Slashdot Mirror


YouTube To Curb Conspiracy Theory Video Recommendations (venturebeat.com)

YouTube said today that it is retooling its recommendation algorithm that suggests new videos to users in order to prevent promoting conspiracies and false information, reflecting a growing willingness to quell misinformation on the world's largest video platform after several public missteps. From a report: These recommendations all too often serve up unsavory content: ludicrous conspiracy theories about mass-shooting events being staged, far-fetched proclamations that the moon landing never happened, and hare-brained notions that the Earth on which we live is, well, flat. Moving forward, YouTube promises that you'll see less of those kinds of videos. This is similar to moves it's made in the past to reduce clickbaity recommendations, or videos that are slight variations on something else you've watched.

"We'll continue that work this year, including taking a closer look at how we can reduce the spread of content that comes close to -- but doesn't quite cross the line of -- violating our Community Guidelines," YouTube said in a blog post. "While this shift will apply to less than one percent of the content on YouTube, we believe that limiting the recommendation of these types of videos will mean a better experience for the YouTube community."

271 comments

  1. And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Z80a · · Score: 5, Funny

    "See? NASA made youtube to DELETE all the flat earth videos to hide the truth!"

    1. Re: And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, and all those crazy people who said the govt was spying on us!

      Oh wait that turned out to be true

    2. Re: And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      New York, not Chicago, d'oh. The Illinois article before this was on my mind and I farted that. See how easy it is to "debunk" your own theory with a simple mistake? Still, what of the actual truth was proven either way?

      None of it. We can only note that Larry Silverstein collected 6 Billion dollars in insurance he signed up for about 2-3 months before the event, marked by "elevator repairs" with the power off for weeks, no cameras or locks.

      But you know, elevators in buildings requiring hundreds of millions of dollars in retrofits... it's plausible either way isn't it? Sure a hijacker's undamaged passport can fall to the street and land in a cop's hand. Why not? Prove it.

    3. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wouldn't mind if youtube would be a little more picky on its recommendations. Not to just base them off one video that I watch. I watched, really didn't even watch, more like flipped through, one flat earth video. Next thing you know I'm on the "youtube nutball" list. Everything from bigfoot raped my dog to Elvis is pumping gas down at the 7-11.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    4. Re: And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by mnemotronic · · Score: 1
      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    5. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Z80a · · Score: 1

      I think the ideal solution would be to well, use the recommendation list to show debunking videos, so you can get the people "on the edge".
      But i would be smarter and pick videos debunk videos from people with close opinions to the user, rather than getting the complete opposite.

    6. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Cito · · Score: 1

      goodbye to all the flat earth, 9/11 conspiracies, ufo & ghosts/paranormal crap

    7. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Z80a · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They will just get stronger, as i pointed out, the LAST thing you want to do is to give conspiracy nuts an "official validation", some authority trying to shut em up.
      You need to ridicule em, make their shit sound like things that only really nutty people believe, which well it IS actually the case.

    8. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by lgw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you dislike the video? That's how you tell YouTube's recommendation engine not to recommend more of the same.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    9. Re: And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately your godlike powers of knowing what is true and what is conspiracy isn't given to everyone.

      A lot of people talking about nsa spying were considered nutters for a long time, for example. I'd prefer if we didn't bury everything that wasnt mainstream.

      Also , what if I want to just watch conspiracy videos for the lulz? They're normally entertaining

    10. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      At this point, the Round Earth Conspiracy has to be so large that it pretty much encompasses everyone who isn't a Flat Earther.

      Either you know the Earth is flat because you're part of the conspiracy, or you don't believe the conspiracy anyway. Simultaneously the most successful and least successful conspiracy ever, encompassing the entire globe (pun intended) yet at the same time entirely ineffective.

      I always preferred the Great Iceball Earth anyway.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    11. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words... YouTube is about to become a whole lot more boring. May as well go watch Netflix then...

    12. Re: And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Burying is giving em validation, which is what i'm against.

    13. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I think the ideal solution would be to well, use the recommendation list to show debunking videos, so you can get the people "on the edge".

      Since we have decided to be social constructionists......

      You get to put anti-flat-earth stuff on my recommended list if I get to put anti-child-rape stuff on yours.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    14. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Rockoon · · Score: 0

      My solution? Never log in to youtube unless it's to post a video. Also run cookie autodelete.

      But what you are going to do about the tracking?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    15. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see anything persistent between sessions, so I don't think they're trying that hard.

    16. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither of you gets to put anything in the other's recommended list. However Google gets to put things in both of your recommended lists.

    17. Re: And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're concerned with that and still want to take some action, the question would be: What doesn't give them validation?

      Due to the prevalence of fallacious reasoning among those 'trurth-seekers' they can construe pretty much anything into a validation. Ridicule can give them validation, because that is how the government tries to shut them up without causing too much attention.

      If history is any indicator, ridicule doesn't help a lot. Ridicule is what society has virtually always done. The number of (vocal) conspiracy nuts only ever appears to go up, despite the ridicule.

      Would doing nothing on youtube's side be better in this context, create fewer new 'truth-seekers'? I can't answer that, I'm asking.

    18. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use Brave Browser. Although, for YouTube, I also largely use ClipGrab.org -- avoids advertisements.

    19. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am certainly no flat earther but it is a huge fallacy to think that just because everyone believes something that it means they are "in on" the "conspiracy".

      Most "real" conspiracy situations do involve large numbers of people but those people are never "in on" the conspiracy. Imagine IF the moon landing were faked (I am NOT saying it was). That doesn't mean a fake mission wasn't conducted where nearly everyone involved (e.x. mission control) actually thought the mission was real. That doesn't mean anyone in mission control knew about the (hypothetical) conspiracy. Most conspiracy situations involve a cover story or cover mission. To think that cover missions are absurd is to deny history. All governments throughout history have crafted massive number of false missions on a grand scale to hide real missions (and for good reason).

      False orders to hide the real orders and the peons are none the wiser.

      It would not be hard to send a military hit squad to kill someone and tell that squad that they are going after some Taliban operative when in reality it is someone else completely. The men in the hit squad and even their superiors may have no clue it was a false mission i.e. a conspiracy. These people could firmly believe they killed some Taliban guy and NOT be part of the conspiracy. They could be vehemently corroborating the "story" without knowing the story is false.

      The reality is flat earth people are probably ALL plants to keep the real conspiracies hidden in a sea of doubt. If you can lump the guy trying to reveal a real conspiracy with the flat earth person then you are 95% of the way to victory.

    20. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Z80a · · Score: 1

      It's a much better option than what youtube will most likely do, maybe even due the advertisers being assholes.

    21. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Pascoea · · Score: 1

      goodbye to all the flat earth

      Dammit. That's my source for youtube lolz...

    22. Re: And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RUSSIA IS GOING TO THE MOON TO FACT-CHECK NASA

      https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/24/russia-moon-fact-check-nasa/

    23. Re: And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grow up. Ridiculing someone just makes them hate you, it doesn't change their opinion, and may in fact strengthen it.

    24. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      The problem is that YouTube (and Google in general) is wholly incapable of deciding what is a "conspiracy theory" and what is not.

      I mean, some are obvious of course, like flat earth and moon landing hoax BS.

      But there are many others which are not so clear-cut, and Google uses known biased sources (like Politico and Snopes) as its determiners of "truth".

      It's really not Google's job to decide what is correct and deserving of your attention. That's very definitely your business, not theirs.

    25. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      (Not to mention the whole problem with the phrase "conspiracy theory". Real conspiracies exist and always have. For example the recently declassified documents about the Kennedy assassination said he was shot from 2 directions: in front and behind. That has been a classic "conspiracy theory" for decades... but according to those documents it's also true.)

    26. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That practice is sometimes called Truth Flattening in our secret cabal.

    27. Re: And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia fact-checked NASA on the Moon Hoax long time ago. So long ago, in fact, that Russia was still called Soviet Union at the time.

    28. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "See? NASA made youtube to DELETE all the flat earth videos to hide the truth!"

      The target is real, independent news. They use the crazy stuff as an excuse to get rid of it and smear the target by association. "that stuff is crazy / hate speech so we had to delete it."

    29. Re:And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood my point.

      There are many, many jobs/professions where you must take into account the curvature of the Earth. All those people must be in on it.

      For example, when Civil Engineers design a bridge above a certain length (not even really that long), they must account for the fact that the Earth curves. If they don't, the ends of the bridge will literally miss each other by a non-trivial amount (this has actually happened before). So the entire profession of Civil Engineering is in on the Round Earth Conspiracy.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    30. Re: And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by makerfixer · · Score: 1

      The idea of the Covington kid just standing there smiling and not aggressively cornering an old veteran was a conspiracy theory contracting news reports that went through layers of fact-checkers and editors... I have a feeling this is more in line with the things YouTube really wants shut down.

    31. Re: And soon enough on some growing PHPBB forum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Generally, if someone believes in one conspiracy, they are likely to believe in others. It is probably better to nix the recommendations of these videos, otherwise you may well just be adding fuel to the conspiracy theory fire.

      Google isn't deleting the videos, merely removing them from the recommendation system, which probably is the best option, as if they aren't removed, it is harder for them to claim they are being censored.

      Maybe it will still give them some validation, but do you have a better option? Teaching a conspiracy theorist to think critically so they no longer believe isn't an easy task, and just teaching them the facts without the critical thinking skill doesn't tend to work.

  2. But the Earth is flat! by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

    90% of athletes agree too. So it must be true.

  3. Oh the hits just keep on coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Help, I'm being oppressed!" - Roger Stone with little bits of infant flesh still on his unwiped jowels.

    1. Re:Oh the hits just keep on coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on, never trust a man who trusts a man who didn't want to see us at war with China.

      Lockheed got to get paid, son.

    2. Re: Oh the hits just keep on coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never trust a man who decided it was easier to lie to Congress AND the fbi, rather than just telling the truth.

    3. Re: Oh the hits just keep on coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about simply not trusting a man whose own description for himself is âoedirty tricksterâ?

    4. Re: Oh the hits just keep on coming... by Atrox+Canis · · Score: 2

      Never trust a man that is entirely harmless in a physical sense yet requires two squads of SWAT and an early morning televised assault to apprehend. That dastardly scoundrel was dangerous I say.

      --
      Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
    5. Re: Oh the hits just keep on coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahaha, so you think fraud and treason is harmless!!! Wow, I have a harmless noose for you to hang harmlessly from your neck from for a while, HARMLESS TRAITOR APOLOGIST FAGGOT.

    6. Re: Oh the hits just keep on coming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. He is a harmless old man. What was he going to do? Go Rambo on them?

      What is not harmless was my cock plunging deep in your ass last night. Sorry about the stretching and the blood and making you lick my blood and shit covered coco clean afterwards but we both know you love that.

  4. Nothing to see here... by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

    Move along...

  5. Who determines what is unsavory? by JamesNorton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "These recommendations all too often serve up unsavory content:" Which overlord(s) will determine for the algorithm what is considered "unsavory"?

    1. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by taustin · · Score: 1

      That is always the question, isn't it? And in the end, it is the only question that matters.

      And it's not like YouTube doesn't have a track record of bias.

      But if you're naïve (or stupid) enough to pay attention to YouTube's recommendations in the first place, unsavory recommendations aren't the problem.

    2. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Normal people. Believe it or not, they still exist. There are people that really know that the Earth is not flat, 9/11 wasn't a false flag operation, etc. Really. There are. And they will decide.

    3. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to think it was the nasty stuff that's there that isn't true (like denying certain events).

      You seem to insinuate some kind of Machiavellian government plot . . . private company . . . not giving nut-jobs a forum is different than silencing them pal.

    4. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why they're upset. The recommendation engine is built to herd you into hypey drivel, into lowest-common-denominator fads. The norms love all-caps emoji-loaded drama. A flat earth video set to dubstep music blends right in with the rest of the music video yeet kardasian bottle flip noise.

    5. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The earth is hollow and populated by lizard men, every school shooting was faked by crisis actors, the DNC assassinated Seth Rich, and satanic pedophiles operate out of a pizzeria basement, and if you say it's inappropriate to recommend videos discussing such to children watching The Wiggles you're part of the Orwellian deep state trying to stifle my free speech.

    6. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same ones that always have, the same cadre hollywood executives who decide what films can be made or not.

    7. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by MrTester · · Score: 1

      Yes. Why have I never realized this before! Normal people are always the decision makers and the power holders. And those people never have biases that impact their behavior and its always clear when that's not the case.
      I feel so much better about the world now.

    8. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, these "normal" people are the parents of my kids friends that can't balance their checkbooks, get suckered into every salt lamp and essential oil multi-level marketing scam, and are generally average intelligence at best. The worst part of average intelligence is that half of the population are less intelligent than that.

    9. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by gillbates · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But what if I find flat-earth conspiracy videos HILARIOUS!? Does it even occur to the censors-that-be that some people find conspiracy theories entertaining? As in, enjoying people making an ass of themselves, like the white collar equivalent of stupid redneck videos?

      There's an important, unspoken assumption here: that people who watch videos agree with the content. This is a very dangerous assumption to make, because the fact that people will assume you hold a set of positions based on what you watch has the effect of shutting down discourse. The American experiment was an experiment in determining if differing peoples - diverse cultures, ethnicities, etc... could come together and form a country united by a common creed - the Constitution. If we have to shelter people from unfamiliar or uncomfortable ideas, we've essentially admitted that the American experiment has failed; that multiculturalism and diversity are a sham and unworkable. In such a case, tribalism is justified, and ethnic nationalism required, if only for the survival of "your" kind.

      What Youtube should be doing is encouraging people to seek out the different, the bizarre, the intransigent evangelists and propaganda to further prepare themselves to interact with the ever increasing diversity of America. What they are doing is quite the opposite; by sheltering people from extreme views, even moderate disagreement - the par for civil discourse in ages past, an inevitable part of making compromises for the public good - is now seen as hatred, and labelled as such (witness the Covington Catholic junior who was called a racist for having smiled at a minority person).[https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/19/us/teens-mock-native-elder-trnd/index.html]

      --
      The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    10. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Madison Ave

    11. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Normal people. Believe it or not, they still exist. There are people that really know that the Earth is not flat, 9/11 wasn't a false flag operation, etc. Really. There are. And they will decide.

      But can normal people tell the difference between a blue and black dress versus a white and gold dress? Can they tell when an old religious man is threatening a young teen by approaching the teen and swinging a mallet within a few inches of the teen's face while singing loudly in a ceremonial language that the teen couldn't have known? Can they tell when a vile, racist, MAGA-hat wearing young man mocks -- by standing and grinning like a maniac -- a defenseless Vietnam-era veteran who is just trying to calm tensions between two outspoken groups?
      Can they?

    12. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

      But what if I find flat-earth conspiracy videos HILARIOUS!? Does it even occur to the censors-that-be that some people find conspiracy theories entertaining?

      1. How is this new policy censorship?
      2. How will it prevent you in any way from watching these videos?

      This is about recommendations, you know, the videos that autoplay after the one you selected if you opened it in a new browser and hadn't had a chance to turn autoplay off. It's not about what YouTube will or will not allow on its platform.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Which overlord(s) will determine for the algorithm what is considered "unsavory"?

      Google? As they own every aspect of what is Youtube, they can do what they like. If you don't like that, use another service. Vote with your eyeballs.

    14. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yes they can. They just aren't the ones talking about it on T.V.

    15. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      They are. The ones that post flat Earth garbage on Youtube aren't.

    16. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      And it's not like YouTube doesn't have a track record of bias.

      Yes, their bias is profit. If they are excluding content, it's because doing so makes them more $.

    17. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      But can normal people tell the difference between a blue and black dress versus a white and gold dress?

      Of course they can, its blue and black, duh!

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    18. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What Youtube should be doing is encouraging people to seek out the different, the bizarre, the intransigent evangelists and propaganda to further prepare themselves to interact with the ever increasing diversity of America.

      Youtube isn't a person. It isn't a government entity. It isn't a prophet, or a teacher. The only thing it does is optimize for profit. Saying it should do this or that for the betterment of society is like saying a squirrel should see a psychiatrist. Don't expect Youtube to be anything other than what keeps people watching the longest and causes the least friction in society.

    19. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normal people. Believe it or not, they still exist.

      Ah, the sort that vote shitheads like Trump/May/Merkel/Macron/etc.bloody.etc into power...I do so love those 'Normal people'..

    20. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Normal people. Believe it or not, they still exist.

      See, right in front of your eyes - an example of actual fake news. (There are definitely no normal people - I have looked on the Internet, and every one there is DEFINITELY freak.).

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    21. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the items you present, you're right in more than not - very ironic, isn't it?

    22. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Youtube should be doing is encouraging people to seek out the different, the bizarre, the intransigent evangelists and propaganda to further prepare themselves to interact with the ever increasing diversity of America.

      Youtube isn't a person.

      Youtube are people gathered together in a group, incorporated in a legal fiction as a person.

    23. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 2

      You would think they would optimize for profit. But hatred/bigotry/"save the planet" sometimes gets in the way. Think of the Southern businesses that wouldn't do business with "colored folk" in the past. Now look at CNN, who's news is so unreliable that their viewership is in decline. If you optimize for profit you would make a point not to offend as many customers as possible. If you "make enough", then it's tempting to push your bias. Sometimes it works (Google[youtube]--at least for now), sometimes it doesn't. Counterexample: MSNBC. They used to be a left-leaning news operation. Then they made the decision to go even harder left and be the voice of liberals. This increased their viewership--middle/right wing folks never really watched them anyways. So will this (youtube) work? Google makes so much money, they can afford to show bigotry (not so much the flat-earthers; this will morph into "anyone who doesn't toe the liberal line"...kind of like Microsoft did with their new-checker. Buzzfeed being reliable? Don't make me laugh!

    24. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way! It clearly looks Laurel. Are you blind?

    25. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are generally average intelligence at best. The worst part of average intelligence is that half of the population are less intelligent than that.

      Nope. Even if average intelligence were a mathematical average as just one point on the bell curve, and not a range within the bell curve, the average point would likely have the highest membership, making sub-average less than half the population.
      Since "average intelligence" is a range though, sub-average and above-average together make a minority of the population.
      Extending further, the abysmally dumb usually have something medically wrong with them and are removed from the population by attrition, so that makes that portion of the bell curve smaller despite our best efforts in care.

    26. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by tquasar · · Score: 1

      I am easily amused, like to sprinkle some stupid salt and pepper on my eggs. I wouldn't attempt to jump from the roof of a house into a pool but I'll certainly watch the mayhem when people do it. I also use the remote to mute or change the channel when there are things I don't want to see or hear.

    27. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Absolutely.... what Youtube should do is look at active users who've been active a year or more commenting and
      rating videos, and if the person hasn't done Thumbs Up on any Flat earth or similar conspiracy videos or had comments marked
      down as spam/crap... grant these people a user tag and a feature to suggest tag/moderate videos as "Satire", "NSFW", "Conspiracy Theory", "Fake News", etc --- such tags should appear prominently and obviously in the title and before the video can be played, and anywhere videos are recommended.

      Negative tags such as Conspiracy/Fake should prevent the video showing up on any of other users' 'Recommended Videos' or 'Top Videos' pages to avoid driving traffic to those videos.

    28. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Negative tags such as Conspiracy/Fake should prevent the video showing up on any of other users' 'Recommended Videos' or 'Top Videos' pages

      I get as much entertainment out of watching conspiracy theory videos as the morons who spend hours every day watching cute kitten videos. Why would you prevent YouTube from recommending the latest ones when it clearly can see from my history that I want to watch them?

      The problem with a company doing this kind of thing based on "revenue" and demands that certain kinds of things not be viewed is that it can often extend to the things that YOU want to view. You know, "I wasn't X so I didn't object when they came for X..." kind of stuff.

    29. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A search for "flat earth" still gets the same results. It's just the recommendation system that doesn't throw them up when you are watching non-conspiracy stuff now.

      They try to game the system with SEO techniques to get seen by people looking at NASA videos.

      In other words they made the recommendations better by filtering spam and bullshit.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We really need to stop calling people calling for authoritarian policies like censorship, "liberals". They've done nothing to earn that label.

    31. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same "overlord(s)" who created the algorithm in the first place and decided what was considered relevant and what wouldn't be.

      Funny how you aren't complaining that the algorithm existed and was filtering things to come up with a list of recommendations all along.

    32. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Normal people.

      So, groupthink?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    33. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One step at a time. If youTube wants to save money at some point, the first thing they'll do it quietly drop all their non-recommendable videos. Just like they did with other videos they couldn't sell ads on.

    34. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best way to optimize for profit is to hold people at gun point. Very few companies operate that way.

      What keeps people watching the longest are videos which invoke emotions and confrontations, which is what the conspiracy and false facts videos do.

    35. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can still search for flat earth videos and Youtube will happily show them to you. They just won't show up in recommended videos.

    36. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

      "These recommendations all too often serve up unsavory content:" Which overlord(s) will determine for the algorithm what is considered "unsavory"?

      Just science. A a crap pot hypothesis is hilariously easy to spot even for machine learning.

    37. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by TechnoCore · · Score: 1

      Right now? Google. You have no say.

    38. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's not like YouTube doesn't have a track record of bias.

      Yes, their bias is profit. If they are excluding content, it's because doing so makes them more $.

      Why do you assume that?

      The corporations that are doing this already have billions. The execs running them are personally multi-millionaires, at the least. At a certain level of riches, getting more riches is no longer the point. Having control is the point.

      If they are excluding content, it's because the people making the decision to do so want it done for reasons that are completely aside from profit or loss. Not everything in the world is economics.

    39. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by junglee_iitk · · Score: 1

      And what does make them money? Is it ads? Is it not losing a brilliant executive to a competitor? Not raising a generation of critical thinkers? Political donations? Cozying up to an authoritarian government in the USA? Cozying up to a foreign government?

      Google is a publicly traded company and you and I don't have any voting rights on that. Why should an entity which doesn't give us voting rights should have any authority on what we want to consume? It seems we have forgotten what is that Youtube is selling. Is it a video delivery platform? A platform for content creators? A way to deliver propaganda? A way for mass surveillance of human interests?

      Why should we question the only validity of freedom of speech? I think we should first and foremost question the validity of having a company with billons of dollars to spend on unknown adventures.

    40. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the notorious SJW troll. Fuck off.

    41. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Just a small anecdote: I was banned from science subreddit for posting that we all originated from Africa for "mild racism" (I was defending Watson, the discoverer of DNA structure, from excessively harsh overreaction from CSHL).

      The SJW progression of intolerance to scientific statements (I am not even speaking about scientific hypotheses, I am talking about confirmed scientific theories) has no limits

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    42. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is: It's time we have a large scale alternative to Google. They are really overstepping their bounds.
      And given that FaceBook and Twitter are also getting into the game, I have to wonder who is pulling the strings.

    43. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Comrade, extra Vodka ration for you tonight for trolling job well done.

    44. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Not everything in the world is economics.

      In the world of corporations, it is. Youtube exists to sell ads to Coke, Honda, Marriott and the like. Those companies aren't keen on having their ads shown inline with any sort of controversial content. They just want happy people buying their products. They don't want headlines "COKE SUPPORTS RACIST CONTENT" because they paid to have an ad shown inline with it.

      That's the whole ad-apocalypse on Youtube. Advertisers woke up to the fact that Youtube was showing their ads with racy content, and they told Youtube to stop it or they'd spend their billions somewhere else. Youtube stopped it.

      This is just the wheels of capitalism grinding away.

      If they are excluding content, it's because the people making the decision to do so want it done for reasons that are completely aside from profit or loss.

      Corporations have boards of directors elected by stockholders to ensure this is not the case.

    45. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      The best way to optimize for profit is to hold people at gun point. Very few companies operate that way.

      Sorry, let me correct myself then:
      "The only thing it does is optimize for profit, within the laws of the countries in which it operates."

      That's a working capitalistic system: corporations maximizing profit but being kept in check by laws and regulations.

      What keeps people watching the longest are videos which invoke emotions and confrontations, which is what the conspiracy and false facts videos do.

      You have a good point. What I should have said was Youtube does what results in the most advertiser dollars. Those videos may get eyeballs, but they can't sell ads for them so it's just a drain on their resources.

      Of course, almost nothing actually gets banned from Youtube, it's just demonetized. The creators are free to garner funds from Patreon, or whatever other source they want.

    46. Re:Who determines what is unsavory? by JamesNorton · · Score: 1

      Normal people. Believe it or not, they still exist.

      Ah, the sort that vote shitheads like Trump/May/Merkel/Macron/etc.bloody.etc into power...I do so love those 'Normal people'..

      AC, what makes people who voted for Trump shitheads, in your obviously unbiased opinion anyway? And further, how do you define "normal" in this case?

  6. Conspiracy theory according to whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Who is going to determine what's fake, ludicrous and far-fetched? It's going to be the most unbiased arbitrators of truth like Buzzfeed and Vox again, isn't it?

    1. Re:Conspiracy theory according to whom? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, anyone who has sources they can cite, for a start.

      Here's a handy tip for distinguishing between truth and lies. They both come with a price, but truth demands its payment up front.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Conspiracy theory according to whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      truth demands its payment up front.

      So do printed newspapers at the kiosk. Doesn't make their content true, though.

    3. Re:Conspiracy theory according to whom? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Actually, paying for your news is a good first step, although of course you don't believe that news uncritically. If you aren't paying people for the information you're consuming, the people feeding it to you definitely are working for someone else.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Conspiracy theory according to whom? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Well, anyone who has sources they can cite, for a start.

      This is how the 9/11 conspiracies made it to the top of search results. All of the web sites claiming that our own government did it pointed to other websites substantiating the same claims. Eventually, they all came around in a big loop. Gaming search engines is an old sport.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  7. What about anticonspircy theory videos? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know ... those smug morons who think and act exactly like conspiracy theorists, but instead of calling everything they can't handle a conspiracy, they call everyone who says anything they can't handle a conspiracy theorist.
    So merely conspiracy theorists with an opposite polarity.

    Because somehow, if you want your bullshit to be fashionable, and the masses to back you, that polarity still flies.

    1. Re:What about anticonspircy theory videos? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      My tinfoilometer is going nuts at this post. Show me examples of these videos.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  8. Roger Stone. In The Near Term. He Will RAT OUT THE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DUCK! He wont' go to the pokey. He will CAVE. Like the DUCK!

  9. 9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Echoez · · Score: 1, Interesting

    One of the great ironies about the fake news crisis since the 2016 election has been the fact that there was no urgency to combat fake news prior to Trump. The most-viewed version of the Loose Change "documentary" about how the US government orchestrated and covered up 9/11 is now 6 years old and has 2.7 million views. Another version entitled "BEST 9/11 Documentary: If You Seek TRUTH, WATCH THIS" has 4.7 million views. I specifically remember how it was first located on Google Video prior to Google acquiring Youtube, and was online around 2005-2006. It's interesting that fake news only becomes a crisis when it might impact the causes and politics that align with the political biases of those in the media and Facebook/Twitter/Google executives.

    1. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem with 9/11 was the 9/11 commission didn't listen to experts and pretty much whitewashed the 'investigation' - unless you think Iraq was responsible and Saudi Arabia / Israel had no knowledge of it...

      You don't need to attempt to ridicule loose change, it's already not the official story, it's a theory that the official story is a lie to mask something.

      When has that ever happened in this country, right? We dumb American sheep keep casually forgetting what happened 4 years ago, so I guess we'll never get to the bottom of anything really. Why try, right?

      Larry Silverstein liked this post.

    2. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! I'm all for cleaning up nonsense on the internet but apparently NOW it's a priority?! Besides who will ultimately decide what information is available? I'm glad someone can think for me. /sarc

      Please teach me how to think. /sarc /smh

    3. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between saying the US orchestrated 9/11 and what you are talking about.

    4. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      yes, the big difference is what kind of politics you want to promote ;)

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    5. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is a big difference between saying the US orchestrated 9/11 and what you are talking about." - I realize, hence the gap between a provable whitewash and an "unprovable" (without actual power to do so) conspiracy.

      However, if the 9/11 Commission whitewashed it, the question becomes why. Who benefits? Look what 9/11 did for the US and Israeli-Saudi platform? Look what happened to Iraq as a result of that rhetorical culpability?

      Sometimes where there's smoke, there's fire. And sometimes where there's molten pools of steel that burn for weeks at the base of the tower witnessed by dozens of highly trained engineers, there's no jet fuel left.

      The problem isn't that we can't prove 9/11 didn't happen the way the 9/11 Commission said, we can. The problem is the lack of impetus to find out what really did happen, when we had a chance to do that, by "emergency" design.

      Or did you think the fact that 90% of the steel from the towers was shipped to China as scrap WITHIN 6 WEEKS was just a really thorough construction impetus, in a crime DEMANDING UNDER LAW ALL EVIDENCE BE PRESERVED?

      There are so many smoking coincidences that at some point you'd have to be willful to ignore them or shrug them all off as happenstance.

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

    6. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by lactose99 · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is no opportunity to learn if you censor someone you disagree with.

      --
      Censorship is NEVER the solution. It is PRECISELY the PROBLEM.

      This isn't censorship, its simply not promoting crap conspiracies. Cretins can still post them to YouTube if they want.

      Learning stupid is much worse than sitting idle, not every harebrained idea deserves mindshare.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    7. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Again: you are a 9/11 conspiracy nut. I am sure that Biderburg took down WTC7, etc ,etc etc. The point is there is a big difference between the failure of the 9/11 investigation and what you are talking about. You make illogical leaps that aren't there. Just because one thing happens, doesn't mean all these other things happened. That is what is wrong with conspiracy nuts like you: you latch onto one thing and extrapolate from that. Normal, logical people don't do that.

    8. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Censorship is NEVER the solution. It is PRECISELY the PROBLEM.

      Except there's no censorship here. The creators of those videos are free to move them to another platform, or host them on their own servers, or share them via peer-peer, or whatever. Nobody is stopping them.

    9. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again: Your opining ass doesn't prove anything by leaning on a flawed Commission report that hundreds of thousands of professional engineers and architects have debunked on the scientific merits.

      You prove things with evidence - which was quickly destroyed, intentionally, illegally, in the emergency aftermath of the greatest attack on US soil, the greatest crime in US history without question.
      There is a legal mandate that was ignored. To pretend that's not so is to not know the law or to pretend that nothing illegal happened in the aftermath. Provably false. Demonstrably false.

      "You make illogical leaps that aren't there." - Cite a few, I'll show you evidence that exists. Don't cite any, and your comment is meaningless on the merits.

      "Just because one thing happens, doesn't mean all these other things happened." - Never said it did, didn't mean to imply every theory was correct - never said that.

      "you latch onto one thing and extrapolate from that" - You just did that. You tried to think you could debunk what I'm saying with ad hominem, a logical fallacy.

      Logical people don't do that. I thought you were smarter than insult attempts to make your points, and generally I find you usually are. This is a disappointment.

      Your opine doesn't defeat mine at all. Your opinion of what is reasonable doesn't arrive you at any logically stackable conclusions. You're choosing not to look, and you're congratulating yourself for it.

      That's exactly how conspiracy theories are treated by the public, which is known by the people that have historically carried them out - without the Nixon tapes themselves, nothing else would prove the case.

      If the tapes were never disclosed to the public, by your logic Nixon would be proven innocent and Mark Felt would be a nut regardless of what he knew and could point to. Woodward and Bernstein would be pariahs.

      That's your world, not the actual world that is regardless of your failed observations.

    10. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Layzej · · Score: 2

      One of the great ironies about the fake news crisis since the 2016 election has been the fact that there was no urgency to combat fake news prior to Trump...

      I think the wake-up call was when it became apparent that a great deal of disinformation was part of an orchestrated campaign by an enemy state for the purpose of undermining American democracy.

    11. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      The most-viewed version of the Loose Change "documentary"

      To me, these so-called "documentaries" are different than fake news. I'm old enough to remember the Alien Autopsy "documentary" on TV 25 years ago - These things have been around forever.

      By contrast, fake news purports to be "real" news - Inforwars running "news" stories about a Democrat-led pedophilia ring operating out of a pizza restaurant, stories on "news" web sites about the Clintons having Seth Rich killed, YourNewsWire posting that 25 million people fraudulently voted for Hillary - And, unlike these "documentaries" that sort of thing is a recent post-2015 phenomenon.

    12. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      you latch onto one thing and extrapolate from that. Normal, logical people don't do that.

      Normal, logical people do that all the time. Extrapolation is necessary for daily life. Science requires extrapolation. We like to think it does not, but it actually depends on it.

      There's a book: Getting Science Wrong that talks about this. You may not agree with all the conclusions he makes, but it does point out a lot of assumptions about the philosophy behind "science". One of those is that we can extrapolate to tomorrow based on observations from today.

    13. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, keep telling yourself that. As soon as I move my videos to some other platform, nobody will be able to find them anymore and it will be effectively memory holed. Instead of generating revenue for me, it will start COSTING me revenue for all the bandwidth hosting fees, especially if it were to get popular.

    14. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      This isn't censorship, its simply not promoting crap conspiracies. Cretins can still post them to YouTube if they want.

      There's a place with ten million videos. All categorized and tagged. But no, they won't tell you about other videos similar to the ones you've already watched because you might believe them. They aren't preventing you from finding them, they're just making it harder.

      It would be like a vast library of books put on the shelves in some random order with no card catalog to help you find anything. The library isn't preventing you from finding the one book you want, it's just making it harder to do so. ("Like" is not "identical to", btw.)

      Is that "censorship"? Well, in the modern sense of the word (which I disagree with strongly), it is.

    15. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      I'm old enough to remember the Alien Autopsy "documentary" on TV 25 years ago

      Heh. I remember seeing "Alternative 3" when it was broadcast on TV and that was over forty years ago.

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

      Decades later I saw crappy-quality videotapes of the show on sale in places like SF conventions, labelled as "fact." It was really well done for the time, a docudrama expose of a combined US/Russian plan for elites to escape to the Moon and Mars as Earth's biosphere collapsed. Apparently there's a DVD out, I should maybe try and track down a copy... that's assuming it's not already up on YouTube and labelled "fact"...

    16. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You choose some odd things to cite as examples of fake news. Do you work for the DNC/Clintons?

      If Seth Rich was the guy who leaked the DNC emails, then they had motive to do him in. His wallet with all it's money was still on him, which is very odd if it was just an ordinary mugging.

      As for fraudulent Hillary votes, I could believe that. Running up to the 2016 elections, I traveled up and down the west coast. Along the way, I saw a few Hillary bumper stickers -- that is, "Hillary for Prison" bumper stickers. Hardly ever any actual Hillary for President stickers. Seemed like everyone was either supporting Trump (Republicans) or Bernie (Democrats) from what I saw with my own two eyes.

    17. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too incompetent to make yourself heard without mooching off of others success? Cry me a river.

    18. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem unable to understand: he granted that the commission report was flawed and did not lean on it at all. He asked you to provide evidence, and you say "why don't you tell me where I didn't provide evidence". To be fair you said something about scrap metal to China and it's not clear at all why that's relevant. The other thing you said is to look at who benefitted, and frankly nobody really. Iraq is hurting now but the 9/11 attacks came from terrorists in Afghanistan -- even at the time the pretext was Weapons of Mass Destruction, the claim that Al Qaeda was in Iraq was made but was not the main pushed pretext for war in Iraq, so the connection you're making is a super tenuous leap.

    19. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Beware of the leopard.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      They are also free to publish them on YouTube. People are missing the point.

    21. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      The _concern_ is that they will simply start deleting them.

      As much as I despise Alex Jones censoring him off their platform is the "tell" of Google's intentions.

      Who knows what unpopular opinion will be gone tomorrow.

    22. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I guess fscking net neutrality isnt censorship either. Giving or taking away preferential treatment is one step away from censorship, or its effectively the same (depending on the platform).

    23. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Monopolies are stopping them. When you will reach a tenth of the public or less by sharing it on a different platform, the value of sharing it is reduced to a tenth or less. Your can say then it is not censorship, not entirely, it is only 90%+ censorship.

    24. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Outright bullshit isnt protected speech in any way shape or form.

      You Yanks *really* need to learn what the fuck protected speech really is.

    25. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      [[Citation]]

      _Which_ law(s) state that?

    26. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That;s what people said about twitter. So gab was made. Then they attacked the paymemt processors for gab and gab is no more.

      Turns out erosion of speech is easier than creating new platforms.

    27. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Then they attacked the paymemt processors for gab and gab is no more.

      Again, private companies or individuals refusing to promote your speech isn't an erosion of free speech. Private companies and individuals also have the right to not be coerced to support things in which they disagree.

    28. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Monopolies are stopping them. When you will reach a tenth of the public or less by sharing it on a different platform, the value of sharing it is reduced to a tenth or less. Your can say then it is not censorship, not entirely, it is only 90%+ censorship.

      You do not understand what free speech means. It doesn't mean equal access to private resources to promote your speech. It means you have the right to speak within your own means to do so without fear of reprisal.

      Sounds like you are suggesting a world where every crackpot is guaranteed equal distribution of their ideas. One where private companies and individuals are coerced by law to promote all theories equally. For example, you have a "MAGA" sign on your lawn, but I'm going to force you to also have one that says "I LOVE HILARY"... because free speech.

    29. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

      The constitution and the supreme court tells me that.

      As soon as I move my videos to some other platform, nobody will be able to find them anymore and it will be effectively memory holed.

      I don't think you understand free speech. Free speech does not guarantee you an audience. It gives you the right to speak without fear of reprisal from the government, and legal protections against reprisal from private citizens. Nobody is going to buy you a megaphone and gather people in the town square to listen to you. That's not how it works.

      Instead of generating revenue for me, it will start COSTING me revenue for all the bandwidth hosting fees, especially if it were to get popular.

      Nowhere in the concept of free speech is the right to earn a profit from it.

    30. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not very bright, are you?

      Massive private companies using their overwhelming market share to squash opinions they disagree with is very much censorship. See gab.ai.

      I would agree the solution isn't to force them to promote opinions they disagree with. The solution is to break them up so they can't wield such dominating censorial powers.

    31. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      You're not very bright, are you?

      Probably not, but I can read.

      The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine,[1] only prevents government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government.

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

    32. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      You are confusing censorship and not giving a platform. Let me break it down for you. If they remove the video it's not giving you a platform. If you are forced to remove the video from the internet then it's censorship. They are under no obligation as a private company to give you a platform.

    33. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      As a young man I was aware of, and saw some Beatles footage. They disbanded way before I was born. Youtube wasn't around until way after.I think the human memory and access to moving images is a little more than youtube. As for it costing you rather than generating income for you, I really don't care. Google don't exist to make you money.

    34. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      Ah, now your on my territory. The planning department, as part of GLC as it would've been then would be duty bound to disseminate the road plans to those effected and a compulsory purchase order put in place before the yellow bulldozers even came close. Adams was brilliant at comedy, and he took liberties with the rules and regulations regarding road building in the 1970s. Google, Alphabet, Youtube, or whatever branch you want of those is under no such obligation and can remove anything without even telling you why.

    35. Re:9/11 truther video Loose Change is 6 years old by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      If Seth Rich was the guy who leaked the DNC emails, then they had motive to do him in. His wallet with all it's money was still on him, which is very odd if it was just an ordinary mugging.

      Before it got out, possibly. After the fact, it just looks like incompetence. It's not even a punishment, if the conspiracy is as much as you believe (judging from your first paragraph, wow that's a big red flag there) they could easily have made his life so much hell he would publicly commit suicide. I love reading from those that believe the conspiracy is vast and complex, but yet leaving hints, but not evidence of the conspiracy. Do you know how many bungled muggings occur when the victim is shot and no money taken? Neither do I, so it's impossible to say if it was more unusual than other attempted muggings that end in the death of the victim. Perhaps the shot was in panic and the shooter legged it as fast as they could from the scene rather than stopping to check each and every pocket, removing jacket, turning them over to check the other pockets all while the police are speeding towards them. That Hilary, the police department, the FBI, the local news, the national news, the international news are all in the conspiracy but none of them remembered to take the cash is a little more than far fetched.

  10. Aaand there he is: The anticonspiracy theorist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seeing conspiracy theorists literally everywhere; making up crazy theories just like regular conspiracy theorists; yet being completely smug about it, and never realizing they are just as nuts.

    Come on. Only a bit more, and you can start denying the facts from the NSA leaks or the existence of black sites.

  11. Well there goes 10% of their content by mnemotronic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Youtube has a LOT of conspiracy theory stuff. How do you separate the innocent "aliens ate my brain" stuff from the "Inside Hillary's secret child porn studio on Mars". That "line" might be obvious to some people, but not everyone, and the fact that there is a line could be considered disturbing too. Why not just superimpose a flashing "PROBABLY BULL$HIT" on the video content if it gets close to, or over, that vague line?

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    1. Re:Well there goes 10% of their content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's VERY simple:
      1) Start video
      2) Look at URL
      3) Does the URL begin with youtube.com?
      4) If the answer to step 3 is "Yes" then repeat this mantra "I will not treat YouTube like it is a real source of news or actual information with researchers, reporters and editorial oversight and stuff."
      5) If URL is from someplace ele, you are on your own.

    2. Re:Well there goes 10% of their content by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      I don't think they said they were going to delete it. They said they were trying to recommend it less often, which I suppose is pretty stupid if you are someone looking for that kind of thing. A better question is, are most people? Is the algorithm helping people find what they want and google intentionally hindering that for political / philosophical purposes, or are they trying to make there recommendations more closely match what they believe you will be most interested in watch ( which is to say actually improve the accuracy of the result.)

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    3. Re:Well there goes 10% of their content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This announcement is conveniently missing any form of objective standard by which to judge what qualifies as conspiracy theory or false information.

      In the absence of objective standards, the answer is always the same: whoever gets to enforce the rules will act on all their whims and biases.

      Youtube administration is overwhelmingly leftist and pro social justice, that will be the bias that will inform all their decisions.

    4. Re:Well there goes 10% of their content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google clearly feels their AI/algorithm/whatever-they're-calling-these-days that it's leading people to stumble upon conspiracy theory videos when they didn't consciously realize they wanted it and then it's just a massive stream of echo chamber of conspiracy theories. So, they've got to "correct" that. It couldn't be that their recommendation system is rigged in a fashion that pushes conspiracy theories and other equally worthless crap and won't let up. But, it's okay if they're pushing yet more "harmless" clickbait crap so long as they're getting that sweet, sweet ad money.

      *sigh* Seriously, I'd love it if Youtube actually had a decent search engine and returned what you asked for. If I want to look up about the conspiracy of the cake, I should get cake conspiracy videos not cake wars or ufo conspiracies or 20 different videos telling me to go to another site (because Youtube won't let you host the content) for the content or 500 cake recipe suggestions.

    5. Re:Well there goes 10% of their content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are looking for that sort of content, you search for it directly. It will however keep people who are inclined to believe in conspiracy bullshit in general from being exposed to more of it automatically.

  12. List of conspiracy theories and false information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    - Iraq tried to buy yellow cake from Niger
    - Iraq's evil aluminum tubes
    - Iraq collaborated with Al Qaeda
    - Iran did WTC
    - Assad gassed his own people
    - French protesters are racists, misogynists, fascist homophobes
    - Ghaddafi distributed viagra pills for rape
    - Ghaddafi was carrying out a genocide
    - Russia poisoned a spy and its daughter, on orders of Vladimir Putin or the highest authorities in Russia
    - Trump is doing the Russians's bidding because he is blackmailed by the pee tape
    - The White Helmets are a Syrian organization
    - ...

  13. So youtube is going to fight conpiracies by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Interesting

    about cabals trying to control what you can see and hear by forming one of their own ?

    Well bitchute https://www.bitchute.com/ will be happy for the traffic, and seeing as they are distributed and powered by bit torrent it should make a nice alternative to the company that used to "Do No Evil"

    1. Re:So youtube is going to fight conpiracies by lgw · · Score: 1

      How long till bitchute goes the way of gab.ai and subscribestar? It's not so much a "cabal" as an "open collusion of vertical monopolies to preserve their monopoly status". What ever happened to trust-busting?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:So youtube is going to fight conpiracies by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Subscribestar isn't even pining for the fjords they are up and running.

    3. Re:So youtube is going to fight conpiracies by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Unknown, but bitchute already has been deplatformed by all the same familiar actors with far left activists dictating the ideological persecution a few months ago.

      It appears to be still up and running fine, which suggests that they successfully secured funding via means that aren't as vulnerable to far left activist pressure.

    4. Re:So youtube is going to fight conpiracies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the company that used to "Do No Evil"

      Nobody at Google ever claimed that. Try "Don't be evil" instead. There is a difference between doing evil and being evil.

  14. Wandering stars, in blackest darkness forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

    Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
    It has blood on it!
    ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander

    1. Re:Wandering stars, in blackest darkness forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What is this comment even about????

  15. Fight for your opponents rights! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As absurd as some conspiracy theory web sites are, please fight for their right to be treated as sane web sites. For one thing, holes in such theories come to light on such web sites.

    I have monitored a number of them. Flat Earth and Staged Moon Landing "proof" may be silly, but that is all. The overwhelming majority will always know better. As soon as censorship starts, it lends credence to the sites anyway. It creates a "they" that are censoring, presumably because "they" don't want you to know the truth.

    Censorship tried to prevent knowledge that the earth circled the Sun instead of vice-versa, and evolution.
    The first thing Socialism and Communism does is stop the free press. Venezuela could not have happened without tight control of information. With censorship, propaganda easily prevails.

    1. Re:Fight for your opponents rights! by PPH · · Score: 1

      They develop critical thinking skills. Like: How do we know that the earth is flat, round or spherical? What observations support each theory? And perhaps the most important question: Why don't the proponents of hive mind thinking want us to think critically?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  16. You probably made one yourself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or just look at your YouTube favorites. I'm sure it will be full of them.

    E.g. the NSA denialists, who claim that Snowden is a russian spy and black sited don't exist and the CIA never tried to overthrow any governments ever.

    1. Re:You probably made one yourself. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Oh, US government apologists, those aren't the same thing.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:You probably made one yourself. by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      People who make those claims tend to overwhelmingly oppose current American government for ideological reasons.

  17. After data is gathered next step suppression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It always seemed to me if you started out with something controversial youtube would go full on psychotic after a few autoplays. At first I thought it was an attempt to denigrate the original video, Later I begin to think that this was an attempt to measure tolerance of conspiracy theories. Now that they have this bit of information and people know that there are crazy people on youtube they can over correct and censor stuff they don't like. Does anybody know why youtube uses some random numbering system so that videos aren't sequentially addressable?

  18. We will know how this is going once by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    we see their actions. When they establish a track record it will be perfectly clear what the real goals are and who the real targets are.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:We will know how this is going once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One question I have is what percentage of these bullshit videos are actually watched from pre-roll commercials, through the video, through the post-roll commercials by the simple-minded? Surely Google are shooting their advertizers right between the eyes.

  19. Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True by pgmrdlm · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    It is not even close to the top of my list to listen to Conspiracy Theories. Hell, I usually tell people to wrap that tin foil hat a little tighter. But it is a fact that there are Conspiracy Theories that have turned out to be true. Who the fuck is google(notice my link is youtube) to say what is true and what is not.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    1. Re:Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair -- yeah no shit Reaganite faggot, conspiracies exist? Derp. Go fuck Nixon in HELL you Trumptard TRAITOR.

    2. Re:Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go away Ivan, you're rabid.

    3. Re:Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about science? Flat Earthers are just plain wrong. As are the moon landing hoaxers. There's no conspiracy there but there is a whole lot of stupid.

      Conspiracies DO exist but are mostly found in the halls of power (e.g. Congress, the President) when evil is concocted behind closed doors usually for personal profit at the expense of human lives.

    4. Re:Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      it is a fact that there are Conspiracy Theories that have turned out to be true.

      This is correct. However, if you are turning to YouTube to expose a conspiracy then you are doing it wrong.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never had to expose a conspiracy theory, but agree that a few of them are likely correct, and many of them at least have some suppressed facts hidden in the crazy.

      Youtube may not be the right way to expose a conspiracy, but do you have suggestions? How do you expose a conspiracy theory right?

    6. Re:Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between a particular conspiracy theory and conspiracies as a class of human activity.

      By definition any particular conspiracy theory is something you believe in without scientific basis (fact nitpicking, and all kinds of other logical fallacies). It does not matter if it becomes true or not later on. The problem is an approach to such kind of thing. So any guy who believes in a particular conspiracy theory is either an imbecile or crazy.

      From the other hand there are plenty of people who reject even existence conspiracies and if you are generally accusing the government of conspiring something vague you are labeled a conspiracy nut.

      No. Government and organizations ALWAYS have some private agenda, not disclosed to the public for very good reasons. Call them conspiracies, secret plans, necessary evil, etc, but activities like that always existed and will exist

      Denying existence of them as class is plain stupid.

      It's just since in 99% of the cases we will be never getting evidence verifying or falsifying evidence it does not make sense to discuss specific theories. We just need to live in ignorance while taking generally cautious about government.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    7. Re:Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it is obvious:

      They are Google.

    8. Re:Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      Yup you got it. If the information in the video is provably false, it's marked. If it's backed by evidence to a stated level then mark it as so. If it's unmarked the poster does not care either way then it's not marked anything unmarked can be classed as "I dunno, could be true, could be made up."

    9. Re:Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      Not all of them are equal, we can prove that we went to the moon and the earth is flat, we can prove the bible is not the direct word of god. We can disprove the hundreds of lies trump spews out daily. We can't prove either way if the queen isn't a lizard. If you can prove it true or false label it, if it's opinion, it doesn't get a true or false label.

  20. Good! No more climate change videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about time!

  21. Damn! by PPH · · Score: 1, Funny

    Their link to An Inconvenient Truth just disappeared.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Damn! by Littleman_TAMU · · Score: 1

      At time of posting parent was at 0, Offtopic.

      The fact that you've been modded down for making a joke that violates the accepted belief system perfectly illustrates the problem many people are trying to point out. Unfortunately even Slashdot is infiltrated by persistent anti-freedom posters. I remember when the prevailing sentiment on Slashdot was, "Just leave me the hell alone, and I'll leave you alone." That and Soviet and CmdrTaco jokes. We wouldn't even have the Internet if the original culture hadn't been one of freedom. Now, the freedom of the internet is allowing anti-freedom people to spread their views that the WWW should be censored. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

    2. Re:Damn! by PPH · · Score: 1

      modded down for making a joke that violates the accepted belief system

      My apologies, comrade, for not being properly educated in the 'proper belief system'. I will accept my inevitable assignment to a re-education camp. Until my thinking is correct.

      infiltrated by persistent anti-freedom posters

      Mod that +5 Funny. Because I don't think my attempt at humor came anywhere near satirizing the problem of information control that the Internet now faces.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Damn! by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't even have the Internet if the original culture hadn't been one of freedom. .

      The US DoD who created ARPANET that the internet is based in were far from promoting freedom. Note the number of military dictators that they propped up. You might be right about the PARC hippies strung out in LSD

  22. The abuse of free speech. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My opinion is there is problem as I see it is there is a big abuse on free speech.
    The line where someone is stating an opinion, is stating a fact, or is stating parody has gotten very blurred.
    Back in the 1990's I have (as I expect others would have too) posted some parody posts about a flat earth mainly to show the arguments against evolution (as Kansas blocking evolution from text books was an issue then).

    What seemed to have happened was this parody had been passed with the pseudoscience and half baked conclusions got read by someone who just didn't see this as parody but as fact. And then increased on this topic, and combing with their belief of grand conspiracies to show the topic. Then it just grew further.

    Before the internet we had our opinions which can be published in the opinion section of the news papers. People read it and know it was just our opinion. Parody was well defined as such, and fact had a lot of official backing behind it.

    Now with the internet we are flooded with too much info, and need more skills to separate truth from fiction. And conspiracy logic will always seem to be a strong counter argument to official channels, to a point today where conspiracy theories are now on the official channels as well, muddying the water even further.

     

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:The abuse of free speech. by Littleman_TAMU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree comrade! We know much more than the average person. Rather than dealing with people on a one on one basis and sometimes agreeing to disagree, we should have our glorious and impartial tech, governmental, and corporate overlords decide what we can and cannot read, see, or hear!

      On a serious note, we need to educate people to think critically. It's a long game and you'll have to fight the urge to drop into the fetal position when you fully understand that the vote of flat earth guy, who you've calmly reasoned with and still won't accept your conclusions, counts exactly as much as yours. One of the lessons of history is that control of knowledge is power. We should approach free speech the same way we should approach the justice system. It is better to let 100 guilty men free then to deprive one innocent man of his freedom by imprisonment.

    2. Re:The abuse of free speech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, but would like to point out that conspiracy theory's weren't common (there was a 1997 movie called "Conspiracy Theory" and there were a lot of theories about government/alien connection, but nothing like a wide-spread phenomenon) until after 9/11. This is due to the fact that a lot of really bizarre shit happened at one time that day. Also at the same time, YouTube was getting big...

    3. Re:The abuse of free speech. by DoctorBit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "My opinion is there is problem as I see it is there is a big abuse on free speech."

      I totally agree. After the Las Vegas mass shooting, I spent most of two days watching youtube conspiracy theories about it. It was pretty clear that they were wrong, but nonetheless, I found them fascinating. Since when is all entertainment required to be educational? And what if the videos had turned out to be correct?

      The authorities "knew" that Galileo was wrong back in the 17th century, but that didn't make their censorship of him OK.

    4. Re:The abuse of free speech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      conspiracy theory's weren't common until after 9/11.

      Translation: I started using the internet in 2002.

    5. Re:The abuse of free speech. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking serious? Conspiracy theories and general misinformation have been rampant literally since the invention of speech. The only difference is coddled idiots no longer consider it their personal responsibility to develop a bullshit filter and expect Big Brother to weed out all the "conspiracy theories" for them so they don't have to do any critical thinking. Despite what the media might tell you, "Fake News" wasn't invented by Russians in 2016.

      And keep in mind "Conspiracy Theories" are occasionally true.

  23. well fuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What am I going to watch for a good laugh now?

  24. This just fuels conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And especially the one that claims the MSM is conspiring to suppress any speech that is not mainstream and average.

    Oh, wait.. that is not a theory anymore.

  25. "PPH lies for conservatism on the internet" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... but his mother isn't proud of him, she raised a dishonest traitor, not a mensch like Roger Stone or a powerfully fraudulent INCEL like Donald Trump."

  26. Conservatives censored! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A vast conspiracy to silence regular conservative voices from the internet! It's probably those damned lizard people again! #MAGA

  27. Ya, like Prager U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes! What we really need is youtube protecting us dumb people from "the wrong ideas." I wish they had started doing this years ago, then places like Prager U and Milo wouldn't have been able to gain a foothold in peoples minds. We need to CRUSH wrong thought and make sure we protect us truly stupid people.

  28. BLOCK ANYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Translation "Youtube is going to block anyone that doesn't follow our political agenda, because our stupid left wing reads can't take the truth.".

    1. Re: BLOCK ANYONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deyyyyy toooook his job!!!!

  29. Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave youtube on autoplay for long enough and you always end up on some 2 hour conspiracy theory doco.

    1. Re:Finally... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Youtube tailors your recommendations based on your watching history.

      I never get those on recommendations, because I just don't watch them. If you keep getting them, it suggests you're already interested in them.

  30. Who gets cut? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    No more evolutionists and spheroid Earthers? Who decides?

    1. Re:Who gets cut? by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that's a joke, but just in case it grows like the flat earth joke, or the joke about a magic man in the sky telling us what to do.. Facts.

  31. Good! Screw RFB, that criminal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EOS

  32. Can I just turn recommendations off? by Solandri · · Score: 1

    I know you can turn them off if you're logged into YouTube, but I do most of my video watching while not logged in. I hate clicking on recommended videos even if they look interesting because I know clicking on them means "help us build a profile on your interests." Is there a way to just turn them off entirely?

    1. Re:Can I just turn recommendations off? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes there is.
      Get a piece of paper, cut it into a strip about 3 inches wide and as long as your monitor is tall.
      Tape the paper over the suggested videos on the right side of your window.
      If you move the window, move the taped paper to new location.

      Enjoy!

  33. Google does by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it's their website.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  34. Just another reason by argStyopa · · Score: 0

    I don't care what righteous rationalization they have for their meddling, it's meddling in what I can see and what I can't.

    I wouldn't like a librarian to refuse to check out a book because they don't believe I'm adult enough to sort fact from well-crafted fiction. That's none of their fucking business.

    Which means I'm getting my video anywhere else, wherever I can.

    --
    -Styopa
  35. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So does this mean in addition to the right wing nutjobs, they'll also get rid of the "Everything is patriarchy" conspiracy theory feminist garbage as well?

  36. Rabbit hole leading to an echo chamber ... by kbahey · · Score: 2

    Youtube recommendations is horrible.

    I am into astronomy, and one time, out of curiosity, I wanted a video 'proving' the the earth is flat and 'refuting' the usual proofs for it being round and rotating.

    What happened next is that I was bombarded with similar videos all refuting that the earth is spherical, from someone doing laser over a frozen lake, to observing Toronto's skyline from across lake Ontario, ...etc.

    This kept happening for months before it subsided, maybe because I hit enough 'Not interested' links, or maybe simple not clicking on the recommended videos. But it was very annoying for that duration.

    The arguments presented range from blatant conspiracy theory (NASA is promoting that the earth is round to maintain funding), to ignoring science (atmospheric refraction causing skylines to be visible).

    This is not about politics, this is not opinion.

    The Greeks knew the earth was round (and probably other civilizations before them, in Mesopotamia). Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth (before 200 B.C.E.). So did the Arabs in 800 C.E., by a committee formed on the orders of the Abassid Caliph in Baghdad.

    Why are we (as a species, and civilization) regressing to such low levels?

    1. Re:Rabbit hole leading to an echo chamber ... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Why are we (as a species, and civilization) regressing to such low levels?

      We're not. The bottom quintile of intelligence has always been with us. They were never visible before because they were surrounded by people smarter than them and had no way to reliably connect with other people as feeble-minded as them. Now they do.

      They're still human. They still have human rights, including all their Constitutional rights. And they need adult supervision. They're not going to get adult supervision. I'm certainly not volunteering, and I don't really want to pay taxes to support adult supervision, but the bottom quintile undeniably needs it. For lack of it (and because it so frequently goes wrong), we just have to put up with their wild denunciations on the Internet. And build automated systems to reduce the noise level somewhat.

    2. Re:Rabbit hole leading to an echo chamber ... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      It's not just the people who are least smart. The old saying goes that "intellect falls in love with it's own conclusions". People who are very smart and know it are as susceptible to various conspiracy theories as the least intelligent ones. Examples include things like anti-vaccination movement having rooted itself in some of the most intelligent communities in Silicon Valley.

      The deciding factor appears to be not intelligence but tightness of social bubble created by like minded people around you. It's why right wing nutjobs were such a big thing pre-internet and why left wing nutjobs are such a big thing now. It seems to be about interaction between algorithmic reinforcement coming from the group cumulating with collectivist mindset, and being closed to information coming from outside.

      Algorithmic recommendation systems appear to have had a curious effect, where the traditional right wing nut jobs actually got a whole lot more sane, while left wing went far less so. My personal hypothesis is that this is because right wing in general values individualism, which serves as a very crude inoculation against internet age collectivism, effectively reducing existing biases by algorithmic recommendations, while left wing is overwhelmingly collectivist in its mindset, which lead to severe vulnerability against algorithmic recommendations reinforcing the existing biases. Essentially when your primary value is "individual should be respected", you appear to give much less weight to the effect of "collective appears to demand this" which is the primary effect of algorithmic recommendations systems. And vice versa, if you see the collective as more important than individual, you are much more likely to agree with recommendations which are given to you algorithmically and appear to form a like-minded collective around you.

    3. Re:Rabbit hole leading to an echo chamber ... by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'd mod you up. But then I'd lose all my 'In Soviet Russia ..' comments.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Rabbit hole leading to an echo chamber ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, quick question. Do you believe "Assad is an evil dictator who gassed his own people"? If you do so, you're in the bottom quintile, quartile, third, half or bottom 80%. Syria never used chemical weapons and if they did so there is no proof of it.

      You can find proof of round Earth, of man on the Moon but you cannot find proof of Syria using chemical weapons.
      Who is tasked with this surveillance and censorship and shadow bans? The most reputed for now are google, microsoft, fuckbook (reputed PRISM and Five Eyes members) and Atlantic Council, the latter is an official NATO "think tank". It cooperates with a think tank nebula to prolong the war in Ukraine or Syria or push for war wherever, these organizations get funds from the like of Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and so on.
      It's not quite about automated systems. How do you build automated censorship systems that obey these interests? There will always be a human hand and if automated systems exist they're there for plausible deniability.

      For every Alex Jones there's ten independent websites publishing unwanted stories, doing the job that journalists did when telling us Iraqi WMDs don't exist back in 2003.

    5. Re:Rabbit hole leading to an echo chamber ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS : the US empire apologists (military industrial complex, neocons, Pentagon) told us themselves they would do this. They declared a doctrine of "Full Spectrum Dominance" some 20 years ago. This includes the good old stuff like tanks, ruling the oceans, control of airspace etc. ; missile defense and militarization of space (i.e. shit that doesn't work because ICBMs are too fast, and catching hypersonic MHD missiles is hopeless, but a trillion dollars will be spent on this) ; any kind of radio signals and communications ; "cyberspace" or "cyber defense" ; information warfare, if only because it's part of the full spectrum of everything.

    6. Re:Rabbit hole leading to an echo chamber ... by kbahey · · Score: 1

      The harm that is done by this way of thinking is beyond self harm.

      Think of vaccination vs. anti-vaxxers. There are now outbreaks in the USA and Canada on almost extinct diseases (Measles and Mumps for example). First worlds countries, developing world problems.

      A similar situation with flouridation of drinking water. It has been done for a long time, until the pseudo skeptics objected. Votes were held and it was stopped. Now dentists say dental decay are up.

      And it goes on and on, whether it is earth is flat, moon landing hoax, birthers, truthers, ...etc.

    7. Re:Rabbit hole leading to an echo chamber ... by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      Well, quick question. Do you believe "Assad is an evil dictator who gassed his own people"? If you do so, you're in the bottom quintile, quartile, third, half or bottom 80%. Syria never used chemical weapons and if they did so there is no proof of it.

      Proof? No, but then you can only get proof in maths. Evidence, yes lots of it, and evidence of evidence being removed by russia and Syria. And evidence that they give contradictory accounts about the gassing. And those that were gassed. Believing that Assad, with help and backing by putin gassed his own people is taking the evidence and choosing the most probable. It might not have been him, but if it isn't then a long series of accidents and coincidences have occurred so it looks like him. Much more evidence that he did it than you would need to get a conviction.

  37. Re:Roger Stone. In The Near Term. He Will RAT OUT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck off apk

  38. Don't censor, but at least minimally editorialize by jma05 · · Score: 1

    The problem is not so much that this content is available by search on demand; it is that it is often amplified and promoted on the landing page if you watch a few videos of this nature, initially only out of curiosity (yes, I am aware that you can tell Youtube to not show similar content). I am now in a developing country. All the landing page content is utter junk and the people (especially the low information users who know Internet only through their phones that form the majority) know no better. People seem to think whatever Youtube content is popular or is promoted is probably true. Most of these don't seem to actively seek junk, but passively consume whatever Youtube says is right for them. Internet is not enlightening them; it is doing the opposite, reverse of the early promise of the Internet when it was all academic.

    This is a hard problem to solve. We all know the issues. The real solution is ultimately better education, but the current recommendation algorithms are amplifying ignorance. Their goal is purely to promote engagement. Google would not exist without the Page Rank algorithm and while that is often gamed, it does mostly work. They need to come up with an equivalent of the Page Rank for Youtube landing page.

    Whatsapp seems to be way worse with respect to propagating junk in developing countries. The new effort that limits forwarding to 5 is at least a start.

  39. Blame the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's always the Russians.

    1. Re: Blame the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did stone lie?

    2. Re: Blame the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, he should have used the Hillary denial "I don't remember anything!"

    3. Re: Blame the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd work better if he didn't SMS text threatening to kill or steal the dogs of witnesses in the investigation he already lied to authorities about...

    4. Re: Blame the Russians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary used - "I dont recall"

    5. Re: Blame the Russians by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      Hillary used - "I dont recall"

      I'm not even going to check this but if true is not a lie. "I can't recall" could be a lie. That's the difference. "I never slept with that woman" not a lie even if he had sex with her, but never slept in the same bed as her. "I never said that Mexico will pay for the wall", provable lie. Documented provable lie.

  40. Secureteam10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  41. The old Flat Earth Society had value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my college days we had a flat earth society, which was really a euphemism for drinking club.

    Some apparently never sobered up

  42. Re: the other side of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation needed on that "fact"

  43. In a Corporate State: Corp censor is State censor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't need corporations to protect us from information based on what they think.
    This is "shadow" censorship - it makes it harder to find these videos.
    For example, are they going to hide 90% of Russiagate stories, which is the greatest conspiracy theory of our time?
    Are they going hide alternative news media that say the White Helmets are bad actors? (they are)

  44. soccer bitches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a bitch ute another term for minivan?

  45. Gearing up for elections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get ready kids, this round they do NOT want to lose again. Look there are certainly questionable videos on Youtube, a lot of them are trolls or refer to some niche meta that there's no way Youtube nor anyone else could possibly understand. But that is kind of the point since it means they will have no other choice but to censor^Wblock^Wfilter^Wdemonitize first, ask questions later. It's self-fulfilling BS that will only get worse as elections get closer.

    Here's a somewhat amusing test you can try yourself - Search for polar topic like abortion or things a child might lookup and be bombarded with some of the alt-leftist shit that makes MSM look normal. The topics targeting kids in particular are outright proppaganda. Issues involving females for example are almost completely dominated by feminists. It's not necessarily that topics are bad but they blur the line between promotion and some random review / discussion. Female health is an easy target that will have your daughter believing she needs a brazillian wax before she's 13 and only using Venus Super Female Non-burning razers with ultra soft bs you'll pay $30 a tube for.. But hey, those make Youtube money.

         

  46. People make content by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Publish their own video material on social media.
    A video site then steps in with its recommendation algorithm to define what content will be found?
    A video site should be a utility as they are not the publisher of the user created content.
    Want a video site to be news reporters? Create your own news under a brand and publish that.
    Let people have their freedom to publish, the freedom to search, the freedom to link, the freedom to comment on other users content.
    Its their content and their comments. Their search terms and their interest to link and support.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  47. Re: the other side of this by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    Human biology, evolution, mental illness rates and outcomes of people diagnosed with that particular mental disorder.

  48. When you cut out a man's tongue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You do not prove him a liar, you only prove that you fear what he had to say.

  49. Things I trust more than Google by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    A barefoot man in a trenchcoat offering to let me pet his pet rat in the pocket.
    A used car, cheap!
    My 10 year old cousin in the server vault. With a pair of pliers and a screwdriver.
    A woman widowed twenty times. All by tragic accident.

    Sure they'll censor fake shit. It's the deliberate collateral damage I'm worried about.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  50. Re:Well there goes 10% of their content BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everything on YouTube is conspiracy theory! Just ban YouTube!

  51. Slashdot is at it too. Deleting posts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I commented on this story to link a relevant youtube channel, lets call it the insomniateam channel. The comment has been removed. Slashdot (@whiplash) does not want you to see that channel. That is really, REALLY interesting.

    1. Re: Slashdot is at it too. Deleting posts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But half the articles on Slashdot have swastika posts undeleted on them. I wonder what that means.

  52. It's censorship by OYAHHH · · Score: 1

    Pure and simple.

    Look, if the material is so outrageous that Google's better than you employees do not believe it then why are they so hellbent on removing it from sight?

    If it is patently false, why should they care?

    They care because it conflicts with their personal view of the world.

    And when it conflicts with their view of the world they want to remove it from view. Which is ..... wait for it ..... censorship.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
    1. Re:It's censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well it matters because some gullible people do in fact believe and act on these things, sending death threats and stalking who they consider bad actors in the plots and even doing things like showing up with weapons at the supposed site of bad acts

      and you're right really, it is censorship, the distinction being that youtube has every right to censor the content it publishes, just like any private actor and do it according to its own "personal" moral code if so desired

      I mean, if you were having a party and a guest in your home started spouting a bunch of nonsense that you found completely despicable, don't you believe you have the right to ask him to leave and expect it to be honored?

    2. Re:It's censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not being blocked, simply removed from the auto suggestion algorithms.

      They probably care because people often believe in things that are clearly false and in some cases harmful, plain facts don't always work if someone doesn't have the mindset to evaluate them.

    3. Re:It's censorship by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      I demand you get "OYAHHH is an idiot" tattooed on your forehead. Does it conflict with your personal world-view? It contradicts your view of the word and you refuse to do it? Which is .... wait for it ... perfectly fine. Why do you think google have to publish any wild musings you want out there? There is a word for that - "entitlement".

  53. How many of you even use youtube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see what the problem is here and unlike apparently most people commenting and clutching their pearls actually see it in action.

    If I'm watching an SNL clip that mentions Hillary Clinton and there's a bunch of dumb right wing trolls and agitators going on about her being the antichrist and part of a child sacrifice ring and so on I don't want to see videos about it as a related video but it regularly churns up garbage like that. It's clear their system is being manipulated

  54. But it moves ... by The_Other_Kelly · · Score: 1

    Sometimes conspiracy theories turn out to be true.

    Now, whether rantings of madman or insight of genii, all will be banned.

    All Hail Mediocrity!

    --
    (R)ule in Hell or (S)erve in Heaven [R]?
  55. Nibiru by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The return of planet 10, aka Nibiru, referred to in the Bible as Wormwood which will be seen just before Armageddon. Check youtube for videos about the Sumerian Annunaki if you'd like to know more. Doing just a yt search for Nibiru brings up dozens of bullshit vidoes that are constant reposts with new titles from the day before. Annunaki will get you the actual videos. As will the term Zecharia Sitchin which is one of a handful of people able to read Sumerian cuneiform.

  56. MAGAturd alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No he isn't. The only thing in that list that has ANY amount of plausibility is the hollow earth lizard men. And learn what the fuck irony means, MAGAtard.

  57. The usual conservative hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Exactly. They were fine with your argument when it was Daily Stormer and Gabby (or whatever that bullshit commo site was called). Nothing but screams of freeze peach and freedumbs.

    Hypocrites gonna hype.

  58. By golly, shouldnt you leave it alone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if it is such a work of fiction then why doesbthe Goobermint just gotta tell us at the end of Harry Potter movie that SNAPE KILLED DUMBLEDORE when i can drive up in my yellow Volkswagon beetle and say that the Harry Potter movie franchise has nothing todo with the book about another scholastic Mandela effect tgat made the move more inspiring and please oh please LEAVE DUMBLDORE ALONE in this movie. Do you know that fiction means you cant argue with it as a art form? Do you know what a fvcking Contract is? No video on youtube ever posed itself to a courtroom or jurry as truth because it will always be in contemplation consisten with Free Speach and Association.

    and leave Britney Spears alone too. and Timecube grouch says it better than Yablonski Hates You on Something Aweful

  59. let people say things even when they are stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    speak your opinion, do not silence others.

  60. Huh ! More censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love to watch so-called conspiracy videos and following the recommendations to similar. Gives me something to either think about or laugh about or somewhere in between. Open-mindedness beats close-mindedness. So in what universe does this improve my experience? Everytime I see google mentioned now I immediately associate 'censorship'. Maybe they are changing their brand image. See recent discussions about potentially shutting down ad-blockers in chrome.

  61. And you base that conclusion on...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oooh, look, nothing. a conspiracy. When it comes to businesses, they're immaculate and perfect, all the problems come from government interference, SJWs, eco warriers et al, but when YOUR idiotic stuff is being targeted for being, well, idiotic (such as eco warriors being why nuclear is so expensive), suddenly they#re incompetent boobs.

    You believe, on fuck all, that it will be better than what YT does. Why? Because that would make what YOU want done the thing that is done.

    Want anyone to DO it? Provide your case so it can be judged. Otherwise you just get Hitchens' Razor'd.

  62. Maybe YOU can't, I can. And so can YT, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not very hard. If there's a huge conspiracy and the proof is that there is a lack of evidence, being hidden by that big conspiracy, THEN IT IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY.

    Patriarchy? Conspiracy theory.
    Flat earth? Conspiracy theory.
    Drumpf colluding with Russia? NOT a conspiracy theory. Not even the orangeutan is hiding it, just going "There's nothing wrong with it!".

  63. You're all for free speech until by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until you have to be inconvenienced by it, even just potentially, in any way.

    See the OWS protests. Just because you would have been inconvenienced by it if you HAD a job in Wall St, you are against it and for the police moving them on.

    You're 100% for it unless you have to do something about it. Even listen to it.

    And not against it when you accept the KP laws, copyrights, patents and all other "IP" laws. All of those things (the abuse of the child is criminal and real world, not the owning of videos or pictures of it, that could be evidence) are 100% speech and not free.

  64. EVERYTHING is giving them validation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you deride them, you're validating their beliefs by persecuting them to silence them. If you ignore them then you are validating their beliefs by tacitly agreeing with them (as they see it). If you silence them they are validated, but THEY CANNOT PASS THAT CRAP ON SO EASILY.

    Vaccinations teach vaccines to adapt, if we didn't vaccinate at all we'd not have vaccine resistant strains.

    We'd have a shitload more dead people.

    But when we vaccinate enough, it doesn't lead to pandemics because the virus cannot spread too far before dying out (either host dies or recovers).

    This is the same thing for the destructive pathogen "Conspiracy theories".

    Validate them by shutting them up. Go ahead. The mind virus will die like a real one even so.

  65. Yup call them the conservatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When Kathy held up a Trump head, the right wing headed out to silence her and get her sacked. Fuck all care for free speech there. When Abu Hamsa preaches the rightwing wanted, and got, him silenced. When the apache vids came out, the right wing HATED it, no care for free speech there.

    You want the press silenced, a press you call left wing liberal media, by the president. No care for free speech there. You even laud him musing about jail or violence for the press. No care for even freedom of the press.

    The only time you right wingers are FOR free speech is when it is what YOU are saying or what you want to hear, like "Jews will not replace us".

    1. Re:Yup call them the conservatives by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      When Kathy held up a Trump head, the right wing headed out to silence her and get her sacked. Fuck all care for free speech there.

      Threatening to kill the president isn't covered by free speech. It's a felony under US law:

      Threatening the President of the United States is a federal felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States".

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

    2. Re:Yup call them the conservatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you though it was a real and credible threat, you have a problem. If you didn't then you are using mock outrage to further your political views. If your political views need disinformation to propagate then your views are wrong. If you think getting power is more important than doing what's best for your country, you are a traitor. Whichever box you fit in, you are the problem.

       

    3. Re:Yup call them the conservatives by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Right, and if you are so confident, post with your real name, and make some death threats against the president. You can even state that you love him and agree with his policy in the same post to rule out political motives.

      You'd love to paint this as political, but threats against the president are always taken seriously.

  66. Histrionic wanker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you can still 100% see all of the insane bullshit your idiotic ideology demands to soothe your ego. It's 100% absolutely all still there.

    It just won't get recommended to you, you have to look for it, fuckwit.

    LEARN TO READ SHITHEAD.

    1. Re:Histrionic wanker. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see we have a regular youtube commenter posting on slashdot.

      How charming.

      --
      -Styopa
  67. Re:List of conspiracy theories and false informati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i noticed one thing. You didn't deny trump is doing the russians' bidding, only that he did it because of the pee pee tape.

    That claim of a pee pee tape is a rumour. not a fake news or conspiracy.

    And the entire thing isnt a conspiracy theory either, since it only requires a few people who would inevitably lie by omission, to keep silent. There's nothing about a flat earth that would make EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST FOR 1000 YEARS keep up the pretense.

    Even if there were not evidence that trump is doing the bidding of russia: see the refusal to sign a veto proof bill to sanction russia.

  68. Orange Man Bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing to do with article but any excuse to TDS! Or ange Man Bad! Everyone knows! Russia! Russia! Russia!

    With you, bro! Orange Man Bad! Everything in dossier 100% true! Russians say so!

    1. Re: Orange Man Bad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you don't think the orange man is bad, regardless of politics, you're simply stupid. Not much more can be said.

  69. Re: Why do you give a shit what others believe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they want to create and share harmless conspiracy videos with each other, so what?

    Who died and made you or google or snopes or whoever the fuck king of what people are allowed to do on the net?

    Why do you give a shit? They hurt no one to talk about flat earth or whatever and it makes them happy.

    This is just low hanging fruit on the path to controlling all information on the net. It happens everyday right in front of your face. Censorship and tracking are not exclusive to China. Why else does most of /. use blockers, vpn, etc?

    Leave the flat earthers alone to share their videos. It is a slippery slope until you get censored, too. But you wont be able to post about that because your censorship post complaints will be filtered, too.

  70. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No.

  71. Unfortunate by sycodon · · Score: 1

    I always enjoyed watching the 911 Truter idiots with thier stupid stunts.

    Especially entertaining was the idiot who lite a fire under chicken wire then jumped up and down on it.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  72. The beginning's of 1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start of censorships worldwide. Thanks to FB, Twitter, Google, Mozilla, YouTube etc

  73. Need to be careful by sjames · · Score: 1

    I remember the "crackpot conspiracies" like the FBI is keeping dossiers on social activists like MLK and John Lennon, or the CIA is testing LSD as an interrogation tool by slipping it to unsuspecting subjects, or the NSA has a secret room where they tap into the phone system and monitor whatever calls they think are interesting,

    The truth of all of those is now a matter of public record along with testing radioactive substances on mentally handicapped children and poor pregnant women, and providing sham treatment for syphilis in order to see how it progresses without treatment.

    Sure, flat Earth and fake Moon landing are bunk, but while I don't necessarily believe any mass shootings are conspiracies, I have to admit it wouldn't be so far out of line with the ones above that are established fact.

    1. Re:Need to be careful by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between them though isn't there. We have evidence showing we went to the moon, so any contrary view can be dismissed. We have evidence that trump said "Mexico will pay for it" so when he says he didn't say it we can show it's a lie and the Honey Monster can be categorised as a a spreader of factual inexactitudes. CIA testing LSD? Some thought that the US wouldn't do such a thing as it was immoral, and no hard evidence to show that they did. This is a very dependable position. No one though it was beyond the capabilities of them to do it though. It's not a slippery slope, nor thin edge of the wedge.

    2. Re:Need to be careful by sjames · · Score: 1

      Some thought that the US wouldn't do such a thing as it was immoral, and no hard evidence to show that they did. This is a very dependable position.

      Apparently it is not a very dependable position since the fact that they actually DID do it is a matter of public record.

  74. Another motherfucker in a motorcade by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Either those are Sisters Of Mercy lyrics or they should be.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Another motherfucker in a motorcade by drewlake2000 · · Score: 1

      Flowers on a razor wire, you can't trust them.

  75. Re: the other side of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, it's obvious isn't it? There aren't ANY health professionals performing ANY sort of gender reassignment surgery, therefore ALL health professionals this it's a mental disorder. QED.