Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Is Fighting Conspiracy Theories With 'Authoritative' Context and Outside Links (theverge.com)
In an effort to reduce misinformation on YouTube, the video-sharing website will be adding "authoritative" context to search results about conspiracy-prone topics, as well as putting $25 million toward news outlets producing videos. YouTube made the announcement today as part of a new step in its Google News Initiative, a journalism-focused program that aims to help publishers earn revenue and combat fake news. The Verge reports: This update includes new features for breaking news updates and long-standing conspiracy theories. YouTube is implementing a change it announced in March, annotating conspiracy-related pages with text from "trusted sources like Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica." And in the hours after a major news event, YouTube will supplement search results with links to news articles, reasoning that rigorous outlets often publish text before producing video.
YouTube is also funding a number of partnerships. It's establishing a working group that will provide input on how it handles news, and it's providing money for "sustainable" video operations across 20 markets across the world, in addition to expanding an internal support team for publishers.
YouTube is also funding a number of partnerships. It's establishing a working group that will provide input on how it handles news, and it's providing money for "sustainable" video operations across 20 markets across the world, in addition to expanding an internal support team for publishers.
Sometimes it's fun to watch tinfoil-hat videos... But if you ARE going to try to be "authoritative", please do NOT use fresh news articles, especially about anything political, racial, or climate-based. Many of those have "corrections" issued a few days later, meaning that they were NOT in fact, authoritative. Better to just let it go as-is, and stop trying to hand-hold the viewer. Let people learn when they screw up, and learn the lesson that sometimes you need to check the facts that you hear, and also look at the other side as well to see if it has a better position backed with facts and logic.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Could you also eliminate fails videos and the 'you won't believe this trick' shit? Who the fuck is making all of these fake videos?
Frankly, it would be great is Youtube scrapped the recommendations all together. They suck balls.
The problem is that you have to have trust in the authoritative sources and the first thing the vast majority of the conspiracy peddlars do is to throw massive amounts of doubt upon said sources. This quickly devolves into a one side versus the other argument that authoritative sources almost never win.
It comes down to how you cannot reason someone out of a idea they didn't arrive at through reason in the first place.
It deletes them as “undue weight” or “not notable”. You also have the reverting admins. Anyone who likes conspiracies don’t use Wikipedia as a source due to the “admin conspiracy”. When Wikipedia whines for donations, tell them your money is “not notable”.
So, now we need to update the old Russian saying
""there's no truth in Pravda, and no You in YouTube"
> Admin conduct hasn't changed since, Wikipedia's a joke.
Wow, Wiki bashing. How 2010.
Combating fake news with Wikipedia ? Surely you jest....
Yay, let's make YouTube even more bland than it already is!
I question whether this will do much to slow down those who follow the conspiracy theories. They actively seek out crazy plots to explain their distorted realities and will either move towards private websites that dish up these juicy rumors du jour or will dismiss any YouTube evidence as "evidence" and think the men in black helicopters have taken over the site. At the end of the day, we seek out sites that confirm our view of the world. We have news agencies that cater to the spectrum of political beliefs that help confirm to you that Obama is a Kenyan or that Trump is a Russian puppet. If you believe 9/11 was a government plot, I doubt you will take the time to read an NYT article to refute it, even if it is offered on the same page.
The reason "fake news" can thrive is because MSM is so constantly horseshit that people correctly distrust it. The problem is that the replacements often have lower quality and reliability. The answer is to bludgeon MSM into shape. Ban CNN's account for a week when they post a bullshit story, and this will be resolved pretty quickly, because it's treating the cause. What Youtube is proposing here is treating the symptoms.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
This quickly devolves into a one side versus the other argument that authoritative sources almost never win.
Depends on what you mean by "win". If by "win" you mean that the conspiracy theorists are convinced of the error of their ways, yeah, that's not going to happen. But if you mean that you'll prevent a significant number of visitors who would otherwise get sucked into the weirdness from getting sucked in, that seems much more feasible.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Aside from that, Wikipedia authors are supposed to cite reliable sources in the articles. Why? Because Wikipedia itself isn't a reliable source, it's only roughly as reliable as the sources it cites (or doesn't).
That said, on most topics it ends up being pretty good.
Please. Judge Dredd had the law to answer to. Admins at wikipedia have only the lynch mob of their peers.
Jimbo pretty much nailed it many years back, when he was asked about it. Paraphrasing from memory, "wikipedia isn't about facts, it's about popular opinions".
It comes down to how you cannot reason someone out of a idea they didn't arrive at through reason in the first place.
And I wish YouTube would realize that trying to police reason, logic, and facts on their platform makes herding cats look easy.
They will. Soon enough.
"Liberal view points" are the exact same thing actually.
And then there is the non-extremist overwhelming majority that don't do that shit on either side that actually get views unlike most of the extremist content that is watched by almost no one, but that would get in the way of your narrative, so let's not talk about them.
Wikipedia. As a trusted source.
Absolutely. Nobody is claiming that it is a primary source or should be trusted blindly but it's demonstrably a reliable source for quite a huge amount of information. Honestly I trust it more than I do quite a number of so-called "news" sources. No source should be trusted independently of verification.
That's hysterical, really. Wikipedia's lies-by-omission and scandals surrounding admins controlling and twisting content are legendary.
And that is different from any other source of news and information how exactly? Plus you clearly are overstating the scope of the problem substantially. ("Legendary"?) Most Wikipedia articles are fine and reliable sources of information that is entirely verifiable if you are concerned about any of it.
Admin conduct hasn't changed since, Wikipedia's a joke.
You sound butthurt about something though it's not clear what exactly. Wikipedia is useful. Nobody is claiming it is perfect. It's certainly proven reasonably reliable for a wide variety of use cases. It's not a primary source so if you need that go elsewhere and use appropriate skepticism at all times anyway.
Those are not much of a problem for the "lefties".
It's the actually liberal ones such as pointing that social justice is not seeking actual equality and that you should not censor any sort of speech that are.
But that said, youtube is doing the right thing here, actually bringing in the discussion to the table, but i think it would be better if the "authorities" were picked by the users rather than the site itself.
The reason this is bad because currently the "authoritative" sources are actually incredibly biased, manufacture stories, and often hide information to further an agenda. They understand that if you control the narrative, you can manufacture a reality, or at least keep compliant people invested in such a narrative.
For example, you might yell tinfoil hate but here are a few off the top of my head:
Dan Rather, anchor long time CBS anchor, forced to resign in disgrace for manufacturing anti-conservative news http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBI...
Funny if you read the NY times and other articles attempting to pretend this was a normal stepping down
Brian Williams, NBC making false claims https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
NPR admitting press is biased and making up stories https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/...
If i need, I can go on. The point being it is easy to paint others with pejoratives like "tin foil hat" while failing to even consider much that you believe is likely from tainted perspective. Many people rightly fear that google (aka youtube) are censoring opinions that poke holes in their world view. Fake-news is more about people who disagree, not with people posting things that are untrue.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
Title fixed. This is all about suppressing news that goes against the establishment narrative - if Youtube had been big in 2003 it would have been tagging videos questioning Saddam's WMD's and ties to Al Queda as conspiracy theories.
Speaking of CT, Youtube doesn't give a shit about batshit crazy theories as long as they're coming from CNN or MSDNC. Like how Putin was such a master chess player that he knew years in advance that a professional wrestling character could be president, but at the same time was completely unable to anticipate any blowback in messing with an election. Or how Assad never uses chemical weapons when it would be to his tactical advantage, but loves to drop gas the very day weapon inspectors arrive in the country, or the United States announces a withdrawal from its regime change operations.
If Youtube was honest here, every other clip from Fox, CNN or Rachael Madcow would be the ones coming with disclaimers and debunking information.
Because if they don't, mad people with pitchforks will make business very difficult for them. Or so they believe.
damaged by dogma
This. Fighting irrational/illogical/counterfactual thinking is like fighting an outbreak of zombie virus: Trying to find a cure is a waste of time and may even be impossible, it's much more important to contain the spread - that means reducing new exposure. The authoritative videos are like a zombie proximity warning system. Won't help the zombies, but it will help to keep the uninfected but vulnerable from becoming infected.
People who want to spread ideologies that rely on irrational/illogical/counterfactual thinking know this, that's why deplorables flip the fuck out about no-platforming, because that shit works wonders. The "sunlight is the best disinfectant" argument is equivalent to arguing for spraying zombie virus on a crowd of people who have mostly been immunized...sure, most of them won't pick it up, but some will, and now there are more zombies than before. It's indistinguishable from clever, underhanded malevolence.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
An even better option might be to apply a quality filter to search results so that bullshit conspiracy brain damage sinks down the search ratings. Demonetize it too.
Here are the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
It's very clear that being published does NOT make it reliable. Publication is generally a prerequisite to citing a source simply because others need to be able to refer to the source and see it for themselves. For example, I once heard Mikhail Gorbachev say something interesting, in person. I can't cite that as a source because you can't tell if he actually said what I claim. I could have heard him wrong, or I could completely make up the whole incident. To cite it, I'd need to find video available of his remarks or something.
Where publication is key is determining NOTABILITY. If several large publications carry stories about something, it's notable (almost by definition, since people noticed it). That goes to the notability of the *topic*, not anything specifically the sources say about it. For example, the '57 Chevy is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article as evidenced by the many articles and even books written about it, plus songs, paintings, etc. The new product I thought up this morning does not yet have any evidence of notability because nobody besides me has eve heard of it. The fact that lots of people write (and even sing) about the '57 Chevy makes it notable - quite apart from any claims they make about the Chevy. Eric Clapton and Don McLean aren't reliable sources of information about the Chevy, they are evidence that the culture took notice of it. These are two separate things.
I cannot help but notice that since the US President was elected with zero endorsements from "papers of record" or "mainstream media outlets" that there has been an all out assault on the freedom of speech that was once a hallmark of the internet, furthermore that assault has had a hard leftward bend. I would bet money that "Spying on Trump campaign" or "FBI Political Bias" would have all been filtered out as conspiracy theories by "Authoritative Sources" and yet they have been proven true with nothing left but to argue over the motivation. People must be allowed to come to their own conclusions; you only increase mistrust by filtering away counter perspectives and ideas. Let people argue thoughts in the battle field of ideas instead of trying to control the narrative, maybe then you can avoid an actual war.
Go back to your lotteries, you simple minded Proletarians.
Why make up misinformation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I lost my suspension of disbelief at "trusted sources like Wikipedia"
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
I think they meant "authoritarian".
I'm afraid those have all be verified by authoritative sources.
Sorry, you fail. Post the fucking evidence.
This is a likely scenario, but the division will not be what you think. It'll be more like a big cluster of big power who declare trust in each other, and those who don't trust them are refused any platform. It's like the NYTimes trusts the Pentagon and the CIA. Wikipedia trusts the NYTimes. Youtube trusts the NYTimes and Wikipedia. Big interests trust Youtube because they get some control over the output. So the CIA considers Youtube safe.
The essence of a conspiracy theorist is not the incompetence but that he distrusts.
So on the other half of the divide will be an awful lot of people who don't trust the system anymore. They'll be right. Youtube will flag their posts.
The truth of the moonlandings is not that important.It's trivia. Nobody who matters believes in fake moonlandings, it has no effect on people's actions(although it makes you doubt their general competence), and nobody who believes in that gets a trusted platform or ever did get such a platform. Who cares about fake news. It's just clickbait. Mostly.
The IT giants are lining themselves up to control what we're supposed to believe. They want to be our corporatised "Ministry of Information" that puts us back on the straight and narrow path of groupthink. All news is fake, by definition. It's all biased, skewed, and has hidden or overt agendas, e.g. the UK's Daily Mail and Fox News. Google et al. want to be the gatekeepers who decide. Just imagine how powerful that'd make them.
And remember that Google took money from BP during the Gulf of Mexico disaster to hide news and information that was critical about BP and their responses to the disaster. Do we want to allow them to entrench their commercial and political power even further?
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
That's simply false.
If the "mistaken" news organization trumpets the original on page one and buries the correction on page 27 (like nearly all printed sources, and many TV presenters) then correcting the original means little.
... YMMV.
If they fix the posted story (like websites can and sometimes do) AND leave the information that the story was updated then yes, they can keep a bunch of credibility.
If, however, they pull down the original story and post a different story WITHOUT posting the fact that they have updated things, then no, they get no points for credibility. Getting it wrong should matter if you are in the news business. Getting it FIRST instead of getting it RIGHT is one of the most annoying things the "news" organizations do these days
Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Hey Inforwars has great news. Didn't you see the on about how the elites keep their sex slaves on Mars? CNN wouldn't dare publish such news.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
If you were a Wikipedia editor, you would know otherwise.
Most commonly used by Sam Harris and his fanboys when anyone points out his psychopathic rationalizations, imperialist hypocrisy and racist islamophobia. "Using words that have come out of my mouth is quote mining and that's sooooo unfair!" (stomps feet).
The problem with Media Matters isn't quoting, it's that they've turned into a purely tribalist organization for the DNC that will go to great lengths to ignore right wing bullshit if its coming from Democrats, or to rationalize it.
Why the wingnut misdirection? It was the Killian's secretary who verified the commander had written memos critical of Bush. And back to the subject of delusional wingnut standards that apply to only one person and for only one situation - how many people were fired for repeating lies told about Iraq. How many news organizations keep archivists and typography experts on staff to inspect every document before it goes to air.
Facts getting in the way of your wingnut religion? The memos were verified for accuracy of their content and that's just a fact you'll have to deal with. Now, piss off unless you want to hold that standard to the rest of the media, in which case every editor, reporter and anchor across the country is going to be out of a job tomorrow.