spend money on lawyers to make sure everything is above board or to defend ourselves in court - all expenses that would not exist if not for copyright law.

      Regarding comparing two songs in a video and only sampling a few seconds: that is completely legal.

      I never said otherwise. It's an example of fair use.

      So: no idea what your point is.

      You wrote: 'Why should it be "fair use" to use some others work for 2 seconds in your own "commercial use"?'

      I was directly addressing your question. My points are: (a) it's already fair use to use excerpts - you seem to agree now but did not in the post I originally responded to, and (b) it's backwards to ask "why should I be allowed to..." when you should be asking "why shouldn't I be allowed to" as the default state of things is that there is no such thing as IP. Anyone who uses IP to make a living is basically getting a huge-ass subsidy from the government, and like all governmental actions we need to constantly examine whether or not it benefits society.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    27. Re: Demonetization by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And who pays for these courts?
      The one who loses the case.

      Anyone who uses IP to make a living is basically getting a huge-ass subsidy from the government
      So is everyone who owns land and uses it to build a house on top of it to rent it to poor blokes who are to poor to own such lands themselves and live in their own house.

      Or so is everyone who owns some land and farms it and lives from the fruits he farms.

      Or so is everyone who rented some land from the government and has a exploiting/mining license and mines some resources.

      IP rights got introduced a few hundred years ago, when people realized that "stuff in your mind" has/should have the same value as tangible goods. And right so in my opinion.

      Now we have the internet and lots of IP is digital and just because it is more easy to copy you demand less protection?

      At the times of Gutenberg there was at least still real labour involved to copy something ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    28. Re: Demonetization by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The one who loses the case.

      Not in the US. The courts are taxpayer funded. Criminal courts are entirely taxpayer funded.

      So is everyone who owns land and uses it to build a house on top of it to rent it to poor blokes who are to poor to own such lands themselves and live in their own house.

      Yes, and those lucky bastards get to pay property tax, which in this country funds all of the roads, schools, and often infrastructure like sewer lines.

      But you are correct in pointing out other beneficiaries of government subsidy - all of those need to be justified. You would never argue "Why should you have a right to hike on valuable mineral lands?" You instead would ask, "Why should we let this company mine this great hiking area?"

      IP rights got introduced a few hundred years ago

      Yes, I'm aware of this. And the reason is an incentive to create, not some moral reasoning.

      Now we have the internet and lots of IP is digital and just because it is more easy to copy you demand less protection?

      I've been demanding less protection for a long time. Lifesaving drugs get less protection than nearly century-old Mickey Mouse short films. You can not provide incentive to a creator who is long dead - copyright durations should look a lot more like patents. But no, I'm not demanding less protection in this particular conversation - I was directly responding to your 2-second clip comment, which you yourself point out is a perfectly legal use. As it should be, since it does nothing to the commercial value of the original work.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    29. Re: Demonetization by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Not in the US. The courts are taxpayer funded. Criminal courts are entirely taxpayer funded.
      A "normal" copyright infringement case, is a civil case.

      Yes, I'm aware of this. And the reason is an incentive to create, not some moral reasoning.
      In your country, not in mine.

      I was directly responding to your 2-second clip comment, which you yourself point out is a perfectly legal use.
      Depends what you do with those 2 seconds. If it a "sample" of a song, and you use it as background rhythm for a new song, then it is an infringement.

      As it should be, since it does nothing to the commercial value of the original work.
      And the "commercial value of the original work" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    30. Re: Demonetization by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      A "normal" copyright infringement case, is a civil case.

      If you'd like to define it as such, sure. I don't know why criminal cases aren't "normal", but I don't want to argue semantics. In any case, the courts are still operated by the government. Maybe your country has a different arrangement... it doesn't really matter whether your government pays or the litigants pay - the central point is that the existence of copyright is not free. Money - lots of money - is spent on IP, so a cost-benefit analysis is appropriate.

      In your country, not in mine.

      If your country is the UK, then the origins of copyright have something to do with the establishment protecting book publishers when the press was invented. Does that really make a difference? The point is that we have copyright not for moral reasons, but because we want a system to reward people to create stuff so that they will create more stuff.

      If it a "sample" of a song, and you use it as background rhythm for a new song, then it is an infringement.

      I'm aware of this. Are we going to redefine fair use in this thread now? The original comment you made was in reply to someone making educational videos about jazz musical theory. I don't think you can make a case that this use impacted the commercial viability of those ancient jazz recordings. If anything they should generate some interest.

      And the "commercial value of the original work" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

      It has everything to do with the topic. It's the whole point of copyright.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    31. Re: Demonetization by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And the "commercial value of the original work" has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

      It has everything to do with the topic. It's the whole point of copyright.

      No it has not, if you copy my work and redistribute it, it is a cooyright infringement. Regardless if you make money from it or if I lose money by it. Most countries have no 'fair use clauses' anyway.

      In the US you have the idea that copyright exists to give authors an incentive to create more works, beccause that is how it is written in the constitution. In Europe the incentive simply us to protect the work.

      The court costs are irrelevant, you need the courts anyway. I doubt I would pay a noticeable less amount of tax money if we would get rid of copyright (which is only going to happen when we turn away from 'capitalism')

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    32. Re: Demonetization by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      In the US you have the idea that copyright exists to give authors an incentive to create more works, beccause that is how it is written in the constitution. In Europe the incentive simply us to protect the work.

      OK? I'm in the US - that's our justification for copyright.

      The court costs are irrelevant, you need the courts anyway.

      Surely that isn't your real argument? You don't think there are marginal costs associated with adding more cases? More judges, more staff, more courtrooms to handle the caseload?

      noticeable less amount of tax money

      You are very hung up on tax money. Societal cost (in dollars) of a law is more than just tax money. Obamacare, for instance, used tax money - but it also required people to purchase private health insurance with their own dollars. It's a law that costs people thousands of dollars per year, despite not increasing their taxes very much. Copyright (and IP in general) is like that - everyone pays more for everything, and not the trivial amount you are dismissing. A cost-benefit analysis is worth doing with just about any law, so I'm not sure why you are elevating copyright to some religious untouchable status. Even in Europe you are constantly fiddling with it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    33. Re: Demonetization by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      We actually don't 'fiddle' with it.
      We got forced by the US to implement some thing like the DMCA.
      And Germany had a slight copyright reform strengthening the rights of creators (e.g. mandatory financial compensation if a new way to reuse a work is exploited by the 'labels')
      That basically is it. Besides that the copyright in Germany is basically the same as 150 years ago.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    34. Re: Demonetization by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think we are down to semantics. It's not static, even if you consider the changes minor. I used the word "fiddle" because I feel it implies minor change. So I think we agree on this point.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  2. Reptilians did the holocaust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    David Icke, a guy who believes reptilian aliens secretly control the world and are responsible for the Holocaust.

    What a moron. Everyone knows the Holocaust didn't happen.

    1. Re:Reptilians did the holocaust? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      So Nazi Germany never happened?

      Are you from Blight Insular 1 by any chance?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Reptilians did the holocaust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know, in many countries, saying bad things about certain religious figures is also illegal.
      In certain countries, saying bad things about the leader (and/or king depending) is also illegal.

      So, what exactly do you think your point was again? You think 'the internet' should follow the maximum possible interpretation of all laws in all states that it touches?
      Good luck with that.

    3. Re:Reptilians did the holocaust? by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Most of the holocaust deniers say that the prisoners died out of hunger rather than being systematically eliminated, due the lack of resources due the war etc..
      But i don't think that makes it any better, as now we have a scenario where the nazi just sat and watched everyone starve to death, instead of just surrendering em to the allies etc..

    4. Re:Reptilians did the holocaust? by butchersong · · Score: 1

      I think revisionist is a better label than denier which is something of a pejorative. While it may still be offensive, many of their positions seem to be along the lines of "this building couldn't have been used for a gas chamber". Stuff like that. These are things we should be able to debate in the light of day.

    5. Re:Reptilians did the holocaust? by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seriously are comparing dictatorships and other almost-totalitarian regimes to a modern democracy?

      Which one is the democracy?

      Freedom of speech does not equal the privilege to insult others at will.

      That's pretty much exactly what the fuck it is. Dumbass. No, really. The first amendment exists because King George didn't like colonists talking smack about him, and used military force to suppress opinions. Maybe you think that political speech is different than calling you a dumbass. That's because you're a dumbass. King Dumbass, in fact..... And I don't quite like the royal decrees you've made concerning what I may or may not say.

      There is such thing as a mature discussion.

      You're new to the Internets, I see.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    6. Re:Reptilians did the holocaust? by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Freedom of speech does not equal the privilege to insult others at will.

      Yes it does, you fuckstain.

    7. Re:Reptilians did the holocaust? by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      First amendment protections is just something we use to soothe our denial about the takeover by profit driven institutions of the public square. Your right to speech on the internet is limited to what corporations are willing to tolerate, not what is considered legal under the constitution.

      If you don't like it, feel free to start your own platform, isp, domain registrar, and data exchange. If you manage to get that far, watch out for someone to nail you for 'hate speech' violations, or failing to censor thereof. Good luck.

  3. The Internet - the meme machine by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the 90's I once heard someone boast that the Internet is the place where religions go to die...

    Little did he know that the Internet is where even more bizarre and unsustainable ideas such as Flat Earth and Lizard rulers go to get new life and willing meme hosts.

    1. Re:The Internet - the meme machine by asavage · · Score: 2

      I also thought in the early 90's the internet could bring enlightenment as everyone in the world would have access human knowledge. Unfortunately in reality people have just sought out like minded individuals.

  4. Reptilians Rule the World? I'd buy that. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ... Reptilians Rule the World ...

    Have you seen photos of our World Leaders and Corporate Overlords? Many of them probably keep really young spouses hostage so they can leech youth from them while they sleep.

    Of course, like all reptiles, they love their sunshine.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Reptilians Rule the World? I'd buy that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I agree! Has anyone ever tried to negotiate with an alligator? They ignore your offers and the only counter-offer is biting down hard on you and rapidly spinning. Your body parts come off and they eat you. End of negotiations.

    2. Re:Reptilians Rule the World? I'd buy that. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      I have seen a picture of Macron's wife, yes.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    3. Re:Reptilians Rule the World? I'd buy that. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      She's old, but I doubt she predates mammals.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. That's Icke by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The difference between the "alternative" and conspiracy media in the UK and the US outlets like Infowars is that David Icke actually challenges the prevailing political power structure, where Infowars supports and is used by the prevailing political power structure.

    This is a complete reversal for conspiracy media in the United States. Until very recently, it was always hostile to those in power. Today, it is the tool of those in power.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. Please don't take these down by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they are very entertaining. The best(worst) are the contrail conspiracies.

    1. Re:Please don't take these down by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In 10 years, they may be the only service around anymore. Copyright holders are pushing to overturn the DMCA stuff that lets services not be held responsible for copyright violations as long as they take down such when notified, in a timely manner.

      This helped the Internet and its companies grow explosively in the US. Only the giants will be able to provide anymore if this is repealed.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Please don't take these down by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's a really tricky one because children don't have the mental tools to realize that these videos are outlandish conspiracy theories and not credible. The marketplace of ideas is great but only if the buyers are informed and capable of making good decisions.

      That's why religions put so much emphasis on indoctrinating kids. Try convincing an adult that there is an invisible man pulling all the strings who will torture you for eternity if you don't obey his seemingly arbitrary rules.

      Someone will probably blame the parents, which is valid but also impractical. Like TV, YouTube is probably going to have to be the responsible babysitter.

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

      isn't that right? i mean, maybe this Icke guy is just a joker. who can tell the difference between the onion and real news anymore these days?

      --
      On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    4. Re:Please don't take these down by butchersong · · Score: 1
      Every culture tells their children stories -indoctrinates them.

      I am not a practicing christian or anything but Christianity has grown more appealing to me with age rather than less. A child might read the bible and take away the simplistic (a little snide) interpretation of hell you outlined... An adult might read it and decide it is a metaphor. Alternatively, if taken as true, they might decide that hell is a separation from god in the afterlife and that sheol or hades is where all spirits used to go but now you have a place in gods house. The existence in sheol then becomes hell only due to the absence of god and all the godly people who are now in heaven. What is left is the horrors other souls and spirits inflict on one another.. something like that like I said I'm not really an expert on Christianity.

  7. Kids search for term, get videos by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why shouldn't the kids see these videos? It's not like it's porn or bloody murder. So they get to see a kook, and their parents get a lot of questions for a week.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    1. Re:Kids search for term, get videos by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      Kids are very suggestable. Even if they can identify a lot of it is garbage, there may be some parts that they internalise and later come to believe as the truth, just through distorted memories and "hearing from someone once". Doesn't take much for 1 kid to tell another kid about this "truth", and the 2nd kid believes it and repeats it everywhere.

      Also I doubt a kid is going to watch a 5 hour lecture, but they might watch the first 5 minutes and take whatever is said away.

    2. Re:Kids search for term, get videos by sheramil · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't the kids see these videos?

      Indeed! And someone has to tell the kids about Slenderman. It's better than having them find out the hard way.

    3. Re:Kids search for term, get videos by chihowa · · Score: 2

      So we agree that kids are very suggestible and we (as a society) have come to the conclusion that massive advertising agencies with teams of people that are trained in psychological manipulation can have access to children (for profit), but children can't even be accidentally exposed to crackpots because something might be repeated to another kid.

      Actually, it is't we as a society that have come to this conclusion but Alphabet, the largest advertising company in the world.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    4. Re:Kids search for term, get videos by butchersong · · Score: 1

      So.. who determines what is "wrong think"? Does this mean all christian, jewish, islamic, buddhist and mythological content is out of bounds? Assuming Ike isn't going into sex cults and any of his more adult oriented video content should he really be excluded?

    5. Re:Kids search for term, get videos by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Ironically, one of the things my son has internalized is that everything is marketing (Thanks, Adam Conover!). Now when he sees somebody who probably doesn't have an agenda, his first instinct is to assume they have a profit motive and are lying. Kind of sad for him to lose that innocence, but good for him to be aware. I wish I had had a little less naivety growing up. Would have saved me a lot of trouble (and money).

  8. Greedy Google by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Google needs to stop being greedy and spend money on staff to vet EVERY video. After all, that service isn't free.

  9. Re:So what? by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Climate change could easily turn parts of the Middle East from dry to a high humidity. The difference is if it's high humidity you can't sweat and die in the shade even if young and healthy. Suddenly vast areas become uninhabitable, and nuclear powers like Pakistan and India are at high risk. No, a bit of ocean rise won't kill people, but turning a nuclear power into a wasteland that then needs to chose between invading other countries or die off, or even just the changing regions that supply food, is almost guaranteed to cause hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths. It could even start a nuclear war. That's why the military has been taking this seriously as a real cause of instability for the last 30 years.

  10. Icke = anti-War, pro-Human... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem with Icke is that he constantly speads an ANTI-WAR agenda, with well considered pro-Humanist arguments. The exact opposite of team Blair/Clinton/Merkel/Macron etc.

    David Icke is the enemy of all Fabian (named as Ingsoc in Orwell's 1984) organisations, especially the BBC and Guardian newspaper (both of which were at the forefront of pushing Blair's Iraq WMD lies to the planet).

    Icke's books are remarkable when you ignore the 10% of colourful fantasy all such thinkers seem to include. But it is the commonplace tactic of the state to ensure this 10% gets all the attention.

    Meanwhile Google, the owner of Youtube, has purchased all available military robot design and manufacturing facilities, and is busy on a trillion dollar project to design and build the tank drone forces that are commonly refered to as "teminator-style genocide machines". In other words Icke and Google are on exact opposite sides of the moral spectrum- Google being (as it always has been) pure evil.

    On google's 'child friendly' youtube, children are told that Hillary Clinton's holocaust of Libya was a "good thing". Letting you kids access the child-friendly version of youtube is like allowing them to spend time alone with a catholic priest.

  11. Re:people is stupid, we must save you from videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We do it with religion, which is just as ludicrous as snake aliens controlling people through chemtrails and chlorinated water, so either take down all the religious content as well or fucking grow a pair and leave it all up.

  12. Really? by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 5, Informative

    You have underestimated the power of... stupid.

    I know several Flat Earthers and there is no evidence you can supply them to convince them otherwise. They go so far as to Thank Jesus for revealing the Truth to them.

    1. Re:Really? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They could do the same thing the ancient Greeks did to prove the world was round -- observe the shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse is always round. The only object that projects a round shadow regardless of its angle is a ball.

      Then if they like, they could measure the angle of a stick's shadow at noon on the same day, in two places hundreds of miles away, north and south. They will be different angles and you can calculate the size of tbe Earth-as-ball.

      Then, knowing how big the Earth is, they can calculate the size of the moon based on Earth's shadow.

      Then, knowing how big the moon is, they can calculate how far away it is.

      This will catch them all up to the ancient Greeks, who did this hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They could do the same thing the ancient Greeks did to prove the world was round ...

      Logic and reason are useless against invincible ignorance. Witness buying religions from someone who wrote "the way to get rich is to start a religion" and politics from someone who wrote the art of the deal is to "tell people what they want to hear."

    3. Re:Really? by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 2

      You're making the mistake of assuming they want to discover the truth. What most want to do is rewrite the 'facts' to fit better into their personal world view (which is generally something more spiritual with mankind at the centre of the universe).

    4. Re:Really? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      People tend to "believe" what they "learned" first.

      So if your parents had told you at age of 4 that the earth is flat, you would be convinced, too, that the earth is flat.

      No idea why the question if the earth is flat or not is relevant on /. since a year so much.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Really? by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Are you very sure you were debating flat earthers and not just accomplished trolls? I'm not entirely convinced there are that many online that actually believe the earth to be flat.

    6. Re:Really? by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      But to what end? I have yet to understand WHY flat-earthers even exist. What could they possibly gain by not even attempting to disprove their own crazy-ass theories? There's no financial motive. There's no power motive. And how did the belief become so deep-seated in the first place? It can't just be stupidity. Do they really know the truth, and it's all a big joke? That would at least make some sense. A humor motive is better than no motive.

    7. Re:Really? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      observe the shadow of the Earth on the moon during a lunar eclipse

      Shadow? There's a dragon eating it!

      The takeaway: no matter how wrong you think nutters are, they know they're right.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Really? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I know several Flat Earthers and there is no evidence you can supply them to convince them otherwise.

      I don't know any flat-earthers, but I find it hard that anyone sincerely believes it is true. I think they're just trolls trying to annoy people who get annoyed by such things. That's why you just ignore the trolls instead of feeding them.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  13. Silly Human, YouTube's not for kids by newbie_fantod · · Score: 1

    It seems that just mentioning YouTube in a story automatically conjures up a 15 point drop in the average IQ of its commenters.

  14. Re: assassinated by his own government. by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    Presidents aren't just assassinated by random individuals.....except for McKinley, Garfield, Lincoln(can argue that's technically not random,but it was no great conspiracy), and the attempt on Reagan. So yes, Kennedy most likely was just an assassination by a random, crazy indiviual.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  15. wut? wut? by gDLL · · Score: 1

    >> The difference is if it's high humidity you can't sweat and die in the shade even if young and healthy.
    Erm, you mean like a... jungle? Aka the place where you can grow crops/fruit with great productivity ? So ppl have not been living in jungles for milions of years ? And also ever heard of air conditioning?

    1. Re:wut? wut? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      This is the same humidity as a jungle - which is 85-95 degrees F, but instead is 120F. Death occurs in a matter of hours even in healthy people.

    2. Re:wut? wut? by Lanthanide · · Score: 1

      People living in shacks tend not to have air conditioning. The traditional forms of construction have relied on it being dry heat.

      It's not very sensible to assume that the amenities you find commonplace are the same all over the world in every country.

    3. Re:wut? wut? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      When I landed in Qatar it was 117 with 100% humidity. I adjusted to it pretty quickly after the WTF shock. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

    4. Re:wut? wut? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      100% humidity dosent mean rain. A sauna can be 120F and 100% humidity. Get locked in one for 6 hours and it can easily be a death sentence.

    5. Re:wut? wut? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Ok, so you are in your "sellar". Water is low, food is gone. Now what? Lol

  16. No kids in the house by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    But could someone check if there are some good videos of Jesus riding a dinosaur in the kids section?

    I pretty mush only use youtube for (free) movies, music videos and Russian Car Crash videos.

    1. Re:No kids in the house by PeterGM · · Score: 1

      If you're not watching Steve eat a 30 year old MRE then the only person missing out is you my friend.

      Nice.

      --
      There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
    2. Re:No kids in the house by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 1

      No hiss.

      --
      liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
  17. Re:And everything we see isn't... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    One gets around this with actual measurements on the quality and length of life.

    It's getting better, and, as long as people are economically free to solve problems, they will be solved faster than they become serious, and conditions will continue to improve.

    The error in the so-called Chicken Little warnings was refusing to recognize this process works, and so well you can make predictions with it on the quality and length of life, price of commodities, and so on.

    Actual measurements.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  18. At last! by PeterGM · · Score: 1

    Good to see legitimately educational videos being made easily available to kids online. It's like vaccination: expose them to just enough stupid for them to build up a sufficient tolerance.

    --
    There are no stupid questions, just stupid people.
  19. Time Honored Tradition by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Funny

    Instead of removing the conspiracy videos, we need MORE of them.

    Remember the Calvin & Hobbes comics, where the dad would make up nonsense about the past - like the world being in black & white until 1950 or so? Well Dads (and uncles) across time have reserved the right to feed kids the most outlandish nonsense about how the universe is or works.

    Besides the LOLs, it provides great practical value for the kids as they learn to question EVERYTHING. I just see conspiracy videos playing into that grad tradition.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Time Honored Tradition by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      That's my favorite C+H strip of all time! "A lot of great artists were insane."

    2. Re:Time Honored Tradition by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I'd forgotten just how great that strip really was - "because they were color pictures of a black and white world". Awesome.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  20. Re:So what? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    Even been to Houston in August?

  21. 'Kids'? by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    Kids TV and conspiracy theories are perfect viewing for stoners. Are they screwing up the algorithms?!

    1. Re:'Kids'? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nope, they're as far as I can tell the target audience. At least I know no kids that are boring enough to watch "Kids TV".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Terrible! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    They should only allow content from respectable people like Louis Farrakhan!

    1. Re: Terrible! by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      You just proved my point. His rantings are exactly as insane as reptilian whatever, but we have to pretend that his content is respectable.

  23. Obviousssssly by nospam007 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It issss abssssssolutely a ssssstupid thing to believe.

    1. Re:Obviousssssly by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      Sure, as soon as the reptilians saw that we are educating the children about reality, they want to take those vids down.
      Now the children will only hear about this stuff through rumor and gossip, so they won't possibly find it believable.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
  24. Kids certainly shouldn't be subjected to the truth by BrookSmith · · Score: 1

    Kids certainly shouldn't be subjected to the truth about the moon landings.

  25. It's all Children's Stories by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    I don't know why this is particularly worrying. There are lots of children's stories that are more horrific and less believable: Hansel and Gretel, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk etc. That's providing you look at the originals and not the heavily sanitized Disney versions.

    Most kids are smart enough to realize that the world is not run by reptilian aliens in the same way that they don't worry about running into an evil witch who eats children and lives in a gingerbread house every time they go into a forest. As for the few that are not perhaps it is worth exposing them to this sort of thing while there is an adult around to point out that it is just a fairy story so they can learn that not everything they hear is true.

  26. Relax by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Psychologists all over the world agree that kids need fairy tales.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Relax by OzoneLad · · Score: 1

      I was exposed to lots of fairy tales as a kid. No one swore up and down that they were *real*, though. It was always clear (to me, at least), that they were make-believe and meant either as entertainment or lessons. When fairy tales are presented as *fact*, we have a problem.

    2. Re:Relax by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So your parents never tried to convince you of Santa and the Easter Bunny being real?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. Good by SCVonSteroids · · Score: 1

    They need to understand from a very young age that there is a lot of false information on the internet. If they end up watching these videos it's in large parts because they're interested in it. When they find out a few things they've been shown are false, they'll be more likely to start digging deeper for answers.

    Stop trying to cover stuff; it only adds credibility to the lie.

    --
    I tend to rant.
  28. Re:LHC by sexconker · · Score: 1

    It was Father.

    Power cut out as they approached 40 TeV, the room got super cold, and when power was restored Father was gone. In the chair were Father's clothes and effects. If you don't know who "Father" was, or what the LHC is actually doing, you need to wake the fuck up. Remember the recent explosions at the LHC?

    I know you clowns won't go look into it, and will instead wallow in your ignorance, so I'll offer you the quickest summary possible:
    The people in control of the LHC and CERN are basically replicating Doom (the video game).

  29. Not a new theory; remember "V"...? by martinfb · · Score: 1

    This reptilian aliens theme is not a new theory; remember "V"

    I'd like to propose another hypothesis: Mr Icke, or those promoting his claims, have actually watched that Sci Fi series "V" way back when it ran.
    And, this hypothesis further proposes that Icke was intoxicated somehow, so as to suppress his memory of it being a TV series.


    The world is actually a simulation based in a computer matrix! ;-)

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  30. Re:Slashdot: crazier than Icke by doccus · · Score: 1

    I thought we already had our "Trumph" for democracy. And as far as "democracy" goes.. well, hey it really did go. Far far away. But that's OK.. Kids can amuse themselves with David Uckey and his invisible reptilian friends while Trumph keeps "draining the swamp". So which is the bigger pile if steaming bull droppings, anyways? If i had to choose i think I'd rather show my kids Yuckey than Trumpet.. Now the moon thing, though...

  31. Re:LHC by Merk42 · · Score: 1

    Looks clean shaven, possibly mute though.
    Security footage here

  32. Are you sure it wasn't Blck Mesa? by Chaset · · Score: 1

    > the claim that CERN's Large Hadron Collider had opened a portal to another world that an unfortunate employee then vanished in.

    Was his name, per chance, Gordon Freeman?

    --
    -- "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."
  33. Re:Global warming = more food by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Even if it means more food, changing weather will change where it grows. Once prosperous regions can go infertile, and arid regions fertile. This will cause mass refugee problems and or outright war. That's where the real risk is and why the US millitary has been taking it seriously for 30 years now.