YouTube Tags Conspiracy Theory Videos With Fact-Check Links to Halt Misinformation

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
22,054
YouTube has taken the initiative and started adding fact-check links below certain videos that are typically disputed by conspiracy theorists. An example of this is a History Channel video which discusses the Oklahoma City Bombing which occurred on April 19, 1995. YouTube has now added a link below the video to a historical article from the Encyclopedia Britannica website which details the event in American history. Wikipedia is supposedly used for some videos, but I haven't noticed it.

Right now, YouTube's program seems to be in rollout mode--though it's not YouTube's only tool for tackling conspiracy theories. Sometimes, YouTube pushes back on misinformation by downgrading it in its search algorithms.


Remember to follow the forum rules and don't launch personal attacks against other users. Don't make me look bad for posting this information that I think is good tech news because you can't follow the rules.

Thanks guys and gals! :)
 
Really glad to hear about this. I started noticing a large increase in revisionist history back in the mid nineties. Once the internet began to grow so did this phenomenon in direct proportions. I'm still waiting for the day to see someone watering their crops with Gatorade.
 
Really glad to hear about this. I started noticing a large increase in revisionist history back in the mid nineties. Once the internet began to grow so did this phenomenon in direct proportions. I'm still waiting for the day to see someone watering their crops with Gatorade.

What do you mean? Last year's harvest was my best ever. The corn liked the fruit punch even better than the blue stuff.
 
Youtube simply needs to do what they do best: Host videos minus the pornographic content.

Kind of getting tired with them declaring war on a majority of their own creators and anything their agenda doesn't agree with. What are they going to define as a conspiracy? Are all political videos going to make the cut? Religious videos? Parenting advice? They need to play a more neutral role in things.

Google/Youtube used to be a pretty cool company. Each year it gets a bit more full on itself and goes in the wrong direction.
 
But who fact-checks the fact checkers? This is a real and perceived problem. Encyclopedias only include information approved by the board, and operate on a level of trust. But that trust can be broken, as seen by the previous trust placed in news media, or the information presented can be just wrong. Information that is accepted as "true" can be later under further discovery and investigation to be incorrect, but many people will not bother checking the updated information.

Then you have the nature of conspiracy theorists themselves. They are already inclined to disbelieve the "official" report, so inserting links to the "official" source of information will only further their distrust, and cement their belief in the theories even more.
 
Youtube simply needs to do what they do best: Host videos minus the pornographic content.

Kind of getting tired with them declaring war on a majority of their own creators and anything their agenda doesn't agree with. What are they going to define as a conspiracy? Are all political videos going to make the cut? Religious videos? Parenting advice? They need to play a more neutral role in things.

Google/Youtube used to be a pretty cool company. Each year it gets a bit more full on itself and goes in the wrong direction.

Gotta virtue signal and show that you are one of the "good" guys/gals/xe's/Apache helicopters. There really needs to be an alternative to YouTube.
 
I don't see the information boxes on the example video or any other video, for that matter.
YouTube already bans people they disagree with; this is just a small step further. Who gets to decide what's a conspiracy theory and what isn't? Who gets to decide where the "fact-check" link leads?
So long as they don't link to Wikipedia, Politifact, Snopes, or any other site that wears its bias on its shoulder then I don't disagree with this. I think we should expect people to be responsible and do their own research, though.
Gotta virtue signal and show that you are one of the "good" guys/gals/xe's/Apache helicopters. There really needs to be an alternative to YouTube.
https://www.bitchute.com/
 
glad to see this happening.. i work with far to many people that take everything they see on the internet as fact without ever taking 5 minutes to research it further.
I'm not sure this will change anything. Wouldn't clicking on a link below the Youtube video leading to a written article be exactly taking 5 minutes to research it further?
 
Considering how many people are pushing super skewed agendas and bullshit anymore, and selling it to people who aren't smart enough to think for themselves? I'm all for it.

If your "fact" heavy video, can't stand up to Snopes or other websites, then maybe you should take a closer look at your "facts"?

IE: The number of people who keep trying to push that the Civil War wasn't about Slavery? I'm sorry, but the leaders of the south from them DIRECTLY disagree with that "fact"

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Mississippi_Declaration_and_Ordinance_of_Secession.djvu/5

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.[/quote
 
I'm not sure this will change anything. Wouldn't clicking on a link below the Youtube video leading to a written article be exactly taking 5 minutes to research it further?
Difference being: They don't have to find it.

People are way more likely to click a link that is handed to them on a silver platter than they are to take all the effort needed to Open a new tab, type in a search, and then click on it! (I know, those steps are SO tiring!)
 
Considering how many people are pushing super skewed agendas and bullshit anymore, and selling it to people who aren't smart enough to think for themselves? I'm all for it.

If your "fact" heavy video, can't stand up to Snopes or other websites, then maybe you should take a closer look at your "facts"?

IE: The number of people who keep trying to push that the Civil War wasn't about Slavery? I'm sorry, but the leaders of the south from them DIRECTLY disagree with that "fact"

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Mississippi_Declaration_and_Ordinance_of_Secession.djvu/5

And this is how we lose our freedom of speech. Idiots like this, who don't need any fact checking for themselves, of course, no, but to straighten out all the "uninformed morons" he believes he's surrounded by. And once it's acceptable to label information as disapproved by the "unbiased, absolutely objective 'fact checkers'", the next step will be to ban such content entirely. After all, the fact checkers said it's not true, so how can it be justified leaving 'disinformation' and 'propaganda' on their platforms? Then we'll only see information that's approved. Do you really think entities that intend to impose censorship tell you that's what they're doing?
 
Snopes is hardly unbiased.

This is just another example of how YouTube, Facebook, etc. are now publishers and not just "platforms."

Just more 1984 tactics.
Unbiased? Nothing ever will be, or has been.

Snopes, however, links to actual sources and fact-based sites as possible to prove points.

BTW: They've also disproven a lot of the "lefty's" favorite memes, like Trump saying he'd run as a republican, that's flagged as fake on Snopes.
 
Really glad to hear about this. I started noticing a large increase in revisionist history back in the mid nineties. Once the internet began to grow so did this phenomenon in direct proportions. I'm still waiting for the day to see someone watering their crops with Gatorade.

But its got what plants crave!
 
Unbiased? Nothing ever will be, or has been.

Snopes, however, links to actual sources and fact-based sites as possible to prove points.

BTW: They've also disproven a lot of the "lefty's" favorite memes, like Trump saying he'd run as a republican, that's flagged as fake on Snopes.

There's a gradient of how "fake" something has to be for Snopes. Very clear left-leaning organization that's touts impartiality. The mission statement is a noble one; I think it is not carried out as fully as I would like it to be.
 
And this is how we lose our freedom of speech. Idiots like this, who don't need any fact checking for themselves, of course, no, but to straighten out all the "uninformed morons" he believes he's surrounded by. And once it's acceptable to label information as disapproved by the "unbiased, absolutely objective 'fact checkers'", the next step will be to ban such content entirely. After all, the fact checkers said it's not true, so how can it be justified leaving 'disinformation' and 'propaganda' on their platforms? Then we'll only see information that's approved. Do you really think entities that intend to impose censorship tell you that's what they're doing?

So Vacceines cause autism?

The flouride in the water is so mind control works?

Obama is actually a secret Muslim who was born in Kenya?

There's a gradient of how "fake" something has to be for Snopes. Very clear left-leaning organization that's touts impartiality. The mission statement is a noble one; I think it is not carried out as fully as I would like it to be.

I don't doubt they're got a left-slant. I also haven't seen more than one or two things that they were ever proven inaccurate about. (And the things I've seen that were proven inaccurate, they updated the site to correct.)
 
Really glad to hear about this. I started noticing a large increase in revisionist history back in the mid nineties. Once the internet began to grow so did this phenomenon in direct proportions. I'm still waiting for the day to see someone watering their crops with Gatorade.
Revisionist history has been a thing for exactly as long as history has.
Is anyone under the impression that somehow this move by YouTube will end stupidity?
Many people believe what they want to, almost completely independent of facts.

I agree with the fella who said YouTube should just host videos. Full stop.
 
Reality is imaginary, truth is all a lie. It were aliens, I seen 'em.

Fact checking is a left wing conspiracy! The globalists are in cahoots with Jews, statists, and verifiable facts to take our freedom!

All joking aside, society has manufactured an idiot so close to perfection that facts and data no longer matter, you can point lies out and prove them wrong a thousand times. Nothing. "The proof is that there's no proof!" Etc. Etc.
 
So Vacceines cause autism?

The flouride in the water is so mind control works?

Obama is actually a secret Muslim who was born in Kenya?



I don't doubt they're got a left-slant. I also haven't seen more than one or two things that they were ever proven inaccurate about. (And the things I've seen that were proven inaccurate, they updated the site to correct.)
I'm astounded that some people hate "the media (tm)" so much that they will literally believe anyone who isn't "the media (tm)" without checking other sources.

TIL, fact checking is a slippery slope to a 1984 dystopia. We should put absolute faith in the Alex Jones's of the world. :facepalm: JHC, we're all so fucked.
 
Everyone claiming first amendment here needs to pipe down. This is not a first amendment issue.
 
Every now and then I would watch Info Wars or some other video by Alex Jones and just laugh at the BS that nut-job is spewing. IMO, true or fake info is the responsibility of the reader to believe it or not. Everyone across the spectrum will state things, some flat-out false (willfully or unwittingly), half-truths, truths with a spin in their direction of the political spectrum, or unbias truth. The problem with private platforms is that the owners of those platforms can define their own truth via censorship. Stating unappealing or unpopular factual statistics can be labeled as hate speech and get the one who spoke it censored and called a racist. The censoring of unpopular truth is how a private entity would create their own truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Have they rolled this out on Flat Earth youtube videos yet? Or who are they targeting first for this?
 
don't worry I'm sure all the videos calling out certain companies for making products that cause cancer wont be fact checked into oblivion.
 
Considering how many people are pushing super skewed agendas and bullshit anymore, and selling it to people who aren't smart enough to think for themselves? I'm all for it.

If your "fact" heavy video, can't stand up to Snopes or other websites, then maybe you should take a closer look at your "facts"?

IE: The number of people who keep trying to push that the Civil War wasn't about Slavery? I'm sorry, but the leaders of the south from them DIRECTLY disagree with that "fact"

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Mississippi_Declaration_and_Ordinance_of_Secession.djvu/5

The idea of holding Snopes in any regard :cry:
 
I don't doubt they're got a left-slant. I also haven't seen more than one or two things that they were ever proven inaccurate about. (And the things I've seen that were proven inaccurate, they updated the site to correct.)

I'm not saying they are a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth radical organization. Things are black, white, and all shades of grey. At its base, assertions have qualities of different types. The question of whether it fits into this or that category is where discretion comes into play. I am saying those scales are not even, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
don't worry I'm sure all the videos calling out certain companies for making products that cause cancer wont be fact checked into oblivion.
How about this. If you see that happening, rather than assuming "It's a left wing conspiracy! OMG!", call them out on it. Let them know they need to do that. If they don't, then raise hell.
 
Can the people saying that snopes is garbage link to some of their articles that are incorrect? Maybe a half dozen or so would be a good amount to give people some idea of how inaccurate they are.
 
How about this. If you see that happening, rather than assuming "It's a left wing conspiracy! OMG!", call them out on it. Let them know they need to do that. If they don't, then raise hell.

I wouldn't think it was a leftwing conspiracy, more a corporate one to suppress the truth about their dangerous product to protect their bottom line, happened with tobacco, asbestos to name the 2 big ones.

glyphosate will be the next one even if a certain company keep paying some dodgy doctors to shill for them.
 
I agree with the fella who said YouTube should just host videos. Full stop.

Zero vetting or curation of content is why places like the Steam storefront are currently a shithole filled with garbage.

I don't believe in straight-up censorship (and in fact, this is NOT censorship) but a free-for-all is just going to be filled with garbage and illegal shit. It's been proven by example numerous times.
 
Back
Top