Youtube Making Sure You Youtube Correctly

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,596
Youtube is telling us that it is aiming to crack down on fake news by supporting journalism. While Youtube's statements here, certainly make sense when you are talking about "real" fake news, you have to wonder what exactly will not fall under its new "authoritative" news source banner. How they are going to go about this with text previews will be very interesting to see assuredly. As long as Snopes is used as a source, we will all be OK.


At such times, YouTube will begin showing users short text previews of news stories in video search results, as well as warnings that the stories can change. The goal is to counter the fake videos that can proliferate immediately after shootings, natural disasters and other major happenings. For example, YouTube search results prominently showed videos purporting to “prove” that mass shootings like the one that killed at least 59 in Las Vegas were fake, acted out by “crisis actors.”
 
At such times, YouTube will begin showing users short text previews of news stories in video search results, as well as warnings that the stories can change.
Click to expand...
I don't get it. How would this work?

It will display a text "don't watch this, wait for our progressive friends to come up with a narrative blaming white privilege instead"?
 
Or...

"This speech by x has been noted by sources such as... (named sources) to have xxx number of factual fallacies, or lies. xxx number of exaggerations or errors, and xxx number of verifiable facts. I would be happy with that. Though that will be a lot of fact checking on Google's part... SOMEONE has to do it.
 
Grimlaking said:
Or...

"This speech by x has been noted by sources such as... (named sources) to have xxx number of factual fallacies, or lies. xxx number of exaggerations or errors, and xxx number of verifiable facts. I would be happy with that. Though that will be a lot of fact checking on Google's part... SOMEONE has to do it.
Click to expand...
So who will be the fact checkers?

Snopes?
Politifact?
538?
Wikipedia?

Nn2wW3g0hwDEA.gif
 
How about they get rid of clickbait videos?


You know the type with red circles or arrows pointing at something.
 
When the Freedom of the Press was put in the Constitution, nobody fathomed it would be potentially cornered by a half-dozen hive-minded self-serving corporations.

Here's the problem with our "professional" journalists. Most people mistakenly believe the "Press" in Freedom of the Press refers to them. It most certainly does not. The "Press" is literally and figuratively the Printing Press. The access to the means of mass communication was an individual right for everyone. They put that in there because they realized even then, the press as a whole was manipulated into serving the government. Probably not as different from teh incestuous relationship between the media, corporation, and government we have now. Except the benefits a little more both ways for them.
 
Last edited:
jpm100 said:
When the Freedom of the Press was put in the Constitution, nobody fathomed it would be potentially cornered by a half-dozen hive-minded self-serving corporations.
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes it was. Why do you think it wasn't?
 
Grimlaking said:
Actually I'm now curious. What fact checking sites do you actually think are less or non bias? I'm curious what your sources are if you choose to believe all of the ones you listed are aligned with one specific side.
Click to expand...
Literally none of them if they decide for you whether something is true or not. That's the difference between news now vs then, it used to be they just gathered the facts, presented them, and allowed you to arrive at your own conclusion. Instead you have verdict renderers now, especially in the case of Snopes and Politifact. It doesn't take very long to find a story they've done that points to a claim they don't like being true, and instead of saying "look at this overwhelming data, our favorite politician is a pile of flaming garbage", they'll list the claim as "sorta true" and hope you don't actually read the source material they get their "well informed" verdicts from.
 
I know this is WAY off topic. But how the hell did we come to the point of if you put out news that disagrees with X you are clearly supporting Y. Even IF your previous news article was disagreeing with Y. Why is it a news group or journalist can't be unbiased when they write about something you find disheartening and don't want to believe.

And I'm not talking about JUST political news. I mean in all sorts. "Oh Kyle is an XXXX company shill now. You should ignore his news about YYYY because it's completely biased."

It's total bullshit. You know it, I know it... the news is just the news. No not EVERY news agency is like that, and they target specific markets and effectively tell them exactly what they want to hear. If I tune into Fox I get all the great news about Trump and how everything he says will be great and dandy. If I tune into MSNBC I get how he speaks in falshoods and is the second coming of the devil himself.

Part of the problem is the disinformation campaigns being ran against the US from external hostile states.

Fuck even Dan Rather is being labeled as being one sided now a days.

I can't name a news source or article here without SOMEONE saying it's biased against X so it can't be believed.

Makes having a discourse near impossible. And I believe that is the DESIGN.
 
It is a pre emptive strike against what happened on Facebook in 2016. My guess is that they found that youtube would be vulnerable to the same manipulation.
rudedog said:
Didn't Facebook try and fail at this?
Click to expand...
Failbook ?
 
Grimlaking said:
I know this is WAY off topic. But how the hell did we come to the point of if you put out news that disagrees with X you are clearly supporting Y. Even IF your previous news article was disagreeing with Y. Why is it a news group or journalist can't be unbiased when they write about something you find disheartening and don't want to believe.

And I'm not talking about JUST political news. I mean in all sorts. "Oh Kyle is an XXXX company shill now. You should ignore his news about YYYY because it's completely biased."

It's total bullshit. You know it, I know it... the news is just the news. No not EVERY news agency is like that, and they target specific markets and effectively tell them exactly what they want to hear. If I tune into Fox I get all the great news about Trump and how everything he says will be great and dandy. If I tune into MSNBC I get how he speaks in falshoods and is the second coming of the devil himself.

Part of the problem is the disinformation campaigns being ran against the US from external hostile states.

Fuck even Dan Rather is being labeled as being one sided now a days.

I can't name a news source or article here without SOMEONE saying it's biased against X so it can't be believed.

Makes having a discourse near impossible. And I believe that is the DESIGN.
Click to expand...

That problem resided with Richard Nixon his aide Roger Ailes come up with the idea of a non stop propaganda broadcast. Where you would only hear one side of the story back then something Richard Nixon needed badly.

When people see news they associate it with the channel it is on the news used to be factual and not convoluted with opinion.
 
For example, YouTube search results prominently showed videos purporting to “prove” that mass shootings like the one that killed at least 59 in Las Vegas were fake, acted out by “crisis actors.”
Click to expand...

Shocked they would use this specific example. How can there be fake news, where is no "official" news? Nobody has said what the hell happened there. A guy shot people. That's it. That's the official story so far. What do you think people are going to say about that??!?

Conspiracy Theories are by nature un-provable and most likely fake, only occasionally do some come true.....and that's what makes them popular. It's the mental equivalent of the lottery.

People need to get over themselves, alternative facts is human life. The very same people pushing this "don't think wrong" agenda are the same people endorsing their new way of thinking. Human thoughts are all over the place, on all topics. Interconnected communication and ease of access has only made it more evident....it hasn't actually changed the way we think or what we think about.
 
westrock2000 said:
People need to get over themselves, alternative facts is human life. The very same people pushing this "don't think wrong" agenda are the same people endorsing their new way of thinking. Human thoughts are all over the place, on all topics. Interconnected communication and ease of access has only made it more evident....it hasn't actually changed the way we think or what we think about.
Click to expand...

This right here.. Alternative Facts. DAMN IT THOSE ARE CALLED OPINIONS. IT IS EITHER FACT OR IT IS NOT FACT. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE FACT.

Sorry I had to do that.
 
Axman said:
Yes. Yes it was. Why do you think it wasn't?
Click to expand...
Because there were few national sized companies which weren't essentially agents of the government and beholding to them in existence (eg. Hudson Bay Trading Company). And the number of those were tiny. The knowhow and technology for companies as we know them today did not exit. You may have had monopolies, but they were geographically limited which means they faced competition at their edges at a minimum and if they were bad enough people would travel outside the local region to a competitor.

There's a reason anti-trust developed after the railway and telegraph because those were the type of innovations that developed which enabled the problem to be unmanageable by normal market forces.
 
Well, YouTube may sensor news videos but there's still gonna be videos like this one there:
 
Last edited:
Grimlaking said:
This right here.. Alternative Facts. DAMN IT THOSE ARE CALLED OPINIONS. IT IS EITHER FACT OR IT IS NOT FACT. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE FACT.

Sorry I had to do that.
Click to expand...

All opinions are based on facts. If you are forming opinions based on things YOU don't believe are accurate or true, then you got some core problems ("you" being general). The variation is the facts and truths. And those come from interpreting the world around you. Two people can view that same event, form opposing opinions and BOTH be using the facts. Then it gets into the really slippery stuff, like are facts really that important. Is truth really that important. Do people believe facts if they don't align with emotion or rationality, thus begging the question, which has more weight on a decision. People are complicated. So fucking complicated.
 
Grimlaking said:
This right here.. Alternative Facts. DAMN IT THOSE ARE CALLED OPINIONS. IT IS EITHER FACT OR IT IS NOT FACT. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE FACT.

Sorry I had to do that.
Click to expand...
The problem is some things that are presented as facts are merely observations, opinions or hypothesis. It's like Einsteins relativity. An observation from one perspective is quite different from another perspective. YouTube is beginning a slide down the slippery slope of censorship...
 
Last edited:
dgingeri said:
I hope that was sarcasm
Click to expand...


Snopes really pisses me off with this shit:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/refugee-invaders-meme/

Notice how they "fact check" a vague, unattributed statement, and use the total number of Syrian refugees in Africa and the middle east to make their claim that the above statement is "mostly false."

The people making the statement they are "fact checking" are almost universally talking about refugees entering Europe, and they are talking about all refugees from african and middle eastern nations, of which Syrians are only about half. Then the article contains this one throwaway acknowledgement that highly disproportionate numbers of refugees entering europe are indeed young males:

"However, there are more able-bodied young men and fewer children among the refugees regularly showing up at Europe’s shores in boats. The reason for this is simple: the journey by sea is relatively short (in some places only 2.5 miles, or 4 kilometers) but fraught with dangers on the water, as well as on land once the refugees arrive."

They dont even do a good job sourcing the data, which I searched for separately:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/08/02/4-asylum-seeker-demography-young-and-male/

According to Pew, 73% of refugees entering Europe were male. Yes, 19% of them were children, but according to other sources I find, the vast majority of these male children are teenagers close to being adults.

So Snopes is avoiding the argument entirely by fact checking only a vague broad claim about all Syrian refugees residing in any country between Syria and europe, many of whom are in Libya and Egypt, while ignoring the claim that people are actually making, which relates to refugees entering Europe, which the data shows are overwhelmingly young males over the age of 14.
 
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trumps-false-claim-refugees-migrants-are-mo/

Here is another example of the same thing. Donald Trump, when talking about refugees entering europe, says that he sees few women and children and what are mostly men. Politifact rated his claim False, and like Snopes, they used the example of ALL SYRIAN REFUGEES IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA, which wasnt what Trump was talking about. He was specifically talking about refugees entering europe, which as the Pew data shows, were mostly young men, making Trump 100% correct to say what he said.

Now, politifact neglects the pew data entirely, instead using UN figures that are slightly more amenable to their case:

"
The U.N. also tracks so-called "sea arrivals," refugees and migrants who cross the Mediterranean Sea to continental Europe. The counts a little more than 1 million people who have crossed into Europe since the start of 2015, with almost 3,800 dying during the journey.

The U.N. breaks those migrants into three categories: Adult men, 49 percent; Adult women, 19 percent; and children, 31 percent."

This still shows that 70% of adults were Male. And while this shows a healthy number of child refugees, it again ignores the fact that most of the child refugees are males, and mostly older teens. Why they ignore the Pew data entirely is beyond me.

And again, in another section of this "fact check" they specifically use the total number of Syrian refugees residing in North Africa and the middle east and confuse them with the demographics of refugees entering europe.
 
Last edited:
pcgeekesq said:
I lost faith in Snopes long ago. What used to be a site about fighting scientific fraud has been co-opted by the progressives to advance their own agenda.
Click to expand...
At least Snopes built a straw man to burn down. Politifact basically acknowledged what Trump said, provided data backing Trump up on his specific claim, and then rated his claim false. And of course they cherry picked a source that backed up their bias, even though it still backed up what Trump said to a degree.

I mean, if you were standing in a room with 5 adult males, 2 adult females, 2 teenage boys, and one teenage girl, would you not consider that room to be disproportionately young males?

Notice how they didnt even give him a "half true" or "mostly false" even. They flat out rated his claim false. Even politico says the refugees are disproportionately male:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/europe-refugees-migrant-crisis-men-213500
 
Even worse for the politifact article:

They, in one paragraph discuss the total 4.6 million Syrian refugees that exist across north Africa and the middle east, but in their conclusion, they say this:

"The majority of more than 4.6 million Syrian refugees entering Europe are women and children 17 and younger."

So they used a number for the total of Syrian refugees in the world and directly conflated this number with the numbers of refugees entering europe in their conclusion. How does an editor not catch this? Snopes and the politifact article up until the conclusion danced around this conflation, but here in politifacts conclusion they directly say "x is y." They use a completely unrelated number to represent another number. Again, the "4.6 million" discussed above represent all Syrian refugees on earth. It has nothing to do with the refugees entering Europe, but they make the claim that "the majority of the 4.6 million refugees entering europe" are women and children. This is a flat out lie or uncorrected mistake of juvenile proportions.
 
Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this shit. That's why there are only two people I would ever want in office. George Carlin or Robin Williams, but sadly both these legends are dead and hated the government with a sincere passion.
 
the-one1 said:
How about they get rid of clickbait videos?


You know the type with red circles or arrows pointing at something.
Click to expand...

Do you see the red area? Now LOOK at the red area. Isn't that area also red? Coincidence? Hah, that's what they want you to think
 
Grimlaking said:
This right here.. Alternative Facts. DAMN IT THOSE ARE CALLED OPINIONS. IT IS EITHER FACT OR IT IS NOT FACT. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE FACT.

Sorry I had to do that.
Click to expand...
No, alternative facts are not opinions. Alternative Facts means one side is rejecting what the other side is reporting. So say you have this situation:

Side 1: Reports on a topic, get things 90% accurate, but omits key information.

Side 2: Reports on a topic, gets things 45% accurate and also omits key information.

Both sides report the other as having "alternative facts."

In other words, it's a shit show.
 
Draxanoth said:
It doesn't take very long to find a story they've done that points to a claim they don't like being true, and instead of saying "look at this overwhelming data, our favorite politician is a pile of flaming garbage", they'll list the claim as "sorta true" and hope you don't actually read the source material they get their "well informed" verdicts from.
Click to expand...

Tons of examples.
 

Attachments

  • 0s5uj7ks73tx.jpg
    0s5uj7ks73tx.jpg
    29 KB · Views: 0
  • 56xi2ZH.png
    56xi2ZH.png
    108.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    74.6 KB · Views: 0
Just let the Southern Poverty Law Center handle all the story vetting, and things will be fine.

I mean, they're Southern, so they can't be leftists, but they're supporting the poor, so they can't be right-wingers, and they're a law center, which implies lawyers, and we know we can trust those folks implicitly.

Therefore, they're the most unbiased and reliable vetting organization in the country. Must acquit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top