Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

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.

176 of 328 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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. 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 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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?

    10. 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!!

    11. 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
    12. 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
    13. 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.'"
    14. 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.

    15. 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.

  3. 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 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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)
    9. 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!
    10. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Second sentence pre-empted this line of demagoguery.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. 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!
    15. Re: Wrong answer. Correct answer is by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Corporations have NO rights.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Re:Wrong answer. Correct answer is by Luckyo · · Score: 1

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

    20. 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
    21. 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
    22. 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
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
  4. 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: 1

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

    5. 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
    6. 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
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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)
    10. 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.
    11. Re: Or Perhaps... by astrofurter · · Score: 1

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

    12. 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
    13. 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
    14. 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
    15. 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
    16. 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.
  5. 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 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.

    2. 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)
    3. 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
  6. 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.

    --
    Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  7. 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.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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).

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    5. Re:Dear moron plastic-eater Luckyo by Luckyo · · Score: 1

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

    6. 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."
    7. 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
    8. 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.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    9. 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
    10. 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.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    11. 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
    12. 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.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    13. 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
    14. 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.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    15. 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
    16. 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.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  8. 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.
  9. 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 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!
  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

    --
    Work Safe Porn
  14. 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"
  15. 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.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    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 UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > and/or locked up in Comcast Central Prison

      What the fuck is that???

    3. 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).

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    8. 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.

       

    9. 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.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    10. 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:"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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

  19. 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.
  20. 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...
  21. 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.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  22. 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.

  23. 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?

  24. 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.

  25. 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.
  26. 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!
  27. 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...

  28. 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 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.

  29. 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
  30. 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).

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. 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.
  33. 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!!!
  34. Re:Only Approved Conspiracy Theories Are Allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

  35. 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.
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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)
  40. 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)
  41. 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. 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.

  43. 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.

  44. 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/
  45. 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.

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

    Do you support Net Neutrality?

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

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

    Except the servers have been wiped with a clothe!

  50. 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
  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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.
  57. 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.
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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.
  63. 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.

  64. 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/
  65. 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/
  66. Well of course he's say that by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Being a member of the Illuminati and the Knights Templar...

  67. 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/
  68. 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

  69. 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/...

  70. 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
  71. 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.

  72. 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.
  73. 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!