Slashdot Mirror


Google CEO Admits Company Must Better Address the Spread of Conspiracy Theories on YouTube (techcrunch.com)

Google CEO Sundar Pichai admitted today that YouTube needs to do better in dealing with conspiracy content on its site that can lead to real-world violence. From a report: During his testimony on Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee, the exec was questioned on how YouTube handles extremist content that promotes conspiracy theories like Pizzagate and, more recently, a Hillary Clinton-focused conspiracy theory dubbed Frazzledrip. According to an article in Monday's Washington Post, Frazzledrip is a variation on Pizzagate that began spreading on YouTube this spring. In a bizarre series of questions, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) asked Pichai if he knew what Frazzledrip was.

Pichai replied that he was "not aware of the specifics about it." Raskin went on to explain that the recommendation engine on YouTube has been suggesting videos that claim politicians, celebrities and other leading figures were "sexually abusing and consuming the remains of children, often in satanic rituals." He said these new conspiracist claims were echoing the discredited Pizzagate conspiracy, which two years ago led to a man firing shots into a Washington, D.C. pizzeria, in search of the children he believed were held as sex slaves by Democratic Party leaders.

328 comments

  1. YouTube is listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They see and hear what you watch, then they use that information for deep web research to sell.

    1. Re: YouTube is listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seems like we are beyond laughing matters. I remember a story - I canâ(TM)t find it anymore and they must have removed it - where google stopped showing ads finally. Itâ(TM)s no laughing matter these things.

    2. Re:YouTube is listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and the rise of Flat Earthers is astonishing. They all ignore and abuse any convention that does not evolve from their tiny minds. If you take all the FE's out their and put take ALL their theories and put together they would never survive on this earth. Some video's I have seen where they do not believe in Oxygen, There is a glass dome above us, cameras only work when you actually look at them, evolution does not exist, NASA are liars, It's does not rain, Ships structure gets squeezed when they reach the horizon but magically expand back and repair the damage when they come from the horizon, Antarctica is just a 100m wall of ice and this keeps the oceans on the flat surface. For some great FE debunking videos Google should promote SciManDan and Conspiracy Catz

    3. Re:YouTube is listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they want you to think.

    4. Re:YouTube is listening by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

      Most flat-earthers don't actually believe the earth is flat and are merely trolling for their own amusement. Climate change deniers ditto.
      Some men just want to watch the world burn.

    5. Re: YouTube is listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      200 years or recorded temps relative to age of Earth. It's like having a 6.5 foot stick and measuring the curvature of the earth. Nobody looks at a stock curve for a few seconds then extrapolates out 10 years to determine potential ROI...why do we do this with the climate? Because...there's great money to be made and foolishness afoot.

    6. Re: YouTube is listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be approved to talk about approved conspiracy theories...

    7. Re: YouTube is listening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'd be a valid point if we had no climate data older than 200 years.
      The data we have reaches back a few million years, although resolution and accuracy suffer at the far ends. Not so much for the past 1000 years, though.

    8. Re:YouTube is listening by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Never met any, so I'm surprised to find someone who knows the inner thoughts of most of them.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    9. Re: YouTube is listening by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      We have an interesting datapoint at 12,800 years back that is far more appropriate to look at: A time of extremely rapid climate change, one that our ancestors barely survived, and large numbers of species didn't. A combination wildfire and flood that left a black stain at that layer of the soil across North America, Europe, and Asia; that inspired flood legends around the world; that when things settled down resulted in a 1200 year ice age.

      Wouldn't knowing how our primitive ancestors survived that be worth more than playing politics?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    10. Re: YouTube is listening by dryeo · · Score: 1

      200 years or recorded temps relative to age of Earth. It's like having a 6.5 foot stick and measuring the curvature of the earth. Nobody looks at a stock curve for a few seconds then extrapolates out 10 years to determine potential ROI...why do we do this with the climate? Because...there's great money to be made and foolishness afoot.

      The first person to measure the curvature of the Earth used a small stick, perhaps 6.5 ft and was pretty accurate.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    11. Re: YouTube is listening by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      Presumably we would like to avoid "barely surviving" by not knowingly walking ourselves into the same situation.

    12. Re: YouTube is listening by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Too late, we already have. Climate change is happening, whether we like it or not, and regardless of what we do.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  2. There is a conspiracy theory.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a conspiracy theory and involves the entire stuff of Google.

  3. Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus Google, just split off the conspiracy theory videos into it's own paid channel "YouTube Nutter".

    This will immediately kill off all such content, given the success of YouTube Red, YouTube Music, YouTube TV, YouTube Premium, etc.

    1. Re:Split It Off And Charge by DaHat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Plenty of Ancient Alien's episodes on YouTube, which come from the History Channel (which is usually legit).

      Where would they go? They seem popular enough to run for 13 seasons.

      Those are just innocent conspiracy theories? Ever stop to think about the racism of them? Suggesting that PoC wouldn't have been able to build the pyramids and other ancient structures on their own... but only with the help of aliens was it possible.

    2. Re:Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty of Ancient Alien's episodes on YouTube, which come from the History Channel (which is usually legit).

      Where would they go? They seem popular enough to run for 13 seasons.

      Those are just innocent conspiracy theories? Ever stop to think about the racism of them? Suggesting that PoC wouldn't have been able to build the pyramids and other ancient structures on their own... but only with the help of aliens was it possible.

      "YouTube Nutter" would be a fine place for them.

    3. Re:Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think it has anything to do with race, but the fact that nobody but them were able to accomplish such a feat in that time period. I guess for some it is easier to believe that aliens helped primitive man, than that primitive man was more intelligent than we give him credit for. It's interesting that you brought race into it though, since the Egyptians had white slaves (although this was long before the pyramids were built).

    4. Re:Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think it has anything to do with race, but the fact that nobody but them were able to accomplish such a feat in that time period.

      Central/south Americans & Egyptians... not exactly white folks, long ago built great structures... yet the Europeans didn't. Apparently the ancient aliens didn't like them?

      It's interesting that you brought race into it though, since the Egyptians had white slaves (although this was long before the pyramids were built).

      I brought race into it to demonstrate the silliness of more 'popular' conspiracy theories, which are apparently ok. After all, what's the point of conspiracy theories if you don't make em extra crazy?

      Unrelated, if you are referring to the Hebrew slaves, be careful who you say that to, as anyone on the alt-right will talk at length about how Jewish people aren't actually white. They can never quite explain how they will achieve their ethno-state and be successful keeping out Jewish people, when they can so easily blend in.

      Granted, the alt-right are kind of like communists, they believe that a wave of a magic fairy wand will achieve their end goal.

    5. Re:Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where would they go?

      You're right of course, and the idea of a separate YouTubeNutter site misses the point. This is not a question of where 'Ancient Aliens' or any conspiracy theory or other extremist material should go, it's not immediately a question of what should be censored or banned, it's a question of Google cleaning up its act as to the content it actively recommends.

      The current recommendation algorithms are calculated to throw up low quality, outright false, and extremist content. Promoting factual and quality information automatically is hard, after all sorting facts from bullshit is difficult enough for greater than 2/3rds of humanity. The "wisdom of the crowd" doesn't seem to be working too well here.

    6. Re:Split It Off And Charge by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

      If you go in for all that "human breed" stuff (IMHO we're all "Human" race), Egyptians are considered "white"....so are Jews. Whatever, I don't care how much melanin is in your skin.

    7. Re: Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White and Asian people had no problem navigating the earth, cutting stone, creating medicine, domesticating animals, and building the modern world eons ago.

      Meanwhile in Africa, before colonial times, they literally hadn't discovered the wheel, writing, math, or that raping a child isn't the cure for demon possession.

    8. Re: Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm alt right, and Jewish.

      Your narrative is fucking retarded.

      You can't even explain what "white" is, much less tell me how I fit into that category or not.

    9. Re:Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suggesting that PoC wouldn't have been able to build the pyramids

      I'm sure they did have a proof of concept, on a much smaller scale. It was probably dismantled after the real things were built, which is why there's no evidence of it.

    10. Re:Split It Off And Charge by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Some people just seem to have a chip on their shoulder all the time looking for anything that could possibly appear to hint that racism is involved. No, nobody ever said it was PoCs. The inference is that HUMANS didn't have the technology back then. Sheesh.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    11. Re: Split It Off And Charge by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      They aren't suggesting that the reason they would have been unable to do it is their skin color you dotard.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    12. Re: Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a fine idea actually.

      Maybe it could be started with some SEO redirecting to a custom URL?

      Allow social and market pressures to take care of this while still allowing me to get my funnies in. I actually learned quite a bit from the debunking and research videos the actual flat Earth vids are... Yeah let's stick with funny and a little sad.

    13. Re:Split It Off And Charge by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      More, Africa and South America were less affected by the Greenland Crater they discovered last month. The one that was likely a mile-wide iron asteroid that reset human society back to the stone age.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    14. Re:Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More, Africa and South America were less affected by the Greenland Crater they discovered last month. The one that was likely a mile-wide iron asteroid that reset human society back to the stone age.

      Um, that was the stone age!

      The Bronze Age didn't begin until about 3300 BC, long after the Greenland meteor hit.

    15. Re:Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought "PoC" meant "piece(s) of crap". The ancient Egyptians were basically white-ish, no sub-Saharan ancestry at all. Ramses II had red hair. Later there was some admixture, hardly any of it Black. Hoteps are crazier than the hollow-Earth Nazi flying saucer nuts.

    16. Re:Split It Off And Charge by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      There is some evidence that there was an earlier tool using civilization that got wiped out when the Greenland meteor hit. Primarily in Northern Africa, but also around the world. The inventors of the Pyramid seemed to have had, at one time, a global culture- and methods of cutting stone that we still cannot replicate to this day.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    17. Re: Split It Off And Charge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do all your alt right friends hate you? Must be awkward.

  4. Kill the comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First of all get rid of comments. They are worthless. Second just have a system that allows for rating videos and reporting abuse. That is really all you need.

    1. Re:Kill the comments by novakyu · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure YouTube has taken the exact opposite route. You know how so many YouTube creators encourage you to leave comments ("Tell us what you think" at the end of videos)? The ubiquity of such encouragements lead me to think they've been coached to do that, like at CreatorFest or something.

    2. Re: Kill the comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fuck off. If youre against people making comments and voicing their opinion why the fuck are you here

    3. Re: Kill the comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen YouTube comments?

      Who likes this video in 2018?
      Me too. Me too. It's the best. My mom loves this I didn't watch but it seems great. Random quote from video. Smiley. +1.

      Yeah all can be replaced with a rating.

      And if any of the comments are like slashdot, it would be better to delete them anyway. Who wants a huge Nazi banner under their video, or random ranting about other slashdot users.

  5. Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in search of the children he believed were held as sex slaves by Democratic Party leaders.

    1. Re:Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice the summary said "discredited" and not "disproven." Pizzagate was never investigated. Police never bothered looking into the claims. We have no idea what happened with it. It may be "discredited" in that the media claims it's false, but it's never been disproven because no one has ever seriously looked into it.

      Democrats are frequently tied to well-known pedophiles and there have been several high-profile incidents of child sexual assault rings involving Democrats and the left. Just Google "Clinton Epstein" or anything related to the Catholic church. Even if Pizzagate ultimately turns out to be false, it's not a stretch to assume similar things are happening.

    2. Re:Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "Trump Epstein" while you're at it.

    3. Re:Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      PIzzagate is absolutely real. I have no idea if it involves pizza, kiddies, or a specific pizza parlor. But you can go and read the damned emails yourself.
      They're clearly doing illegal, clandestine shit and using codewords for it all.

    4. Re:Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by chiefcrash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Notice the summary said "discredited" and not "disproven." Pizzagate was never investigated. Police never bothered looking into the claims. We have no idea what happened with it. It may be "discredited" in that the media claims it's false, but it's never been disproven because no one has ever seriously looked into it.

      This is a bit like saying nobody has disproven my theory that you molest sea anemones by candlelight. After all, there's no evidence that it doesn't happen, and nobody has really investigated it...

      Of course, there's no evidence that my theory is correct, or even enough evidence to launch an investigation, but let's not worry about that....

      I have to ask though: why sea anemones?

      --
      Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
    5. Re: Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why bother with an investigation?

      You would just argue with the results and claim there was a cover-up if the results didn't fit your paranoid fantasy. You don't want information, you want affirmation.

      Your baseless claims are interesting when one considers that Donnie Two Scoops was a Democrat for decades, including the years when Clinton was a NY Senator...

      Did his predatory instincts go away when he jumped the aisle?

    6. Re:Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahahaha. That was a good one.

    7. Re: Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Donald J. Trump was a New York businessman. He "joined" the Corruption Party in the hopes that by calling himself one of them, they'd stop interfering with his businesses. Didn't really work.

      But he was never really one of them.

    8. Re: Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by jd · · Score: 1

      https://www.gocomics.com/pearl...

      This explains everything.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    9. Re: Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by jd · · Score: 1

      Yes it has. The Republicans aren't interfering in the least in his use of illegal immigrants for slave labour.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    10. Re: Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was just a NY businessman who ran in the same circles of the Clintons and Harvey Weinstein, but I'm sure that was all just a happy coincidence. It's not like the Clintons were at his third wedding or anything...

      Let's not forget that he supported Roy Moore down in 'Bama. Even the diehard conservatives in the Deep South couldn't ignore those allegations...

      How about those remarks he made about his daughter where he basically said "If she wasn't my blood I'd totally fuck her."

      I love listening to psuedoconservatives try to rationalize putting a terrible human being at the helm as though it were sone sort of moral victory.

    11. Re:Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #1 and #2 hits... vox... lol you cant be serious rite?

    12. Re:Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Except the servers have been wiped with a clothe!

    13. Re:Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice the summary said "discredited" and not "disproven." Pizzagate was never investigated. Police never bothered looking into the claims. We have no idea what happened with it. It may be "discredited" in that the media claims it's false, but it's never been disproven because no one has ever seriously looked into it.

      It's difficult to investigate something that began with a completely false premise to begin with. How do you investigate the basement of a building with no basement?

      Democrats are frequently tied to well-known pedophiles and there have been several high-profile incidents of child sexual assault rings involving Democrats and the left. Just Google "Clinton Epstein" or anything related to the Catholic church. Even if Pizzagate ultimately turns out to be false, it's not a stretch to assume similar things are happening.

      We know similar things happen. Republicans get busted and convicted for pedophilia at an alarming rate; that means they have connections. For every Democrat who gets accused of pedophilia, 6 Republicans have actually been caught and convicted. You would probably figure things out if you directed your ire in the right direction.

    14. Re:Probably just had the wrong pizza joint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, there's no evidence that my theory is correct, or even enough evidence to launch an investigation, but let's not worry about that....

      Actually, Democrats taught us with the Kavanaugh hearing we are to believe the accuser despite a lack of evidence backing up the claims.

      If that standard is good enough for the US Supreme Court, it's good enough for a measly pizza joint.

      #BelieveSurvivors

  6. Believe anything by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that claim politicians, celebrities and other leading figures were "sexually abusing and consuming the remains of children, often in satanic rituals.

    Seriously, if you think this is true then really isn't it a case of not getting your medication more than a problem with youtube?

    1. Re:Believe anything by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

      It's usually more a case of not having reported being abused by somebody in the first place.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Believe anything by RedK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A few years ago, I would have been hard pressed to believe Allison Mack of Smallville fame would be 2nd in command of a sex trafficking operation.

      Yet here we are.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    3. Re:Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that claim politicians, celebrities and other leading figures were "sexually abusing and consuming the remains of children, often in satanic rituals.

      Seriously, if you think this is true then really isn't it a case of not getting your medication more than a problem with youtube?

      I have been cutting back on the cannibalism lately. I'm on a diet.

      Please remember to support me in the primary though.
      Thanks,
      Hillary

    4. Re:Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can't be true since wealthy deviants have never abused the helpless. Oh, wait, there's Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed, Vlad the Impaler, the Marquis de Sade...
      OK, it's probably true.

    5. Re:Believe anything by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Most likely. There are all kinds of different crazy people on YouTube. I don't mean crazy as in believe some strange things, but as in diagnoseably mentally ill and in need of their medication.

      There are also some people who are just susceptible to conspiracy stories because they want to believe in fantastical stories. The problem is that by trying to censor these videos or remove them from YouTube you just reinforce their idea that they must be on to something because Google (or the government who must really be behind it all) is trying to censor them.

      The best treatment for falsehoods is to expose them. If the claims are utterly ridiculous, the YouTube community should have no problem making videos that offer counterpoints or expose the flaws in the reasoning of the first videos.

    6. Re:Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so much lol.

    7. Re:Believe anything by bickerdyke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Pizzagate claims were so ridiculous, that trying to expose or disprove it would have made anyone who tried look like a nutter himself. It's like trying to disprove the claim that gravity stopped working last thirsday between 3 and 5 pm. Where would you start when you even can't find a single person who would recall such an event? And even mentioning that would just be switched over as evidence on how powerfull the cover-up has to be if "they" manage to delete everyone's memories....

      Yes, people you would need their medication posting on youtube IS a problem. But neither stopping them from posting would be an solution, nor would trying to sensibly counter them be.

      Even before the internet every village had the village idiot. But they were isoplated, everyone else knew to ignore him and most important: He couldn't team up with thousands of other village's village idiots for confirmation.

      --
      bickerdyke
    8. Re:Believe anything by gtall · · Score: 2

      I think the problem is worse that you indicated. I bought the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders merely because I kept running into people who...uh...orbited around different planets than the Earth. I needed a way to understand the issues with these people. There are cases where you can say, "Yup, needs meds.". Good luck getting them to take the meds. There are many borderline disorders where meds will help but good luck getting those people on meds as well.

      The biggest problem though is that most people with disorders do not just have one...think of a smorgasbord...a little of this, a little of that...and they'll take advice from the Swedish Chef before they take any from you or a medical professional...bork, bork, bork.

    9. Re:Believe anything by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Well I was using "in need of their meds" not as an actual medical diagnosis but as a general catch-all of having lost all contact with reality or posting claims with no connection to it.

      As such and as a not medically trained person, people may indeed be better off with advice from the Swedish Chef than mine...

      --
      bickerdyke
    10. Re:Believe anything by KeensMustard · · Score: 2
      Just an FYI (which kinda makes you point) : Flat Earthers literally believe that gravity doesn't exist.

      Instead:

      1. The earth is accelerating 'upwards' at 9.8 m/s^2. We are held in place by the acceleration

      2. Or (since this mean the earth is now moving at relativistic speeds) we are held to ground by density. That's right, density.

    11. Re:Believe anything by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Weird stuff, didn't realize that NXIVM was the same thing that Nicki Clyne (from BSG) got involved with.

    12. Re:Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, with the way a lot of politicians and celebrities are these days (dead inside, soulless, etc...) you could almost believe it...

      Tell me that every boy band in existence didn't give satan head for that success.

    13. Re:Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA is spying on everyone.
      WMDs in Iraq were a lie.
      There will be an upward trend in anti-science, a flat earth movement, and anti vaccination will become modestly prevalent in liberal areas.
      There will come to light a sex trafficking ring involving thousands of children in the UK and the police will do nothing out of fear of being called racist.
      The US election system has poor security.
      We will finally have actionable proof that many of the wealthy elite are breaking financial laws, but no one will do anything.
      When the person that brought these panama papers to light dies in a car bomb no one will do anything.
      Turns out nearly everyone in Hollywood was either a sex-criminal, a victim, or both, but nobody will do anything.
      That environment allows any woman and some men to accuse anyone of sexual misconduct and ruin careers with no evidence or law enforcement investigation.
      Donald Trump will be president.

      Seriously, if you think this is true then really isn't it a case of not getting your medication more than a problem with youtube?

    14. Re:Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been cutting back on the cannibalism lately. I'm on a diet.

      Go vegetarian - only eat Swedes.

    15. Re:Believe anything by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      Obviously you have no idea how the best conspiracy theories work. Not all the pizzagate claims were ridiculous, sure some were but some were not, that is the whole principle of an effective conspiracy theory. It must have elements of truth in order to fly well. By fly well, I absolutely do not mean, that people will believe them, the reality is, quite simply that more people will 'Enjoy' them. The majority know it is a conspiracy theory and know there will be elements of truth but they also accept there will be a level of bullshit.

      Now for Google and don't ever forget they are a marketing engine and not a social media engine basically they are Bullshit 'R' US, as they wallow in bullshit, start to see bullshit as reality. The more seriously you treat conspiracy theories, which in reality are just meant to be a fun read for their majority audience, the worse the impact of conspiracy theories on their minority audience, the 'hmm', mentally challenged.

      Obviously Google want to turn Youtube into a wall to wall channel of influencers selling corporate product but unless they allow free speech, Youtube as a wall to wall influencers channel selling nothing but government and corporate propaganda will fail. They are already suffering trying to force this and look they fully intend to double down. Can't sell new services to consumers, perhaps don't be such a dick with Youtube and you'll eventually do better, the damage done being the damage done. Doubling down now will lead to failure.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the "pizzagate claims" exactly? A lone nut came up with the pizza shop thing.

      The root of it was that James Alefantis had a creepy Instagram full of pedo dog whistles, something backed up by FBI documents on pedo symbology. That doesn't mean he abused anyone, but the idea that people should be above suspicion is a bit laughable. That said, the dog whistles are things like cheese pizza = CP = child porn, so they're deliberately made to be things that are often used in innocent contexts, to prevent the pedos from outing themselves.

      It's just that he used a ton of such symbols, along with several nearby shops, that put him under suspicion.

    17. Re:Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would you do if you found out it was true?
      100% true. as real and terrible as the conspiracy nuts have claimed.

      What would you do?

    18. Re:Believe anything by novakyu · · Score: 1

      "Flat Earthers" who believe #1 are just pulling your legs. What kind of a crazy person doesn't believe that the Earth is round but believes in Einstein's equivalence principle?

    19. Re:Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you heard? If people are talking about illegal or sick things you're doing, the first thing you do is accuse them of being "conspiracy theorists", as if that's somehow a counter to the claim. When that doesn't work, you get a third party to make up some completely untrue aspect about the crimes and spread it around. Then you "disprove" the false claim, get your media buddies to trumpet the news far and wide, and the public is then convinced that ALL aspects of the original claim are therefore untrue and that you're innocent and anyone still making claims is a kook, while you go about your illegal business unhindered.

      It works because people are stupid, still believe the media, and can't think critically.

    20. Re:Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also:

      Cubs win World Series in same year that Trump becomes president.

    21. Re: Believe anything by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      I am amazed, shocked even, how easy it is for those folks to troll argument-from-authority "but muh SCIENCE(tm)!!" bros.

      Let me give it a try. Okay, okay, here's a real deplorable one: I BELIEVE... that millions and millions of acres in America are covered with BURRITO TREES!! That's right, trees with delicious burritos growing on them. And the gub'mint doesn't want you to know about it! Artificial burrito scarcity! It's a conspiracy!!!

      Okay, Progressive muh-science bros, wig out!! Decry the ignorance of your fellow men, lament the decline of Western Civilization, and call loudly for yet more censorship! Everyone knows commoners are far too stupid to think for themselves.

      We can't allow these burrito tree extremists to spread their seductive lies. It's totally NOT true that chicken burritos and beef burritos grow on the same tree. Fight the lies! If it requires the boot of Big Brother stomping on human freedom, so be it. We must at any cost save our society from this pernicious burrito-based ruse!!

    22. Re:Believe anything by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      There are all kinds of different crazy people on YouTube. I don't mean crazy as in believe some strange things, but as in diagnoseably mentally ill and in need of their medication.

      If you were mentally ill and needed medication, where would you go? Youtube, or the doctor?

      Hint: if you choose the doctor, you are not mentally ill!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    23. Re: Believe anything by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      Plenty of mentally I'll people would choose the doctor. You aren't Joseph Heller, so stop trying to write a sequel to Catch 22.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    24. Re:Believe anything by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Obviously you have no idea how the best conspiracy theories work. Not all the pizzagate claims were ridiculous, sure some were but some were not,

      Name one Pizzagate claim which was not patently ridiculous. Keep in mind while you make your estimation that these claims' supposed credibility was based on the credibility of the other, accompanying claims.

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

      I have depression, so by definition I'm mentally ill.

      I choose the doctor. There are several medications that help with my illness (with varying levels of side effects, sigh).

      I also choose youtube. Some of the videos that people post brighten my day, which helps with my depression.

      What's wrong with choosing both?

    26. Re:Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they're trying to prevent the spread of it to other inoculated idiots.

      There's an appreciable difference between a crackpot theory in a vacuum and a group of like-minded idiots screaming about it.

    27. Re:Believe anything by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      "Flat Earthers" who believe #1 are just pulling your legs.

      My analysis indicates otherwise.

      What kind of a crazy person doesn't believe that the Earth is round but believes in Einstein's equivalence principle?

      All flat earth positions are self contradictory.

    28. Re: Believe anything by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      I am amazed, shocked even, how easy it is for those folks to troll argument-from-authority "but muh SCIENCE(tm)!!" bros.

      I see you are (perhaps accidently) apeing a counter version of the very successful 'but muh holy book' refrain from CHL. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery they say.

      And I think you are overestimating how successful flerfers have been in trolling scientists. A couple of points:

      1. Some flat earth is troll, but not all, and all motives for flerf can be countered quite successfully if you use the right rhetorical structure.

      2. The correct rhetorical structure can be seen in the work of SciManDan,Wolfie6020, FECU, ConspiracyCats,CoolHardLogic. Trolls leave no mark on these guys. If you don't believe me, search youtube for 'Shed Rage High'

      Signed your friendly FECU student.

    29. Re: Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One guy painted a sign and drove all around NYC telling the location of a fake ass sex dungeon "homeless shelter": 316 Beach 64th, Far Rockaway, NY

    30. Re: Believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about meds. It's about IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE GROUPS OF PEOPLE SEXUALLY ABUSE AND MURDER CHILDREN THEN fuck you YOU HAVEN'T EVEN LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE:
      https://searchvoat.co/?t=pizzagate

  7. Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Dear representative, surely you're not trying to apply pressure from position of governmental authority on me, the private entity in violation of my first amendment rights? Are you at all aware of the principles outlined in constitution, and why they were put there?"

    1. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2

      As far as the politicians know, the Constitution was superseded by the Patriot Act in 2001.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Therein lies the problem. Is Google a service provider (with content being owned by the people using the platform) or is it a Publisher? As a service provider, they are immune from liability. As a publisher (with first amendment rights) they ARE NOT immune from liability (and need to police their "content").

      Further complicating things-- if they are a service provider... they can't discriminate against folks they disagree with. What if I wouldn't allow you to make phone calls on my cell network if I didn't like your politics?

      Google and Facebook try to have it both ways. They want the indemnity of being a service provider, while simultaneously being able to pursue their politics-- promoting what they prefer, while banning what they don't.

      It won't end well for them.

    3. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet again, the Democrats provide ample precedent for what occurred: https://thinkprogress.org/sena...

    4. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as your blathering conflating the rights of individual companies to censor their own platform as they wish as if that conflicted with the Constitution, you're an idiot.

    5. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      conflating the rights of individual companies to censor their own platform as they wish as if that conflicted with the Constitution, you're an idiot.

      Individual companies should be able to censor their own platforms as they wish. The problem here is some representatives apparently want to compel Google to censor it as the representatives wish. See the difference? Compulsion of speech is just as much of a violation of freedom of speech as censorship is.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    6. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      There's a huge difference between writing a letter to some company urging them to repudiate an employee's offensive remark, and convening a congressional committee to investigate a company's perceived editorial slant.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    7. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by squiggleslash · · Score: 0

      Representatives exist to represent their constituents. They can and do ask questions that have nothing to do with their legislative role. So no, there's absolutely no constitutional issue with this. There'd only be a problem if legislation were being threatened and proposed.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    8. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The problem here is some representatives apparently want to compel Google" - Except they aren't using a law to do that, just social pressure, so you really don't have any legitimate complaint to cry like a bitch as you are.

    9. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by PPH · · Score: 1

      Google and Facebook try to have it both ways.

      Only because AT&T, Comcast and Verizon want it both ways as well. Google and Facebook are just playing catch-up.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    10. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Which is why the second follow up question is in my opener:

      >Are you at all aware of the principles outlined in constitution, and why they were put there?

      Do you see the word "principles" in that sentence? It's there for a reason specifically to pre-empt the very angle of demagoguery you're engaging in.

    11. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Google and Facebook try to have it both ways. They want the indemnity of being a service provider, while simultaneously being able to pursue their politics-- promoting what they prefer, while banning what they don't.

      At the same time, gouvernments all over the world try to regulate them both ways as they see fit today. They also need to make their minds up what Google is and stick to that.

      I watched large parts of the hearing today. Much of it was about bias and Senators wanted them to have an unbiased algorithm, but a balanced result, despite biased input. Also politicians need to understand that they can't have it both ways.

      --
      bickerdyke
    12. Re: Wrong answer. Correct answer is by jd · · Score: 1

      No. Sorry. First Amendment only applies in restricted form to commercial speech and this is commercial, not private. The SCOTUS has also ruled that exceptions exist in which 1A doesn't apply at all.

      So, no.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    13. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Dear representative, surely you're not trying to apply pressure from position of governmental authority on me, the private entity in violation of my first amendment rights? Are you at all aware of the principles outlined in constitution, and why they were put there?"

      Leaving aside a needlessly combative tone, there are a lot of issues with that response that make it pretty dumb.

      • There is no first amendment right to libel or slander, nor on inciting people to commit violent crimes
      • Asking questions like "what is your company's policy on X" and "are you trying to prevent X" isn't a violation of the first amendment, even if X relates to speech.
      • YouTube claims no editorial control over videos, and therefore it has no expression that would be infringed upon
      • The "safe harbor" exemptions to copyright infringement enforcement that enable YouTube to function make Google's policy questions fair game
      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    14. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Second sentence pre-empted this line of demagoguery.

    15. Re: Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Have you tried reading the second sentence in my initial post yet? It addresses this particular line of demagoguery.

    16. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I'm genuinely amazed how few people answering my post cannot even read two sentences before typing out a reply.

    17. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you, I, and 100k of our closest friends write a letter... that's one thing, we are nobodies.

      If however members of congress do so, there is an implied threat given their power.

      Don't believe me? Darling of the Democrats, and likely 2020 contender (because constitutional age limits only apply to men, apparently) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did just that when she threatened Trump Jr, and in violation of federal law no less.

      I understand your blinders, those on the left have a difficult time with nuance.

    18. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by lgw · · Score: 1

      There is no first amendment right to libel or slander,

      There is absolutely a First Amendment right to libel and slander! The government cannot block such speech. You can be sued after the fact, but that's very different from prior restraint, and is an action between citizens, the government is not a party.

      YouTube claims no editorial control over videos, and therefore it has no expression that would be infringed upon

      YouTube consistently exercises editorial control over videos. They ban, hide, and demonitize videos based on Google's political biases, and they do it constantly. Currently, they have every legal right to do so, but they shouldn't. They should be forced to choose between publisher and platform.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is absolutely a First Amendment right to libel and slander!

      Not according to the Supreme Court. For example, in NYT vs. Sullivan, the SC modified NY's libel laws because of the first amendment (demonstrating that just calling it a civil action doesn't remove it from the first amendment), but libel is still actionable (demonstrating that libel itself is not protected.) Prior restraint is a different issue, and could be used to prevent publication of a serious enough libel. But, in general, prior restraint has to be justified on a case-by-case basis.

      ouTube consistently exercises editorial control over videos

      I'd have to look it up, but algorithms promoting/demoting/demonetizing is not editorial control. And removing videos that violate the ToS isn't either. Again, according to the courts.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    20. Re: Wrong answer. Correct answer is by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Corporations have NO rights.

    21. Re: Wrong answer. Correct answer is by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      "algorithms promoting/demoting/demonetizing is not editorial control"

      No no, we totally don't deny groups we dislike equal access to public accommodation. It's the ALGO - you know, the one we wrote - that discriminates against them, not us. .

      'Cuz when an algorithm does it, it's all okay.

    22. Re: Wrong answer. Correct answer is by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Actually, correct answer is: leave Web 2.0 to academics only as it was 30 years ago

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    23. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm genuinely amazed how few people

      Where are you going with this? I stopped reading at this point...

    24. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Wasn't me who claimed that the "principles outlined in the constitution" had anything to do with any event after 9-11-2001.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    25. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I can't really answer in seven words or less.

    26. Re: Wrong answer. Correct answer is by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Wanting it to be so, and repeating it won't make it so. The law disagrees with you. Not that I like it.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    27. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see your PATRIOT Act and raise you:

      Alien Registration Act of 1940
      Sedition Act of 1918
      Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

      Politicians have a long history of using the Bill of Rights as toilet paper.

    28. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      They've moved far away from being a pure content provider. When you prioritize their favorite sites, they're choosing the content that they want you to look at to make them more revenue. If it was a simple matter of providing search results based upon the most popular sites, it might be a different matter.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    29. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Yes, they should. But, at that point, they are editorializing content and should not longer receive common carrier status.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    30. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by lgw · · Score: 1

      algorithms promoting/demoting/demonetizing is not editorial control

      "I was only following orders", eh? The bias is put there in the algorithms by biased software developers as part of Google biased culture.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      All of which were arguably dealing with non-citizens who were not under Constitutional Law to begin with. It's "We the People, in order to form a more perfect union", not "We the Foreign Invaders who wish to destroy".

      However, the Patriot Act was different, for it destroyed the rights of citizens.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  8. Or Perhaps... by iCEBaLM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... they should just stop trying to be the gatekeepers on speech, and let ideas live and die on their merits.

    1. Re:Or Perhaps... by Your.Master · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only way to stop being the gatekeepers of speech here is to remove the search box and recommended links, and only allow people to subscribe to channels / watch videos that they can directly link to outside of their platform.

    2. Re:Or Perhaps... by TexasDiaz · · Score: 1

      Normally I'd be right there with you. However, have you seen the god-aweful crap floating around even Facebook that *looks* real but isn't? And then the BS that gets posted that isn't true that leads to riots in the street and people being murdered? Something's gotta give. The problem seems to be the seemingly anonymous posting of garbage on the Web - it's almost impossible to call out purveyors of crap (except the Avocado dumbass) and approach them on the merits of their crap. In real life, when someone says stuff like that, they can be publicly shamed - on the internet, it's almost a badge of honor.

    3. Re:Or Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice idea that doesn't work out well when Youtube's current algorithm loves to push people toward's extremist content they otherwise wouldn't have gone out of their way to look for because extremist content draws clicks. They aren't gatekeepers. They're emotional drug pushers.

    4. Re:Or Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow what a great idea. How about you put your money where your mouth is and start a video service that allows just that instead of telling someone else what they can or can't do with their property?

    5. Re:Or Perhaps... by squiggleslash · · Score: 0

      This isn't about them being gatekeepers, it's about Google's recommendation algorithms constantly promoting the worst, most vile, shit they host.

      Maybe Google should stop recommending videos or come up with some other way to make it easier for people to find things they're interested in.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:Or Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. We don't get rid of freedom of speech just because listeners are stupid.

    7. Re:Or Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn to adapt then. We cannot go down the path of stifling speech we disagree with regardless of "god-aweful crap". I am certain that the British could have used those exact words to describe information pertaining to our "treason".

      cap: groaner

    8. Re:Or Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need an educated populace for that to work, or ideas live and die based on how loud someone promotes them. That's how we got a con-man President.

    9. Re:Or Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Just another statist intent on getting your official line from the government.

    10. Re:Or Perhaps... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The autoplay feature in particular amplifies the stupid by providing an endless stream of conspiracy bullshit if you simply do nothing after seeing one of these videos.

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

      In real life, when someone says stuff like that, they can be publicly shamed - on the internet, it's almost a badge of honor.

      No catual comment on that, but I just wanted to repeat that :-)

      --
      bickerdyke
    12. Re:Or Perhaps... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      FB can't even police the websites that offer for sale a $700 3dPrinter for $60, and change their website daily, sometimes more often.

      You expect them, and Google, and the rest, to figure out what is a wild eyed fabricated conspiracy theory? Ha.

      And then if you expect them to censor content, you've made them publishers. Responsible. And if they do, in fact, happen to not like you very much, you disappear from their pages. Poof. You're not anything at all.

      I actually can tell the difference between wacko conspiracy theory, s^%t disturbers making stuff up to cause problems, and outrageous but true reporting. I suspect the vast majority of people can. The rest still keep George Nori on for background reinforcement, and they never ever caused trouble before, so just let it go. If Alex Jones seems as credible to you as Jim Acosta, the problem isn't Alex Jones. And the problem isn't solved by censoring HIM.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    13. Re:Or Perhaps... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I know, It's Noory. Don't that piss off the jerks, huh?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    14. Re: Or Perhaps... by jd · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work.

      If it did, you wouldn't need a Constitution, as different ideas would live or die on their own merit.

      Problem is, ideas aren't alive. Mind you, humans are only 45% human and bacteria control much of the brain.

      The thing is, it simply doesn't work. Ideas are more like viruses, spreading wildly out of control, dying back into reservoirs to mutate and emerge again from their carriers.

      There us no logic. Humans don't do logic. Hunans are just hairless chimps with only marginally more brain. We're as violent, as crude and as prone to stupid decisions.

      Studies on risk analysis showed humans are hard-wired to make bad choices.

      The Stamford prison guard experiment and Rhythm 0 art project showed just how bad.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    15. Re:Or Perhaps... by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google recommendations are pretty straightforward, though. If you watch X, they'll recommend what other people clicked on after watching X. It's a bit more subtle than that, but that's the essence. What you're complaining about is "clickbait works", which is a sad commentary on human nature more than anything else.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:Or Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If ideas lived and died by their own merit, the entire planet would've been socialist 100 years ago. Bad ideas continue because wealthy people can afford to promote them regardless of logic, reason, or how much damage is done to those they dupe into believing their ideals.

    17. Re: Or Perhaps... by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Everyone is an idiot! Please, Big Brother Google, save us from ourselves! what

    18. Re:Or Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly this is necessary, conspiracy theories are being actively spread by Kremlin secret agents to smear the western left because Putin wants to exterminate the gays. Social media companies have a moral obligation to deplatform conspiracy theorists promoted by the Russian conspiracy.

    19. Re:Or Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's their recommended video algorithms that are the problem. Turns out that the rules for promoting videos they came up with to make them money also take people down a spiralling hell hole.

    20. Re:Or Perhaps... by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Google could easily fix their algorithm by adding "I wish I had never clicked on this" button.

      Amazon's video service has the same problem. I search for videos, and click on a couple. After two minutes in I'm wanting to tear my eyes out. It is that bad. But, now the movie is in my "continue watching" list, with no way of taking it out.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    21. Re:Or Perhaps... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly how radio shock jocks got listeners back in the day. Keep pushing the envelope because just like everyone wants to watch the train wreck or rubbernecks at the auto accident, they can't seem to help themselves when it comes to extreme content. This goes back to the days of Jerry Springer and others. Different media, same idea.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    22. Re:Or Perhaps... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      I'm not certain that Google is doing this on purpose though. People will click on the "most vile" shit they host because they actually want to see it, and thus it becomes popular. If Google's algorithm is pushing us to the most popular stuff, I'm not sure I have an issue with that, other than I just don't like it.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    23. Re: Or Perhaps... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      "There us no logic. Humans don't do logic"
      "Studies on ..."
      "The Stamford prison guard experiment and ..."

      Let me give it a whirl...
      If "Humans don't do logic" then studies and experiments done by humans can not be depended upon to be logical. Got it.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    24. Re:Or Perhaps... by lgw · · Score: 1

      That's what the "thumb's down" button is, BTW. People take it as a like/dislike button, but it works as a "keep/stop recommending" button. Would be great to kill "keep watching" videos, though.

      Meh, what YouTube really needs is a competitor.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    25. Re:Or Perhaps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because socialism has worked everywhere it's been tried therefore... oh wait...

  9. How about things like 9/11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Where thousands of Architects and Engineers study the event and find that science simply does not support the claims nor evidence being made in the official conspiracy theory?

    Yeah - this is going to work..

    1. Re: How about things like 9/11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeh, uhu, ok. Yeh, uhu, ok.

    2. Re:How about things like 9/11? by gtall · · Score: 2

      Bingo! I talked to one of these nutters once, and that was before I read the Popular Mechanics book on 9/11 (they used real scientists and engineers rather than some guys on the internet). This fellow spouted about how the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel. My response was that it didn't need to be hot enough to melt steel, it only needed to be hot enough to weaken steel...and that steel was under a load. It was as though I said nothing, he couldn't get his head around the fact that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt steel, hence it couldn't have brought down the buildings.

    3. Re: How about things like 9/11? by jd · · Score: 1

      The scientists and engineers wete the ones who put forward the official version. And they don't disagree with it at all.

      They would, however, doubtless love to throw you into a pig sty for debasing them.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re: How about things like 9/11? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lick those boots!

    5. Re:How about things like 9/11? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      You were probably arguing with my redneck cousin, who I had nearly the same conversation with. He constantly posts conspiracy theory crap to his FB page. The only reason I still have him there is because of the occasional news about his parents and siblings.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  10. Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Jarwulf · · Score: 0, Troll

    Only Approved Conspiracy theories, like Hillary clinton would have won 100% of the vote if the Russians behind the tree didn't stuff the ballot box or that differences between men and women have nothing to do with differing interests or biology but are 100% because an evil cabal of men are holding women down at every instance are allowed on Youtube, Twitter, and other platforms. The Powers that Be do not want any competition for their narratives.

    1. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by dryriver · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is bugging the hell out of the mainstream media and the companies that own and operate aforementioned media is hard-truth Youtube channels like ACFAU ("A Call For An Uprising") which uncover all sorts of craaazy-nasty stuff about Hollywood, TV producers, music artists and more that are not supposed to be known or discussed. There are "conspiracy" videos about pop stars like Beyonce and Jay-Z that easily reach 4 - 5 million views. A lot of people are beginning to realize that we do live in a very elaborately constructed media-matrix, and that the truth behind the people who control said matrix is, to put it bluntly, horrible. So no, Google should NOT censor Youtube.

      --
      Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    2. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Powers that Be? You mean President Hillary Clinton is threatening to throw you in jail?

    3. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Only Approved Conspiracy theories, like Hillary clinton would have won 100% of the vote

      Funny, I get a lot of political news and I've never even heard that. Maybe you ought to check your subscriptions.

    4. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Counterpoint: Fuck youtube. The sooner the rest of everyone from the conspiracy circles stops using it, the better. It is only a matter of time before a full suite of "alternative" platforms is built. And, the faster the mainstream platforms ruin their user trust, the better.

    5. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet Trump was still elected. That's what they want you to think and its total bullshit.

    6. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by dryriver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except of course that those "alternative" platforms will very quickly get shut down with brand new "hate speech" laws. Look what they did to everything from Torrent sites to emulated games sites.

      --
      Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    7. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Only Approved Conspiracy theories, like...differences between men and women have nothing to do with differing interests or biology

      The third sex is "troll". The key questions are not about biology, but about whether the gov't should regulate and divide by gender. Conservatives say they don't like regulation, but they sure like regulating wankers. Looks like hypocrisy to me.

    8. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except of course there are no "new" laws, only existing ones being enforced along with the TOS of said company. Sorry, your nazi faggot shit doesn't matter in the real world, nutters.

    9. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funniest thing about so-called "Conspiracy faggots" like yourself is that your idea of "proven" is to throw thousands of lies up on a screen and see what sticks. That's literally all you've got, you're not fooling anyone.

      You're just a dumb faggot, nothing special. It's really no surprise that you have to run and hide from the real-world news and analysis, your bitch ass can't handle reality, just like Donald Jumpsuit Drumpftard, the traitor.

    10. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those aren't "Approved Conspiracy theories". They're just a bunch of straw men you invented to represent everyone who pisses you off.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    11. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trump-Russia collusion is 100% a conspiracy theory. It's complete nonsense.

    12. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by dryriver · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not talking about Terms Of Service. I'm talking about sweeping "hate speech laws" - such as those Emanuel Macron is pushing for - that could be used against anyone and anything and any kind of video of text based website for just about any arbitrary reason. The European Union loves this kind of stuff - what Atheist Progressive-Socialist Europeans express is ALWAYS "love speech", and anything that deviates from it is ALWAYS "hate speech that will bring about another Hitler invasion of Europe, make children cry, bla bla bla...". TOS is not the problem. Hard laws that can be ABUSED to shut down any and all alternatives to mainstream hot air news-analysis-make-believe is the problem. Calling something your opponent or adversary posits "hate speech" is the sneakiest and easiest way to avoid a real debate. Just press the HATE SPEECH GO AWAY BUTTON and everything is great again in your Atheist Progressive-Socialist European paradise.

      --
      Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    13. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Pirate Bay is over 15 years old and still going strong.

      What the freeze peach crowd really want is to be promoted on the popular platforms. Some want the money, some want the exposure.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I looked at ACFAU... It's all just clickbait and Illuminati nonsense. They really love ALL CAPS. Is this really your idea of "hard truth"?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      1. Collusion is not a crime except in an anti-trust case financial case. Not an issue here

      2. There is ZERO proof there was any cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russians (we won't talk about the proven connection between Hillary and Russia).

      3. The FEC is on record with stating that hush money is not an election violation, and said so in the issues around John Edwards' 2008 campaign.

    16. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

      Do you support Net Neutrality?

    17. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you were making some sense, but this quickly devolved into a nice little trip though crazyville.

    18. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only people who come off as nutters in this thread are the ones calling everyone else "nazis" for no reason other than an apparent mental illness these accusers suffer from.

    19. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who let the 13 year old self-loathing aspie use the computer unsupervised again?

    20. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> freeze peach

      Oh no, it's retarded!

    21. Re: Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      "freeze peach"

      As one who holds and loudly expresses extremist views that are considered deplorable by the vast majority of your countrymen, I'm surprised you hold in such low regard the freedom that allows you to express those views.

    22. Re: Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      LOL extremist views. Like what? My views are to the left but fairly mainstream around here.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    23. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I do. But what does it have to do with this issue?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's easy to rant about this stuff in ALL CAPS, but do you have any specific criticisms of the rules that Macron is proposing, for example?

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

      Precisely. "Hate" speech is a JEWISH invention, designed to silence people who point out that Jews are running our countries.

    26. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Progressives" = "Jews" actually.
      JEWS have control over virtually ever major institution in the western world.
      Why did Theresa May have a meeting with the so-called "Jewish Board of Deputies" on the day before she took office as Prime Minister? Who are they, and why should Theresa May have met them? To get her ORDERS, that's why. Who runs the banks? Who tells the governments what to do? Why - the eternal Jew.
      Don't believe me, try researching it for yourself.

    27. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to rant about this stuff in ALL CAPS, but do you have any specific criticisms of the rules that Macron is proposing, for example?

      you're retarded, and used almost as man "all caps" as the post you replied to. fuck off you assclown.

    28. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When is the last time that you have been on The Pirate Bay. Sure it is still there and sure there are still millions of links. But, those millions of links point to nothing. All seeders are long gone due to some well placed arrests and high profile raids in the not so distant past.

    29. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how this got modded up. The conspiracy theories that everybody is concerned about involve specific people or places and are presented in ways that encourage believers to engage in extra-judicial remedies. Even if Russian interference in the election turns out not to exist, I've yet to see it presented in a way that encourages people to go commit random acts of violence against any ethnic Russian that they happen to encounter. Saying "it's all men's fault" is silly in many cases, but it's only silly. Encouraging violence against men would be problematic. Whenever there is a "call to action" that includes responding with violence (even if it is somewhat of a dog whistle), we then have a problem. It's doubly problematic when leveled against a particular person or establishment.

    30. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch out how you reply dryriver, Slashdot's favorite SJW is keeping an eye on you!

    31. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to rant about this stuff in ALL CAPS, but do you have any specific criticisms of the rules that Macron is proposing, for example?

      Thats all you've got? A complaint about his and ACFAU's use of ALL CAPS? As if the USE of ALL caps somehow takes away from the content and the message on appearance alone. Jeez.

    32. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      What is bugging the hell out of the mainstream media.

      The rich and upper class don't like the peasants like us to have access to information not approved by corproate pravda, see here, former national security advisor of the united states... we are the 'central global menace' he's talking about.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Zbig:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    33. Re: Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pizzagate is real
      https://searchvoat.co/?t=pizzagate

      ^look for yourselves

      there is a classic dc pizzgate that involves presenting the basic visual evidence under these topics: emails, (the core evidence). give me 24hours and i will do my best to find the best article, or make a list. till then here is a bigger picture backdrop redpill list. REDPILL: hampstead mothers statement to pizzgate and appeal to public 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWwoe2eB-BoYouTube

      REDPILL: Ben Swan Reality Check: How Prevalent is the Global Child Sex Trade in the U.S.? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwfSG4gd_ssYouTube

      REDPILL: Happy Birthday v/Pizzagate! Giving thanks for TWO YEARS .. https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2868287

      REDPILL: Detective Jimmy Boots interview: ("National Security Used to Protect Criminals") https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5mPq0_qusMYouTube

      REDPILL: Weird Ways of the Elite documentary 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTm_6nUCKKEYouTube

      REDPILL: conspiracy of silence 1994 discovery channel documentary

      REDPILL(dc) clinton body count (gary web) (seth rich) https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2907662

      REDPILL (ITNJ 2018) 800K Children in the U.S. Missing Each Year â" International Tribunal Exposes Pedophilia Problem â" Victims Testify of Child Sex Trafficking and Satanic Ritual Abuse https://archive.is/iyYCP

      REDPILL: Canada TRC 2015 http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=890

      BLUEPILL: Soviet Disco 1981 Uzbek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpIVCcjjqLg

    34. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      1. What exactly is an "assclown"?

      2. What happened to the "drink!" guy? I miss that AC.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      > Except of course that those "alternative" platforms will very quickly get shut down with brand new "hate speech" laws. Look what they did to everything from Torrent sites to emulated games sites.

      There are more torrent sites now than ever in history of internet, and more people are "pirating" than ever.

      You just need to host them outside the authoritarian reach (US/EU), say .. in Switzerland or couple dozen other countries that don't give a shit about it.

  11. Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Dear moron Luckyo, you don't have a 1st amendment case vs. Youtube for kicking your nazi conspiracy faggot shit off their platform, they owe you nothing, idiot. Sincerely - reality."

    1. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet.

      Like it or not, at some point many of these sites are going to be regulated under "privately owned public space" type laws, or perhaps even as utilities.

      I'm not calling for it, it's just an obvious result of the degree of power these companies have over so much communication, and the arbitrary nature their policies are enforced.

    2. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in public you can get shut down for libel/slander, so if you're putting bullshit conspiracy fakedick non-information online or acting it out in public, you are fair game for being fucked with with extreme prejudice.

      The fact is these nazi whiners think they're owed something when nobody owes them shit, and they're probably going to be tracked and marked for death through youtube anyway.

    3. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it's okay to censor because everyone I disagree with is a knotsee"
      Suck my dick, faggot.

    4. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by Stolovaya · · Score: 1

      You assume these tactics only affect Nazis. Must be a nice, magical world you live in to believe that.

    5. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know they only affect nazis. Nazis are scum, they deserve the very worst society can do to them. If there were a low allowing Nazi faggots to be brutally murdered America would be a better place.

      Maybe during Obama's 3rd or 4th term we'll get something like that, so we can round those faggots up and torture them to death like their advocacy deserves and in fact demands.

    6. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What does such a designation require of the site though? Say for example YouTube had to host the videos, would it also be required to include them in search results? How about promoting them as "trending" or as recommendations? I guess the real world example would be giving everyone equal billing at a venue.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by DaHat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would expect such a law would require equal treatment under the 'policies' in place, as well as an abolishment of 'hate speech' rules.

      Over the weekend we saw a prominent youtuber kicked off Patreon for having used a racial slur when mocking the alt-right, on a video from 10 months ago, that was on someone elses channel and was never posted to Patreon.

      They week before they kicked someone off because of a *previous* association with a group which a third party has labeled a 'hate group'.

      Conversely, they apparently had no problem with a popular left-leaning podcast telling viewers/listeners (rather emphatically) to kill themselves and those around them... which was posted to the site.

      Up until recently a 'journalist' on the site was quite up front that they were not only seeking to start a (non political revolution, and mentioned the use of firearms to achieve it (since edited).

    8. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Attention span too short to be able to read the second sentence?

    9. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you work for some Republican outfit with your job being to post crazy, untrue nonsense just to make the Left look like complete and utter batshit idiots?

      If so, you're too over the top, you need to tone it down a few notches.

    10. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      The Nazi's and Pedos are always #1 on the hit list. The people that support these hit lists dont realize that they are #2.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    11. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You mean Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon? Maybe the n word was the last straw, but the guy has a long history of doing shit that Patreon explicitly says you should not do if you want to use their service. And many other people have been kicked off for less; they took a very long time to enforce their ToS.

      I can't verify your other claims, as you unfortunately forgot to provide any links or specific details.

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

      That's BS though, he didn't violate ToS.

    13. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by DaHat · · Score: 1

      You lament me not giving specifics... then you make accusations without providing specifics?

      Maybe? Exactly what else did he do which violated their terms? Don't forget that that 'final straw' you suggest, is separate from Patreon, and separate from any of his channels. Per both their current written terms, as well as the CEO's interview on the Rubin Report, specifically saying they only cared about what was on their site.

      The second person is Milo. You can say he's a horrible person or whatever else, however Patreon confirmed that they banned him for his *previous* association with the Proud Boys.

      The third is the 'Chapo Trap House' podcast. I am struggling to remember the name of the journalist who was #4.

    14. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sargon used his Patreon money to go harass people. It's on video. Not to mention all the other stuff he's said over the years, including multiple uses of the n word.

      Milo... Where to start? Outing students against their will is certainly enough by itself. Not to mention that little incident that got him fired from basically everywhere.

      They both brought it in themselves. They both flirted with getting banned as part of their act, playing the victim. They must have thought Patreon would never ban them after all these years.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Sargon used his Patreon money to go harass people. It's on video.

      Except that's not why they said they kicked him off.

      And 'harass' is a rather subjective thing. If someone flings poo over the wall and some is sent back at them... is it harassment? Or is it a difference of opinion and fact checking?

      Not to mention all the other stuff he's said over the years, including multiple uses of the n word.

      "Use" of the n word? Remind me... was he going around calling black people it? Or was he using it in a specific context?

      Also... if use of the n word is verboten, should we now see if any black rappers using the site have ever uttered it?

      Milo... Where to start?

      Maybe with... facts?

      Outing students against their will is certainly enough by itself.

      Except he did no such thing. Ridiculing someone who is already out is a separate thing, which is what he did.

      Not to mention that little incident that got him fired from basically everywhere.

      Little incident... you mean words from months earlier coming to light? Once upon a time... we called what both of them did thought crimes.

      Funny thing, also on a podcast/show that wasn't his own.

      Again, we are talking terms of service on the site... and you've yet to establish how any of these activities, off the site do that.

      They both brought it in themselves. They both flirted with getting banned as part of their act, playing the victim. They must have thought Patreon would never ban them after all these years.

      You've so little awareness. Milo hadn't been on Patreon for years, he'd been on it for hours.

      You can say Sargon flirted with getting banned for years, except according to their terms and conditions, as well as the public statements of their CEO... he did nothing wrong.

      Granted, they are free to change their terms, or enforce them as they see fit.. however in doing so, they show their true colors and send others scrambling from the site not knowing if/when something they once said/did will get them banned, costing them a sizable portion of their income.

      What a wonderful world you wish to live in.

    16. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      we called what both of them did thought crimes

      This is the point at which I always ask the same question and never get a straight answer.

      Milo condones paedophilia. It's on tape, he doesn't deny it, stands by his words. Other people hear what he said and no longer wish to associate themselves with him.

      You call this thought crime. Okay. But how do you preserve other people's freedom to criticise his statement, their freedom to disassociate themselves with him, and their freedom to hold the opinion that he is a bad person?

      You are objecting to the consequences of his actions, but I can't see any way in which there can be no consequences without forcing other people to do or say or not say things against their will.

      So please explain your position.

      --
      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:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by DaHat · · Score: 1

      At no time have I said both men are angels and should be free of criticism, I even pointed out:

      Granted, they are free to change their terms, or enforce them as they see fit

      Which is exactly what they are doing. At no time have I disputed their legal right to do what they did, I am pointing out that there exercise of that right has chilling effects going forward, and will likely end up with regulation on them and other providers.

      But how do you preserve other people's freedom to criticise his statement

      You mean the sort of thing Sargon was well known for related to different topics/people? Or is that/this harassment?

      their freedom to disassociate themselves with him, and their freedom to hold the opinion that he is a bad person?

      I've said they do not have that right, I am simply seeking honesty and transparency. Patreon has engaged in neither.

      Again, Patreon's stated reason for kicking Milo off the platform was not because of his words from years ago which condoned relations between older and under age males. Had they said that, there would be less of an issue now. Had it been part of their terms and conditions, it would be something that all would know to be aware of and that one day they would declare people thought criminals for previous acts.

      Here is the most disturbing thing about all of this: the people driving these de-platforming campaigns are effectively lynch mobs, seeking to punish people for thought crimes for which there is no absolution or forgiveness.

      In the criminal justice world, we at least have accepted processes. If you are accused of a crime, an impartial judge/jury is tasked with determining guilt, the accused is has the right to competent counsel, and if convicted and they go to jail, there is a usually time limit to that, and upon release and having 'paid' ones debt to society, they are able to live their lives free of continued molestation by busybodies, outside of a few areas. Even then, we've the concept of a pardon.

      Nothing like that exists with these lynch mobs, they determine on their own who is guilty and who should be targeted. You yourself have done so here, implicitly ignoring the unlawful calls for violence on the Chapo Trap House podcast, which also runs afoul of the Patreon rules.

    18. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Okay, so what exactly did you mean by calling it "thought crime"?

      And yes I see that you are complaining that Patreon didn't give you sufficient explanation of their actions. I mostly agree for services like Patreon that become people's livelihoods. There are employment issues. For stuff like Twitter not so much, all it would do is help trolls and their supporters would just keep arguing it anyway.

      --
      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:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Okay, so what exactly did you mean by calling it "thought crime"?

      I'm fine with the dictionary definition: "an instance of unorthodox or controversial thinking, considered as a criminal offense or as socially unacceptable."

      That does seem to fit both what you've said Sargon & Milo did wrong.

      We also saw the same mentality/outrage over Kevin Heart getting booted from the Oscars, or that Heisman trophy winner now being under attack. It'll be interesting to see who acts differently down the line as a result.

      Lets just ignore the celebs who have used the same language, because they are sufficiently woke, so for now, the mob doesn't feel the urge to go after them.

      And yes I see that you are complaining that Patreon didn't give you sufficient explanation of their actions.

      Nor did they give sufficient explanation of their actions to the people the booted, nor those they are trying to convince to stay on the platform. Quite a few people have switched to SubscribeStar since.

      One thing I should note: I've never used Patreon or SubscribeStar, not as a giver nor a receiver.

      I mostly agree for services like Patreon that become people's livelihoods. There are employment issues. For stuff like Twitter not so much, all it would do is help trolls and their supporters would just keep arguing it anyway.

      What if one's employment is related to social media? Recall the lawsuits over Trump blocking them on Twitter. Their claim was their job was made more difficult by not being able to easily read/reply to certain tweets.

      Yes, one is President, the other is a private company. However these sites become the biggest public space ever known, even if privately owned. This also applies to the privately owned infrastructure/services which individuals/companies need to use in order to participate or access other systems.

      Every time one of these private companies uses their lawful authority to ban people they disapprove of, the closer they are to the feds getting involved, doubly so when we see the simultaneous bootings of individuals/groups from multiple platforms near simultaneously.

    20. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's certainly more tricky if their jobs are related to social media. Sargon, being a British citizen, could file a GDPR request to get some more information perhaps. GDPR does require them to explain certain things and show what data they have.

      Okay, so you were just expressing general outrage at their shunning for thoughtcrime, fair enough.

      As for the public space argument, it could get very messy when other countries decide they want the same thing. Also, the public space argument probably wouldn't help people like Sargon because their Twitter bans were for stuff that would get you ejected from privately owned public spaces too, i.e. not expressing a political opinion but harassment. In fact if it happened in real life someone would probably call the cops.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by DaHat · · Score: 1

      GDPR does require them to explain certain things and show what data they have.

      That is what GDPR says, however enforcing that is another matter, doubly so on an American company.

      Milo attempted a similar thing previously regarding Twitter to no success.

      Okay, so you were just expressing general outrage at their shunning for thoughtcrime, fair enough.

      No outrage, only pointing out the double standard many are employing and how it will bite them.

      As for the public space argument, it could get very messy when other countries decide they want the same thing.

      Yup, see previous statement on GDPR, or even the new Cloud Act passed in the US.

      Also, the public space argument probably wouldn't help people like Sargon because their Twitter bans were for stuff that would get you ejected from privately owned public spaces too, i.e. not expressing a political opinion but harassment.

      Again, you keep using the word 'harassment' and accepting it as applicable, seemingly never considering or being aware of the actual context.

      What exactly was Sargon banned from Twitter for? I don't think we ever got an official explanation. Had he previously tweeted gay porn at members of the alt-right? Yup. Is that harassment? I don't think so, in fact it's probably a pretty good way to get people to leave you alone.

      Officially, Milo was banned for targeted harassment of Leslie Jones, though again, was it?

      Recall, she said (indirectly in response to an article he wrote about the movie):

      Ok I have been called Apes, sent pics of their asses,even got a pic with semen on my face. I'm tryin to figure out what human means. I'm out

      To which he replied:

      If at first you don’t succeed (because your work is terrible), play the victim. EVERYONE GETS HATE MAIL FFS

      To my eyes, that is not harassment, it is him sharing his opinion of her behavior and the film. Harsh, yes, though accurate. Do you think Ghostbusters 2016 tanked because of sexism? or because it was a legitimately bad movie?

      She then replied:

      @Nero you have been reported I hope the lock your Acct

      To which he replied, in traditional grammar nazi fashion (or is that harassment now too?):

      Barely literate. America needs better schools!

      Funny thing, during that same period, Leslie Jones was explicitly calling for her followers to harass at least one person who said unkind things to her.

      Again, one of them explicitly broke the Twitter rules, the other didn't and was banned.

      In fact if it happened in real life someone would probably call the cops.

      The cops might come, but that doesn't mean you are summarily banned, we've processes for that.

  12. KKK / KGB propaganda to cover past kidnappings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMHO...

    The KKK has covered for it's members kidnapping non KKK kids since the 70s.
    If you are a victim you get dosed with scopolomine till you can't move, then thrown into a car trunk, oh and when the cops catch the kidnappers don't look for help, or a kidnapping case as the cops are most likely Klan themselves.

    This is the real story, and the Klan is also behind the "conspiracy" about Hillary and "pizza gate" to cover for their own kidnappings of local kids.

    1. Re:KKK / KGB propaganda to cover past kidnappings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably not that far off. My father in law is an extremely well respected, retired police officer. He was called out of retirement recently to take over a local sheriff's office early last year because essentially the whole office got fired by the state. Naturally, he wanted to investigate what was going on. He wishes he didn't now.

      Basically the sheriff's office for a county one line away from the one my family lives in has been kidnapping 6-12 year old kids to traffick them. It was an operation that spanned the entire state with many, many other sheriff's offices in on it. They would abduct kids from their counties (or neighboring ones) and ship to the other end of the state to be sold. My father in law only discovered all of that because he tracked down the housing development the children were being stored in, waiting to be shipped elsewhere. Fifteen children got to go home that day, but tens of thousands of children are still missing, and nobody is even looking for them. About 30 of the 90+ counties in my state had their sheriff's office silently fired for this reason, and there is not a peep in the media about this. Not even any charges for any of the crimes they committed.

      It really didn't help his political faith when he discovered that several children had been shipped to our (very) Republican legislator's offices either. God only knows what became of them. He quit the Republican party and has been unwilling to even mention politics since that day.

  13. WTF? by scrout · · Score: 0

    Google, YOU JUST STORE AND SERVE CONTENT, ya morons. We don't need watching, or care taking, or judgement, or anything else from you. The talkies just come on when I click my mouse, your job is done. Freaking self important dicks.

  14. Snowden revelations, then and now by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Then: "Holy shit, the NSA is reading everything! Start encrypting more!"

    Now: "The NSA is reading everything? Ridiculous! Another stupid conspiracy theory, bury it."

    1. Re:Snowden revelations, then and now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but if there is one definite result from Robert Mueller (that's Robert Swan Truesdale Mueller III) and his special prosecutor gig investigating whatever, is that encryption doesn't work as at least one of the dudes going to jail encrypted everything, but they still broke it down! --- sgt_doom

    2. Re:Snowden revelations, then and now by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is pretty much to goal of the Kremlin-backed conspiracy theories. They know the truth about X is going to come out, but they just want 50 falsehoods about X for it to get lost in.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  15. Re:"Retarded Trump supporting whiner lies online" by dryriver · · Score: 1

    AC attacks non-AC Slashdot user on Slashdot. Nobody knows who AC is. News at 11.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
  16. Like climate change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Relegate that nonsense to conspiracy websites.

  17. Allow Explicit Response Videos by KalvinB · · Score: 1

    The problem is that YouTube wants to be the arbitrator of truth rather than let the community handle it. Add a link to videos that simply says "upload a response" and when someone uploads a video, that video is linked to under the original video and the video being responded to is linked on the response page. The community can then vote on the original and response so that garbage responses are voted down and good responses have a chance to be voted up.

    YouTube wants to rule by tyranny rather than by encouraging dialog.

  18. A search engine is not a publisher by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    When a search brand wants to publish its own news under it sown brand then it can keep its own staff to its own politics.

    Let the rest of the internet publish what it wants and show "search" results for the users who expect to find content.

    Censorship is not a result users want to pay for with ads.
    Censorship opens the marketplace to competition who can actually "search" the internet without the constant party political removal of results.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  19. Re:"Retarded Trump supporting whiner lies online" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All we know about you is that you subscribe to retarded youtube conspiracy videos and try to promote that faggot shit on slashdot where at least half the people aren't as retarded as you are, apparently, so it fails.

  20. Moron believes youtube conspiracy videos, News@11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you're telling us is what a gullible retard you are. Seriously, are you an ACTUAL retard? Your fact-checking faculties obviously got lost along with Trump's wristwatch up Putin's ass.

  21. Make America Gullible Again by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why don't they teach critical thinking in grade school? I don't understand why there are so many gullible people in the USA who want to stay that way. Maybe preachers are spreading it, and people believe their preacher because of family/town habit? I'm very uncomfortable sharing a country with so many idiots. Large quantities of such people are dangerous. They will get us poisoned, nuked, and/or locked up in Comcast Central Prison one of these days.

    1. Re:Make America Gullible Again by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you think people could learn critical thinking by being taught in the appropriate manner, this wouldn't be a problem. Read up on the massive number of cognitive biases that humans exhibit and some of the other literature that suggests they're baked in to the hardware as it were (and may have been beneficial at the time from an evolutionary standpoint) and you'll realize that you're dealing with a much harder problem than just adding it to the school curriculum.

    2. Re:Make America Gullible Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because teaching critical thinking might cause students to question the wrong things.

      You think quasi-religious ideology is restricted to one side of the political spectrum? Those running the education system, especially higher education, are rivaling religious cults these days. They cannot afford to have their orthodoxy questioned.

    3. Re:Make America Gullible Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not religion bub, its our shitty education system designed to pass even the dumbest. Where teachers are taught that passing national tests are more important than actually teaching. Where we cut off funding to schools that have the lowest scores on those tests. Where we expect our teachers to work for 16 hours or more a day AND pay for necessary class supplies out of their own paychecks, which are barely more than twice the poverty level in many places (and barely 50% above it in many others). Where boards of people who have no Education or even Science background get to decide what goes into our textbooks. And all of that is our K-12/Primary/Elementary system! College/University are almost as bad!

    4. Re:Make America Gullible Again by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > and/or locked up in Comcast Central Prison

      What the fuck is that???

    5. Re:Make America Gullible Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those running the education system, especially higher education, are rivaling religious cults...

      Like Trump University?

    6. Re:Make America Gullible Again by nwaack · · Score: 1

      Why don't they teach critical thinking in grade school?

      Even if they did I don't think it would matter, because as soon as they get to college it's indoctrination time!!! (At least for the social "sciences," that is).

    7. Re:Make America Gullible Again by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Lots of people don't want their kids to think too critically. They want them to follow their parent's religion, or political leanings.

      --
      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:Make America Gullible Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What other nation would make you more comfortable? Seriously asking.

    9. Re:Make America Gullible Again by gtall · · Score: 1

      That's where you have Comcast as your ISP, but it doesn't work well, and you cannot get past the bots to get a repair person out to fix their problem. If they did send someone, they'd have to swear you to secrecy so you don't tell the neighbors how you managed it. Too big of a risk, better that you remain screwed in a loop and remit their well-deserved payment every month.

    10. Re:Make America Gullible Again by jettoblack · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Think of it like herd immunity for vaccines. As much as I love the internet, it broke through all of the barriers that used to protect us from the spread fake news, and society hasn't yet figured out how to fix it.

      There have always been lots of crazy people spread throughout society, but before the internet, your social interactions were limited to your local community groups. If you didn't want to be ostracized, you had to at least pretend to blend in with local norms. Your choice of media were limited to things like TV, radio, and newspapers which had to appeal to a geographic market rather than a particular bias or viewpoint. These factors acted like herd immunity, protecting these vulnerable crazy people and helping to contain fake news before it could spread.

      Enter the internet. Every crazy and/or dishonest person can now make a direct connection with millions of vulnerable people without geographic, political, or financial barriers. Media outlets can now specialize in highly tailored viewpoints without any consideration for geographic appeal, and have to constantly out-extreme each other to maintain a shrinking slice of viewers. Instead of local social groups helping to contain the spread of misinformation, we now have a positive re-enforcement cycle: the bolder and crazier your fake news, the bigger your audience of gullible people eager to consume more and more outlandish ideas, and the faster it spreads. It's like a virus spreading rapidly through a population that lacks natural immunity.

    11. Re:Make America Gullible Again by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      As a warning, never put Comcast on pull-based autopay. They invent every reason under the sun to keep billing you. They probably have large systems & rooms full of lawyers devoted to keeping customers from leaving/cancelling.

    12. Re:Make America Gullible Again by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      ALWAYS "escalate" the issue to have a Tech come out. Why?

      1. That costs them time and money so they are motivated to fix it.
      2. They keep a record of every maintenance so they will be motivated to fix it if there is an on-going history of problems.

      If you don't request a tech they don't have a history to keep track of and they aren't motivated to fix "non-existent" issues.

       

    13. Re:Make America Gullible Again by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      maybe its the left with their non-rational arguments and patent lies. In fact im pretty sure its the left, because they basically want dumb slaves in their vision for a communist America.

      Without picking sides here, the slippery-slope destination of either side (left/right) is pretty much the same thing but under a different "owner". Full-on progressivism-gone-wrong would be gov't mind-control/slavery, and full-on conservatism-gone-wrong would be corporate and/or mega-church mind-control/slavery.

      Yes, each side thinks the other is sliding into the vortex via brainwashing.

    14. Re:Make America Gullible Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your argument is a false equivalency.

    15. Re: Make America Gullible Again by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      "It's like a virus spreading rapidly through a population that lacks natural immunity."

      Cool conspiracy, bro.

    16. Re:Make America Gullible Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you think people could learn critical thinking by being taught in the appropriate manner, this wouldn't be a problem.

      The problem is that they are taught the opposite. From my experience critical thinking is actively discouraged. Starting with point deductions for reading ahead - litterally "that wasn't handled in class, so your answer is wrong". To flat out lies about the how and why of the government - Germany has a few laws completely biased towards the parties in power that school presents as needed to avoid another Weimar Republic / Rise of Hitler, except at least half of them wouldn't have applied to Hitlers rise of power at all, certainly not the five percentage hurdle that artificially keeps out smaller parties .

    17. Re:Make America Gullible Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...non-rational arguments and patent lies. In fact im pretty sure its the left, because they basically want dumb slaves in their vision for a communist America.

      There are two problems you should fix if you want to make a more persuasive case.

      First, this implies mind-reading: "X people want to do Y". You can establish probable motivation using various surveys, for example. And a small subset doesn't necessarily imply that all or even most people of a labelled group do, say, or want something. Maybe narrow your scope to better focus definitions and lines of reasoning, such as "B. Sanders supporters".

      Second, even if some "on the left" do want full-on communism (however defined), that by it self is not "irrational". Logic, math, and science (LMS) does NOT dictate what people "should" do or should want. LMS has no goal; it makes no value judgements (without givens). At best, LMS can establish cause and effect: "Doing X results in Y". One cannot prove via LMS that people "should" do X, only that it could result in Y.

    18. Re:Make America Gullible Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I mean there are people who believe transgender is a real thing instead of a mental illness. It's a sad world that we live in.

    19. Re:Make America Gullible Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with that. I spent some time arguing (and a bit of trolling tbh) with Chris Reeve who was spouting all kinds of science nonsense while complaining people should think critically. I've had more constructive dialog with some Jehovah's Witnesses...

  22. Re:"Retarded Trump supporting whiner lies online" by dryriver · · Score: 1, Funny

    Except that the specific Youtube channel I pointed to has a narrator who is about 100 IQ points above you, dear anonymous coward. You keep watching your CNN...

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
  23. Believe all woman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe Doctor BlAseye-Ford!

  24. FAKE NEWS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one in Hollywood would ever sexually abuse anyone, especially not children. We all know that politicians and celebrities run in completely different circles.

  25. Fucking flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers by ZombieCatInABox · · Score: 2

    Yes, please. get rid of those fucking flat-earthers and moon landing hoaxers. Seriously, they are not just people with "differing viewpoints". They are a concerted, well organized plague of trolls and con-artists who's goal if solely to flood every single channel about science, astronomy, space-exploration, etc, to infuriate people and direct them to their innane and pathetic videos, in order to generate views and ad revenue.

    They are a disease, a cancer of youtube.

    1. Re:Fucking flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers by stevegee58 · · Score: 0

      Rabid, wild-eyed true-believers like yourself is what bring out the trolls. They don't believe the earth is flat but the love to see you foam at the mouth.

    2. Re:Fucking flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers by ZombieCatInABox · · Score: 1

      By the tone of your reply, I can tell there's a troll, or wannabe-troll, in there somewhere.

      All I'm guilty of is wanting a world without sociopaths. I can see why that would displease people like you.

    3. Re:Fucking flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fitting you used the word diseased because the only way to fight bad bacteria is to have a good bacteria culture. you cant nuke everything we are finding out.

    4. Re:Fucking flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A long time ago it was thought the sun rotated around the earth. With your proposed policy, those who challenged that would have been silenced. The best way to combat ignorance is to challenge and debate those, not ignore them and allow them to fester. You are part of the problem.

    5. Re: Fucking flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hilarious to watch a True Believer work themselves into a frantic tizzy.

    6. Re: Fucking flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers by ZombieCatInABox · · Score: 1

      And it's sad to see a sociopathic troll actually enjoying causing harm and distress to other people.

      That being said, enjoy the rest of your life behind your keyboard in your mother's basement, troll. This post will be the last piece of entertainement you'll get from me.

    7. Re:Fucking flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers by ZombieCatInABox · · Score: 1

      People who brought forth the idea that the earth revolved around the sun back in the days were doing it out of a true desire to understand the world as it is and to expand human knowledge for the benefit of all mankind. It wasn't a deliberate plot to scam people out of their money.

      There are people suggesting to possibility of some shady things playing out behind closed doors, and then there are people like Alex Jones, unapologetically admitting that all he says is bullshit for the sole purpose of "entertainement" (and money making).

      I'm sorry people like you can't seem to be able to tell the difference.

    8. Re:Fucking flat-earthers and moon-landing hoaxers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if what they are saying is true?!

  26. Re:"Retarded Trump supporting whiner lies online" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously they're a genius, they've monetized you being stupid over the internet successfully. Of course, that wouldn't even take a 50 IQ to do really. You're so fucking dumb you could literally be tricked by children.

  27. Conspiracy theories? by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like Tiananmen Square https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    Term limits in China?
    Celebrities want their good movie reviews found and bad movie reviews banned?
    Big brands want no results on their DRM efforts?
    Repairing a computer is now a trade in counterfeit parts?
    Time to help Spain with all results about anything to do with any Catalan declaration of independence.
    Not find results about French protester?
    Only find what a German government approves of politically?

    Time for a real search engine again.
    Removing content for the politics of NGO, nations, think tanks, European bureaucrats, faith groups, cults, celebrities will not result is a useful search product.
    Users know what they enjoy search for. Provide that search service to the users and show them some ads. A search engine is not a publisher of content.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Conspiracy theories? by dryriver · · Score: 2

      No no no... All that stuff is being done to you and me for OUR HEALTH AND WELLBEING, you see? Its for our own good! The system CARES about us. It always has. That's why they put nice stuff like DRM in our games and media discs. So WE benefit and GROW as human beings! =) (Cue the Soviet propaganda music and Red Army choir singing "Its AAALLLLL for the GOOOOOD of the PEEEEOPPPLE".)

      --
      Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    2. Re:Conspiracy theories? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Searching the internet is a sin.
      The search brand wants results curated for its users.
      A party political filter over all results.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    3. Re: Conspiracy theories? by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Big Brother Google loves us all.

  28. filter what ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people's own bullsh*t filters just need tuning.

    my grandmother was a National Enquirer reader and told stories.
    my grandfather was a great story teller, a lot of exagerations, but with a lot of truth.

    my filter is pretty good, the scary part is I believe that the current round of theories have a lot of the truth in them.

    the CIA loves blackmail, so who knows what crazy people & crazy things they use.

    and with all the missing trillions, they have been doing some major work.
    I like the researching ufo tech.

    the religionous front will be upset when more information about history that refutes their teachings comes out.

  29. Re:"Retarded Trump supporting whiner lies online" by nwaack · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be great if giant sh1t eating pieces of garbage AC's couldn't comment on posts from actual Slashdot users? Yeah, it would.

  30. Youtube is not a search engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  31. Ignorance by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    During his testimony on Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee [...] Pichai replied that he was "not aware of the specifics about it."

    How does a CEO of a company worth almost a trillion dollars go into a high profile meeting with the US House Judiciary Committee and _not_ already know about the things they're likely to ask about?

    Maybe Pichai is in too much of a billionaire bubble to know about it directly, but he has people that ought to have informed him about probable topics long before the meeting itself. The implication is that either no one in the company is actually aware of what YouTube is recommending to people, no one in the company is willing to pass word up the chain of command if YouTube is recommending videos that should be reviewed, or someone in that chain of command believes that it doesn't matter what content YouTube is promoting as long as it gets them more views and thus gets them more ad revenue.

    All three possibilities are disturbing and slightly scary, but i'd easily believe that any of them are true, especially that last one.

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    1. Re:Ignorance by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      How does a CEO of a company worth almost a trillion dollars go into a high profile meeting with the US House Judiciary Committee and _not_ already know about the things they're likely to ask about?

      I guess because the hearing was not about getting answers from Pichai but more about the Senators talking.

      It was usually "Bla Bla Bla Blah Blah" - "Unrelated question" - "Yes or No?" - "Huh?" - "YES OR NO!!?!"

      --
      bickerdyke
    2. Re:Ignorance by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      How does a CEO of a company worth almost a trillion dollars go into a high profile meeting with the US House Judiciary Committee and _not_ already know about the things they're likely to ask about?

      I guess because the hearing was not about getting answers from Pichai but more about the Senators talking.

      Senators rarely speak in the House.

      To answer GP, it was a question about some new conspiracy theory. If it was about pizzagate, he probably could have answered, but this could just be too damn new.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  32. How about this . . . by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    As other commenters have said, only the approved "conspiracy theories" will be allowed.

    Be nice if we saw more of the obvious facts such as the profits from stock speculation on 9/11 (on the airlines involved, and businesses residing in the WTC Twin Towers) went into an account with investment firm, Alex. Brown and Sons, a subsidiary of the Deutsche Bank, and that an inactive partner with Alex. Brown was CIA executive director, Buzz Krongard, whose wife was a partner with Apollo Asset Management which owned EurekaGGN, a fiber optics cabling company, which had just installed dark (still inactive) fiber optic cabling in the top 20 to 40 stories of the WTC's Twin Towers, and that aboard Flight 77 was a physicist with the Naval Surface Warfare Center who had previously worked on a research project about destroying building by injecting nanothermite into fiber optics cabling, then triggering it with a single laser pulse. Sadly, that physicist died aboard Flight 77, which crashed into the west wall of the Pentagon, killing almost all the auditors of the DIA's Financial Management Group who had recently discovered that $2.3 trillion in funds were missing from the DoD.

    With several months, the asset values of hedge funds would double from $2 trillion to $4 trillion and we know after the fact that the stock speculation on those 9/11 business took place on the investment firm computer systems located in the Twin Towers. Now would facts like this be allowed???

    https://www.foreignpolicyjourn...

    1. Re:How about this . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story bro.

  33. 2FacedGOP by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy added, "[T]he Free World depends on a free Internet. “. Too bad in practice they gleefully watched Ajit Pai crush that notion while they lined their pockets with $101M Big Telco Payola ( https://www.theverge.com/2017/... ).
    Further, Republican Rep. Lamar Smith cited a debunked study ( https://www.politifact.com/tru... ) to claim Google provides biased results for searches about President Donald Trump. Smith accused Google of having a liberal bias "programmed into the company's culture."

    1. Re:2FacedGOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unironically citing The Verge and Politifact in a story about conspiracies and fake news? Bold move.

    2. Re:2FacedGOP by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except google does have a liberal bias programmed into the company's culture. Every company has a bias baked in. Pretending otherwise is naive.

  34. Maybe decide if you're a platform or a publisher? by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you're a platform, then you're just the delivery device.
    Of course, you'd have to stop with the fucking editing, censoring everyone that doesn't follow your religion, stop trying evangelize your creed and just serve up videos.
    Hint: 2018 rewind, where was your BIGGEST SUBSCRIBER youtuber Pewdiepie?

    If you're a publisher, then understand the moment you start to pick winners and losers, when you put your finger on the scales (even if it's for a cause you really really believe in!) you are now RESPONSIBLE for the message.
    IMO you should lose your section 230 exemption too, then. The EFF's position that Sec 230 allows basically any modding at all is hypocritical; they would certainly change the moment someone started to censor out EFF 'freedom' posts.

    --
    -Styopa
  35. When in doubt, ask a professor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only conspiracy theories taught in your local universities gender or ethnic studies departments are allowed. Such as:

    * White people erased POC from the Middle Ages.
    * Universities have rape rates higher than war zones.
    * 19th Century colonialism was worse then Genghis Khan and a hundred other murderous tyrants combined.
    * Only white people had slaves.

  36. Except this literally happened to my ex's friend! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking anonymously for obvious reasons.

    My ex is an ex organized child rape victim who got away.
    And said "satanic rituals" are only acts, deliberately made to be as ridiculous as possible, precisely so that if you tell your story, nobody will take you seriously. "Nevermind" the torn orifices, scars, leading submission when meeting the (rapist) parent and trashing the place in rage afterwards (a key mental symptom), etc.

    A time of her childhood consisted of living in a "sex dungeon". Which is basically a bunch of prison cells, where you get rented out to customers for rape. Babies aren't even fed, as it is assumed they will just be "used up" before starving. And there are a lot of babies, if you have post-pubescent kids there too. She often tried to feed babies on literally cockroaches and her own spit. Futile, of course.
    Yes, I know it sounds over the top. That's my point. It *is* beyond what any of us can accept as part of reality.

    One of the girls ran away. But they caught her. And their standard punishment was as follows:
    take all the kids to a nearby cave (to simplify things I say cave), string that girl up, take a mini-chainsaw "like doctors use", cut off both her legs, instantly cauterize the wound with fire and hot iron, then grill and eat one leg, and smearing the other one, blood first, through the faces of the kids, to show them what happens if you run away.
    Mind you, the girl survived, and was still used for rape for quite some time.

    My ex was a bit "luckier", as she was basically somebody's "girlfriend", who wanted (mostly) exclusivity.
    When she was too old for him, she was taken, as if she was his kid, to one of the bigger child trading fairs (yes, there actually are many of those), near Washington D.C.. Where she was sold back to a German guy (she's originally from Germany), who brought her to Germany. The "dungeon" they had there, was raided by the police, not much later.
    But the thing you'd probably would believe the least, is how much she had to fight, to not just default "back" into custody of somebody from that same local group.

    I'm sorry, but this is actually real. Things like that actually really happen.
    And while no, it certainly isn't just politicians, celebrities and the like, it's not like those groups were magically free from having some sick fucks in their ranks. It's not implausible that somebody might think they are all famous, if only one or two are, or it happens to be an exceptional event. Especially since the kids are also often fed drugs, to make it even harder, to retell what happened.

    So please, for fuck's sake... people like us cannot even remotely imagine what sick fucks are out there. Go ask any veteran of a real war. (Not a beating, like the US rolling over Iraq in a week.) They can tell you atrocities from Vietnam, the Yugoslavian war, the concentration camps, the gulags, and so on, and so on, and so on. Maybe somebody will even tell you about the still existing US edition, called "black sites".
    And by far the biggest problem all of those victims have to fight with, is even their own families not believing them. Because it is just so freaking out there! And there are such silly details! And there were these stupid girls who called somebody a rapist, and ruined his life, just for shits and giggles! (Yes, those exist too. Women aren't free from being sick psycho fucks. Actually, women often end up leading or managing those rape dungeons.)

    I don't hope you ever get to experience something like this. I do hope you will have to calm your girlfriend when she has flashbacks though, and to prevent her from falling back into old patterns of expecting you to basically rape her during sex. (The brainwashing is strong, sometimes.)

  37. ONE TIME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One guy, one time, shot a few bullets hitting no living person.
    Conspiracy theories have been with us for a very very long time without this ever happening!
    But suddenly its dangerous to have these ideas flow freely?
    With the Fake News propaganda and this shit its like we are finally getting close to some actual truth, which is why its now suddenly "dangerous" i think.

  38. You could start with not recommending that shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am behind CGNAT with rapidly changing addresses and I frequently delete cookies and all other identifying browser state. Youtube's suggestion are extremely quickly based on the first few videos I watch in a browser session, whatever those videos are. This tells me that Youtube doesn't know a lot about me. Among the videos similar to the ones I'm watching, it always also recommends the craziest shit, from free energy devices to political extremist videos of various kinds, from antivax videos to financial conspiracies. It feels like it's trying to get to know me by making big excursions and watching which direction Iean. If that's how Google/Alphabet/Youtube treats a "neutral" customer, then it's not that they need to do something to address the spread of conspiracy theories: They need to stop spreading conspiracy theories. Quite frankly it's insulting to have that garbage recommended to me.

  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Re:"Retarded Trump supporting whiner lies online" by dryriver · · Score: 1

    The people tricking you are not children, buddy. They do it in a very smart, very cold and very calculated fashion. Again, keep watching mainstream stuff and you'll continue to think the world is all flowers and white unicorns.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
  41. Luckyo, the known liar who eats plastic though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12642660&cid=57354060 - So you're the same Luckyo that lied and said plastic is totally OK to eat and have in your bloodstream.... why should anyone believe you?

    You're a known liar. You should be censored on the merits.

    1. Re:Luckyo, the known liar who eats plastic though? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I should be believed because I'm so right, that one of the people who was wrong is butthurt enough to stalk me on slashdot obviously.

  42. Oh Fuck YouTube. by Chas · · Score: 1

    Basically it's another excuse to label anything against the company's ideological bent as "conspiracy".

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  43. Was Pizzagate really discredited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When was it ever anything but a lunatic conspiracy theory for people who wanted to still feel decent with Trump-stink all over them that won't wash off. They voted for a monster, so had to pretend that everyone else is a monster, and he's secretly a hero. Pretty much standard Conservative fantasy-role-play.

  44. Stupid is as stupid does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No company or group of companies can prevent the spread of conspiracy theories - stupid ideas will spread and stupid people will believe them no matter the platform.

    Just recently NASA offered to prove to Stephen Curry that we actually did land on the moon:

    http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/25508943/nasa-offers-show-proof-moon-landing-golden-state-warriors-star-stephen-curry

    All content platforms should let ideas live and die on their own merits. No one company or person should be the "arbiter of truth".

    Our government is prohibited from restricting speech. Our government should also not be permitted to outsource that activity to private companies.

  45. Fuck youtube. This is just code for censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They aren't getting grilled by congress because of "conspiracy" videos. They have an agenda to censor conservative political videos, and its as clear as night and day to anyone who looks at it carefully. These fuckers aren't happy just to see your data to the highest bidder, they now want to have a walled garden around you to control what you can see and what you cant. Nope fuck you youtube I wont be using you anymore, and you can go stick google up your ass because im not giving you another fucking cent of my money you free speech hating cunt fuckers.

  46. Spread conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The so called spread of conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theory.

  47. Basically, it's this all over, every time: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe We Should Have Done Something About ManBearPig - South Park

    It's their smugness and assumption that their popularity means they are correct, that's so utterly annoying.

    Anticonspiracy theorists really are the absolutely worst kind of conspiracy theorists.

  48. Please protect us from ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need a nanny state. We're all too stupid to understand that almost everything on the Internet is fake. The Earth is flat but we maintain the lie to suit the cult-like belief in ancient Greek scholars. NASA faked the moon landing to win the space race, and maintain the lie to this day to protect their funding. Scientist made up global warming to suit their commie agenda. Fluoride is an 5th column project to mind control the entire US by destroying our ability to resist psychological domination.

  49. Re:"Retarded Trump supporting whiner lies online" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The morons tricking you probably ARE children though, you're that simple.

  50. Will how about where most by oldgraybeard · · Score: 0

    conspiracy theories get publicity.
    The Mainstream Media! Hearsay, anonymous sourced accusations, etc. etc. etc.
    In my book, anonymous source = Organizational/Personal Journalistic opinions/ideology for which they have no real proof to support. But it will really drive the ratings and the uninformed.

    To call much of what is put out as News by the Mainstream Media Conspiracy Theories would be exceedingly kind. And no one really cares if they are true believers!

    Getting your News from the internet (Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc) is idiotic. The same applies to most of the Mainstream Media

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  51. You are a nutter, not an American. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a nutter. Not a real American of any value, deplorable nothing-scum. Prepare your anus Trumptards. Prison is coming.

  52. That would be fine if that's how it worked by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    in practice powerful propagandists prop up bad ideas all the time.

    Put another way, there is no such thing as a "Free Marketplace of Ideas" anymore than there's a free marketplace anywhere or any time. In the absence of anti-trust laws you get robber barons, but I'd hardly call a regulated economy a "free marketplace".

    So you make trade offs between protecting vulnerable groups and having freedom and innovation. Google's done an alright job so far. The only folks I've seen completely deplatformed ere the ones actively encouraging violence (and no, having your ad revenue go away isn't a deplatforming...).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re: That would be fine if that's how it worked by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      They only discriminate against people I don't like, so it's all good!!

    2. Re:That would be fine if that's how it worked by dcw3 · · Score: 2

      Our anti-trust laws are in severe need of enforcement and/or reform. I'm very much a free market advocate up to the point where there's very little competition. And, that can be at the local levels...think ISP local monopolies. Without competition, you don't have a free market.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  53. even better by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    Slashdot users learn to change the subject instead of handing gutter trash their karma bonus. That sure would be great.

  54. nested conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a conspiracy theory that the government wants us to stop talking about conspiracy theories! Bunch of paranoid freaks!!!

  55. Religious institution are directly opposed to it by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    not all of them, but the Evangelicals are.

    I'm inclined to think it has less to do with religion and more to do with the ruling class wanting to keep a lid on the working class. Too much education and critical thinking will get folks to start demanding better pay and working conditions.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  56. Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they should do is stop making changes to Youtube that keep making it worse.

  57. It's not that simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm getting kinda tired of people acting as if a bunch of techies in SF should be the ultimate guide on what is morally OK. People keep making the argument that these are private companies, not public services, and as such can do whatever they want on their platforms. From a simplified perspective this is correct, but from a more realistic viewpoint, these companies are forming an integral part of our social fabric, whether we like it or not, they have a duty to not censor, and they should be leaving people to make their own decisions. If they really cared, they'd provide users with simple to use but solid filtering systems, but they know that people may end up actually using this, and it would hurt ad revenue.

  58. ADDRESS? How about, IGNORE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you you fucking censor. Your political censorship is going to have consequences, you better fucking believe that!

  59. DMCA to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The simple solution doesn't even involve changing laws -- just enforce the DMCA on these companies.

    YouTube is required by law to remove illegal content from it's platform, such as child pornography or copyright violating material.

    If they remove any other content, then they become a publisher. By becoming a publisher, they are now liable for any copyrighted material on their platform as per the DMCA.

    It is well past time for these companies to be treated as the publishers they have become and let the platforms die under the weight of copyright lawsuits until they decide to return to being content hosting services as they were to begin with.

  60. Self Serving Much by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

    Isn't it a bit self serving that a politician would be advocating for a private company to censor content which makes his type look worse?

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
  61. Re:Religious institution are directly opposed to i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paywall on wapo. But it's not just the evangelicals.

    The church of progressivism is too, to wit:

    Today’s identity politics has another interesting feature: it teaches students to think in a way antithetical to what a liberal arts education should do. When I was at Yale in the 1980s, I was given so many tools for understanding the world. By the time I graduated, I could think about things as a Utilitarian or a Kantian, as a Freudian or a behaviorist, as a computer scientist or a humanist. I was given many lenses to apply to any one situation. But nowadays, students who major in departments that prioritize social justice over the disinterested pursuit of truth are given just one lens—power—and told to apply it to all situations. Everything is about power. Every situation is to be analyzed in terms of the bad people acting to preserve their power and privilege over the good people. This is not an education. This is induction into a cult, a fundamentalist religion, a paranoid worldview that separates people from each other and sends them down the road to alienation, anxiety, and intellectual impotence.

    You could see this church of progressivism as the approved cult of the ruling class, for liberal arts is a common "education" for politicians, journalists (checks and balances, baby!), and more generally for "the 9,9%".

    Or, differently put, for the aspirational managerial class, that the ruling class deliberately(!) let grow too big. It is one of the reasons why the American Empire is crumbling, as are its western vassal states that did much the same thing. What is the traditional home church of the American ruling class, again?

  62. Re:Religious institution are directly opposed to i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I went and searched a bit found e.g. this. Take a gem like

    "Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."

    Compare and contrast "undermining parental authority" with "Everything is about power. Every situation is to be analyzed in terms of the bad people acting to preserve their power and privilege over the good people." as taught to kids in college, you know, just-out-of-puberty kids in college.

    GOP in Texas platforming on "honor thy father and mother" is not surprising. That they come out and "oppose" the teaching of (very DEM) liberal arts stock-"rebelliousness" (which is all about "power" and "privilege") is not surprising either. If anything this is more proof that GOP and DEM are two sides of the same party's challenge coin.

    If I wasn't fully aware of the one party with two faces system, and I believed that voting for either would be able to affect real change, this would actually be a reason to vote GOP, because I think that a church of academia (as the liberal arts colleges are most certainly building with their intersectional diversity identity politics) is a really bad idea, so this gets a pass in the least bad of two bad options sort of way. But of course, there's only one party and the rest is smoke and mirrors. Voting won't help you people, and anyway I'm neither a US resident nor a US citizen so I don't get to vote. You'll have to fix this mess all by yourself, kids.

  63. newspeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    censorship is doublegood.

  64. Re:Maybe decide if you're a platform or a publishe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're a platform, then you're just the delivery device.
    Of course, you'd have to stop with the fucking editing, censoring everyone that doesn't follow your religion, stop trying evangelize your creed and just serve up videos.
    Hint: 2018 rewind, where was your BIGGEST SUBSCRIBER youtuber Pewdiepie?

    If you're a publisher, then understand the moment you start to pick winners and losers, when you put your finger on the scales (even if it's for a cause you really really believe in!) you are now RESPONSIBLE for the message.
    IMO you should lose your section 230 exemption too, then. The EFF's position that Sec 230 allows basically any modding at all is hypocritical; they would certainly change the moment someone started to censor out EFF 'freedom' posts.

    Thanks for putting it into perspective, when the most popular show is a guy playing Minecraft, the fuck do I care what they do with the rest of the platform really. How many of the users are even adults?

  65. Re:"Retarded Trump supporting whiner lies online" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And as the narrator of the channel you posted, I appreciate your patronage. I make a lot of money off of gullible idiots like you who share my obviously insane videos. Why get a real job when I can just make up crap and make a video about it, and get ad revenue from retards like you?

  66. Conspiracy Theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is going to address the spread of conspiracy theories in the White House and Congress?

  67. Re: Luckyo, the known liar who eats plastic though by astrofurter · · Score: 1

    One can know a man but his enemies. If the faggottroll farm is stalking you, you must have said _something_ that was true.

  68. Re: See you at Trump's hanging, bitch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The message above was brought to you by the Committee to Reelect Donald Trump in 2020.

    Remember voters - Democrats are deranged, mean-spirited wingnuts whose idea of political debate is hurling childish insults. Compared to Democrats President Trump is grown up, kind hearted, and a serious intellectual.

    Vote TRUMP in 2020 - for common decency!

  69. so... they'll stop the Trump-Russia nonsense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, yeah, I thought not.

    Soemthing tells me they're fine with all the screams of "Trump-Russia", or the "Bush-went-AWOL" stuff, or "the NRA controls the GOP", "Christians think the Earth is 6000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur" garbage, or the "Reagan made a deal with Iran to hold the hostages" stuff, or the "Bush went to war in Iraq for oil" stuff.

    Yup... I'm sure all the conspiracy stuff will go away.

    No more "big oil is intentionally killing the planet", and no-doubt we're certainly done hearing that all the AGW critics are bought-off by the fossil fuels companies.

    I'm so glad all the talk of the political parties flipping sides as part of Nixon's "southern strategy" will finally be put to rest (after all, if anybody simply looked at the election results in 1968,1972,1976, and 1980 at the precinct level they'd know that one was a major joke).

    The problem with censorship, "for the public good, of course" is that it all depends on who is doing the censoring and what their views of "truth" and "the public good" are. Once our society discarded the idea of objective truth, all bets were off on this stuff. The only way we can all attempt to get along now while we maintain such wildly different views of important things is by not allowing ANYBODY to censor, and by allowing all speech so that everybody is free to try to persuade peacefully. The alternative is ultimately either totalitarian force, or mob violence.

  70. telling lies is part of free speech... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    ...until it hurts your ideological affiliation so much that becomes one of the factors causing Democrats white house.

    Organizing protests and opposition via Facebook ok .... until they are organized against politically correct tax burden in France or organized voting in aforementioned spectacular defeat.

    I can easily see the future without Web 2.0, without no user generated content at all.

    When it was limited in 1980s to academics only, it was tolerable, because users were intellectual elite of society.

    Now Web 2.0 is just a circlejerk of the entropically dominating dark matter.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  71. Yes, silence dissent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can't have people posting up things that the scum in power don't want you to see!
    It might lead to 'real world violence'. I thought that was illegal already?

    Just laughable - people are able to see through and question what they are being told by the Jewish media 24 hours a day.
    9/11 is a classic example - the evil "conspiracy theories" are just UNOFFICIAL conspiracy theories - the official story is itself - obviously - a "conspiracy theory", a theory about a group of criminals conspiring to carry out 9/11 - in the official story's case, they were all Arabs.

    Basically they are trying to censor the truth because they have been found out.

    They also doubtless invent ludicrous 'conspiracy theories' which everybody then sees are ludicrous and unbelievable, in order to promote 'guilt by association'. The Flat Earth conspiracy is a classic example, set up by NASA in order to 'discredit' anybody who questions the veracity of any of NASA's work.

    LOL too at the use of the word "discredited" in the summary - like that means anything. "Oh no, they said a conspiracy theory was 'discredited', it must be rubbish then! Better not think too hard about it then!"

    The 'Holocaust' is another classic lie from the Jew, the biggest lie of all. www.codoh.com Don't believe me, question it for yourself.

  72. Be careful what you wish for.... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

    As long as they also ban all UFO conspiracy theories, flat earth theories, and Kardashian and other celebrity theories, I'm OK with this. But I'll bet the idiots that love to spread these around, including magazines like Us and People, won't put up with it.

    I'm just wondering who gets to decide if it's a conspiracy theory or not.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
  73. "admits" = loaded language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather like "Google CEO admits that users must each pay him £10 a day for life" etc.
    The whole purpose of the internet is to allow EVERYBODY to post up any opinion that they want, and to question anything.
    Don't like that? Probably because you're one of the ones whose lies are going to be exposed.

    www.codoh.com
    Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.

  74. Re: Except this literally happened to my ex's frie by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Any woman who went through what you claim would *never* have a boyfriend. Methinks the sick fuck is you.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  75. Re: Luckyo, the known liar who eats plastic though by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Some plastics are, and in fact McDonald's shakes have, or at least one time had, such plastic in them.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  76. Re:"Retarded Trump supporting whiner lies online" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AC attacks non-AC Slashdot user on Slashdot. Nobody knows who AC is. News at 11.

    NEWSFLASH: No one knows or cares who you are either. Your opinion is worth exactly as much as the other AC... absolutely nothing

  77. Transparency, not censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The solution to kooky conspiracy theories is transparency and accountability: make it easy for anyone who cares to double-check, and it'll be obvious that they're dealing with half-baked bullshit.

    Desperately trying to censor the "wrongthink" of people promoting their conspiracy theories just lends credence to their crazy claims.

    If there's no substance to the conspiracy theory, why is "The Establishment" trying to suppress it? What are they hiding?

    It's really twisted that Silicon Valley companies are spending so much effort on building communication platforms and then being upset by what people are communicating.

  78. Just right click and open in private/incognito by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and you can get around the paywall. They don't go out of their way to enforce it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  79. And "Church Progressivism" is just more by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    outrage culture. Like right wing SJWs. It's folks using outrage of any kind to get Youtube views, ad-clicks and Pateron donations.

    There's a youtuber named "Cult of Dusty" that does a good job calling people out on this. He made the point that there's only so many blue haired college chicks saying crazy anti-man crap out there, so that we're getting increasingly crazy attacks on things that are "SJW" and the like. The left wing SJWs for their part are often happy to join in on the circle jerk of clicks and Pateron donations, though I don't think they do as well as the right wing guys.

    It's all crap to distract you and me from economic issues like healthcare, low and declining wages, expensive college and are general declining standard of living. If you're engaging in it yourself stop it. It's a mean, nasty thing to do. If you've falling in with the anti-SJW crowd get yourself out and start focusing on real, substantive economic policy instead.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  80. Well of course he's say that by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Being a member of the Illuminati and the Knights Templar...

  81. Google avoiding awareness of political censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People say here all the time Google is a private company that can silence PragerU and the conservatives ...

    But the truth is the HIDE that they do this as much as possible.

    This is just a pretext to silence the politics they don't like even more.

  82. And he sold alot of shares right beforehand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yep.. guys an asshole

  83. Not so by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the dividing line is pretty clear. As soon as you call for violence, either directly or in the classic "Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest" way then blamo, out you go. At least as far as deplatforming goes. If you take it far enough you'll face criminal charges (just like that kid who kept swatting did) though if you keep a modest lid on it you can at least still get a web site hosted, much like Alex Jones does.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  84. Re: Except this literally happened to my ex's frie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Happened to my friend's girlfriend too. She said she was in a sex cult from the ages of 2 to 9 years old in Ghana along with a group of other kids. She said all the kids got shipped off to different countries. I asked her if she ever saw any of the children get killed and she replied, "No, but I saw them get hurt very very badly." Apparently, after they've wired the kids' minds to have disocciative identity disorder, schizophrenia, hypersexuality, etc.. then as adults, the cult handlers can give them drugs to induce different states; make them childlike and helpless, violent, make them forget, and even drugs to make them basically normal, intelligent, and functioning. It's been a real battle for my friend to help her in any way.

    They busted a prostitution ring involving a handful of cops in NYC on Sept 13th, 2018. You think those were the only "family" bad guys with jobs in gov't and social work? No... this shit is real. Brainwashing and childhood sexual trauma. You nerds must devise a solution. Use blockchain to ensure information integrity. Use gov't oversight to identify these family connections. Then bust these sickos. They can identify each other. Surely they can be identified. I'm begging you nerds out there to save the kids. I know you can do it.

  85. Yeah, fuck free speech! by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    I'm so tired of all these people being able to say things I don't approve of! Cen-sor-ship! Cen-sor-ship!