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

On its own the idea is interesting, though I feel its something that should be applied to any video discussing something and not just conspiracy theories. However, this is Youtube and they will find ways to fuck it up so badly that it will be almost hard to believe. How long before Youtube's dumbass algorithms tag factual information as "conspiracy theory" and then provide a link to, for example, an Alex Jones story and call that the factual information? It sounds ridiculous, but that is the level of stupid Youtube employs with its algorithms.
 
jardows said:
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
No one here mentioned first amendment before you. One poster talked about "Freedom of Speech," which is not the same as 1A.
Click to expand...

What in the hell are you talking about. Maybe you're just being pedantic? I don't know.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 
It's easy to fact check on the internet. From mediabiasfactcheck to snopes. Kudo's to youtube for adding a link that might make someone think the video they clicked on is bullshit.
 
lostin3d said:
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.
Click to expand...
I see what you did there. It's Brawndo tho. "It's got what your crops need!" (electrolytes)
 
NeghVar said:
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.
Click to expand...
Problem is 33% of the US population isn't smart enough to decipher the same thing...

Edit: or want to believe it for ideological reasons...
 
Guarana [BAWLS] said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Nice try, shallow thinker. First, why do we need a self appointed authority to determine what is, and what isn't credible? You've made it quite clear it's not for YOUR benefit, since you're able to determine facts for yourself, so you feel the need for information control for what, exactly? To ensure all those around you are only exposed to 'accurate' information? To be blunt, you think, no, you KNOW you're superior to those around you, and those who are inferior to you must have the information they are exposed to controlled by the Ministry of Truth. You seem to have no idea what kind of horrific world you're helping to unleash by normalizing institutional informational control.
 
haste. said:
Problem is 33% of the US population isn't smart enough to decipher the same thing...

Edit: or want to believe it for ideological reasons...
Click to expand...

Makes up slanderous statistic about Americans, while arguing that censorship is necessary to combat deceptive information. (though again, the censorship isn't needed for him, it's to prevent those inferior to him being influenced by the 'wrong' ideas).
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But what is interesting about this is those same people and even people that say what you are saying also believe everything the "news" tells them on television. I wish we had this for broadcast media.
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Makes up slanderous statistic about Americans, while arguing that censorship is necessary to combat deceptive information. (though again, the censorship isn't needed for him, it's to prevent those inferior to him being influenced by the 'wrong' ideas).
Click to expand...
Defends Alex Jones. Well, I guess that's the end of the post.
 
When Encyclopedia Britannica or Snopes can prove that Solylent Green is in fact not people I will take thier "fact checking" at face value.

Until then I'll do my fact checking via YouTube, Facebook and Google searches, thank you very much.
 
While it might be nice having Joe Isuzu subtitling for everything, at some point people need to be able to discern the truth for themselves. Otherwise, nothing will save them from their own gullibility and ignorance.
 
termite said:
When Encyclopedia Britannica or Snopes can prove that Solylent Green is in fact not people I will take thier "fact checking" at face value.

Until then I'll do my fact checking via YouTube, Facebook and ..
Click to expand...
You can get away without adding a /sarcasm tag by your inclusion of soylent green, well played.
 
Guarana [BAWLS] said:
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
Click to expand...

http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/ordinanceofsecession.html

Virginia says it was about federal vs states rights.

On topic: How much longer til Youtube just starts cherry picking channels and paying them personally and all other content is deleted?
 
moldyviolinist said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's a private business, if you don't like it feel free to start up moldyviolinistTube.com
 
GlowingGhoul said:
Nice try, shallow thinker. First, why do we need a self appointed authority to determine what is, and what isn't credible? You've made it quite clear it's not for YOUR benefit, since you're able to determine facts for yourself, so you feel the need for information control for what, exactly? To ensure all those around you are only exposed to 'accurate' information? To be blunt, you think, no, you KNOW you're superior to those around you, and those who are inferior to you must have the information they are exposed to controlled by the Ministry of Truth. You seem to have no idea what kind of horrific world you're helping to unleash by normalizing institutional informational control.
Click to expand...
Honestly man, isn't that exactly what you want but opposite? Control against the "liberals" so you can extend your agenda? You want it to be the beliefs that you have and we can't have a conversation or any sarcasm? Calling someone a "shallow thinker" for disagreeing. kinda funny and scary how impressionable people are...

I was in marketing for quite a while and could profile you pretty well just from this thread. And that's what the people that you get your information from are doing right now. On topic - Because youtube is fact checking and slapping the hand of a known psycho who even the most right of my friends despise and random conspiracy theory crazies (on both sides, it so happens to be more common on the right) isn't a bad thing. This should be nonpartisan.
 
haste. said:
Honestly man, isn't that exactly what you want but opposite? Control against the "liberals" so you can extend your agenda? You want it to be the beliefs that you have and we can't have a conversation or any sarcasm? Calling someone a "shallow thinker" for disagreeing. kinda funny and scary how impressionable people are...

I was in marketing for quite a while and could profile you pretty well just from this thread. And that's what the people that you get your information from are doing right now. On topic - Because youtube is fact checking and slapping the hand of a known psycho who even the most right of my friends despise and random conspiracy theory crazies (on both sides, it so happens to be more common on the right) isn't a bad thing. This should be nonpartisan.
Click to expand...

Have you done a study on the quanity and intensity of ‘conspiracy theory crazies’ broken down by political leanings?

Note: Sometimes a conspiracy theory is true.
 
DNMock said:
HAHAHA

That's good, I needed a laugh.
Click to expand...
Odd response. You've made it pretty evident. But you know, I'm feeding into the trolling.

Under 30 republican, strong right beliefs, under the mason dixon line, wants to work or potentially does in IT but wanting more, believes in free market but doesn't truly understand it. Bit of a follower, but very strong internal conviction - also needs to put down others in retaliation of those beliefs. This is what I did before going into finance...
 
Lenard said:
Have you done a study on the quanity and intensity of ‘conspiracy theory crazies’ broken down by political leanings?

Note: Sometimes a conspiracy theory is true.
Click to expand...
I said both sides. Both at the extreme level are idiotic and should be censored.
 
haste. said:
I said both sides. Both at the extreme level are idiotic and should be censored.
Click to expand...

You also said it was more common on the right.

Note: Censorship will not silence any theory. Censorship will only make people ask why you don’t want things heard. Your calls for censorship are self defeating because bad ideas need to be challenged, not ignored.
 
Do you native English speakers also pronounce it "fucked check" like I do in my head?

It's most natural to me
 
haste. said:
Odd response. You've made it pretty evident. But you know, I'm feeding into the trolling.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who claimed working in marketing made me a phd in clinical psychology.

edit: check that, no phd in clinical psychology would claim to be able to build a profile on someone based on a few forum posts....
 
Good, cause its about time that we can an alternative to YouTube. I don't log onto YouTube to watch CNN or whatever content YouTube wants me to watch. If they don't have it, someone else will. https://d.tube/ may have potential.
 
Zion Halcyon said:
Only for a communist.

Americana is "Sir, I may disagree vehemently with what you say, but I will just as vehemently defend your 1st amendment right to say it."
Click to expand...

Arguably, some of the "content" that Alex Jones puts out wouldn't be protected by the 1st. Not to mention him being blackballed from media platforms doesn't have anything to do with the 1st, anyway.
 
Sooo….is YouTube going to link itself to the whole "we're owned and controlled by Google and we're trying to manipulate society to create our envisioned end-state" link to every video?

Just wondering.

I'd Tweet about this, but I'd just get banned on Facebook. Or something.
 
MavericK said:
Arguably, some of the "content" that Alex Jones puts out wouldn't be protected by the 1st. Not to mention him being blackballed from media platforms doesn't have anything to do with the 1st, anyway.
Click to expand...

What content would not be covered?

“Free Speech” as a concept is not limited to goverment policy or legal rights. The value of free speech is more funamental. To deny free speech is to deny the ability to think. Ideas become better when challenged. Ideas cannot be challenged if they cannot be aired.

Also, tech companies staging themselves as public forums should be open as a public forum. They are within their rights to deny people access to thier forum, but they areno longer public at that point, but private. Private forums should be liable for the speech of the members. In short: Youtube should be liable for every child porn or call to violence on their platform if they want to be a private forum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: c3k
like this
Lenard said:
What content would not be covered?

“Free Speech” as a concept is not limited to goverment policy or legal rights. The value of free speech is more funamental. To deny free speech is to deny the ability to think. Ideas become better when challenged. Ideas cannot be challenged if they cannot be aired.

Also, tech companies staging themselves as public forums should be open as a public forum. They are within their rights to deny people access to thier forum, but they areno longer public at that point, but private. Private forums should be liable for the speech of the members. In short: Youtube should be liable for every child porn or call to violence on their platform if they want to be a private forum.
Click to expand...

How much child porn have you found on Youtube?
 
MavericK said:
Arguably, some of the "content" that Alex Jones puts out wouldn't be protected by the 1st. Not to mention him being blackballed from media platforms doesn't have anything to do with the 1st, anyway.
Click to expand...

In some cases it actually does. Some of these companies that are banning him are also getting certain legal protections based on how they define themselves as a business, legally.

if any of them like Twitter describe themselves as a public forum and enjoy the legal benefits of such, they then are beholden to the First Amendment despite being a private company, and as such subject themselves to legal remediation as well government regulation.

This also does not include any criminal action if it is found that the company intentionally abused it's status - then you are looking at charges of fraud.

So yeah, Alex Jones maybe an idiot. But the bigger idiots would be the people responsible for deplatforming him if they registered their entities as a public forum.

Basically they fucked themselves and the company....
 
Lenard said:
What content would not be covered?

“Free Speech” as a concept is not limited to goverment policy or legal rights. The value of free speech is more funamental. To deny free speech is to deny the ability to think. Ideas become better when challenged. Ideas cannot be challenged if they cannot be aired.

Also, tech companies staging themselves as public forums should be open as a public forum. They are within their rights to deny people access to thier forum, but they areno longer public at that point, but private. Private forums should be liable for the speech of the members. In short: Youtube should be liable for every child porn or call to violence on their platform if they want to be a private forum.
Click to expand...

I imagine they restricted his account due to him calling on people to take up arms against the media. It's a violation of Twitter TOS, for one, but additionally "inciting violence" is not protected speech under the 1st. So either way Twitter is well within their rights.

How is YouTube different from Twitter in this regard? Both can be viewed "publicly".

Zion Halcyon said:
In some cases it actually does. Some of these companies that are banning him are also getting certain legal protections based on how they define themselves as a business, legally.

if any of them like Twitter describe themselves as a public forum and enjoy the legal benefits of such, they then are beholden to the First Amendment despite being a private company, and as such subject themselves to legal remediation as well government regulation.

This also does not include any criminal action if it is found that the company intentionally abused it's status - then you are looking at charges of fraud.

So yeah, Alex Jones maybe an idiot. But the bigger idiots would be the people responsible for deplatforming him if they registered their entities as a public forum.

Basically they fucked themselves and the company....
Click to expand...

Please show me where Twitter has been deemed a "public forum" as defined by coverage under the 1st. Far as I can tell, it's not run by the government and it's a private entity, so it doesn't apply. A judge did rule that Trump's Twitter is considered such in as far as he can't prevent citizens from viewing it.
 
MavericK said:
I imagine they restricted his account due to him calling on people to take up arms against the media. It's a violation of Twitter TOS, for one, but additionally "inciting violence" is not protected speech under the 1st. So either way Twitter is well within their rights.

How is YouTube different from Twitter in this regard? Both can be viewed "publicly".



Please show me where Twitter has been deemed a "public forum" as defined by coverage under the 1st. Far as I can tell, it's not run by the government and it's a private entity, so it doesn't apply. A judge did rule that Trump's Twitter is considered such in as far as he can't prevent citizens from viewing it.
Click to expand...

He never called on people to take up arms against the media. That is a lie.

Nobody “deemed” anything. I was talking about concepts and not engaging in a technical legal argument about existing law. I was merely stating what should be the case, and not what is.

Note: “Legal” is not “moral”. Jim Crow laws were the law. They were not moral. I am arguing for what the law/rule should be. I am not bound by what the rule is now when doing so.

Let me state my argument another way. If we were to make rules about forums on the internet the rule should be: Forums that decide what content can be posted are private forums and should be liable for the content of the forum. Forums that only restrict illegal content and allow any content otherwise are public, and not legally liable for the content.
 
Last edited:
MavericK said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, I should have spoken more clearly. My fault.

I agree with the fella who said YouTube should just host videos. Minus pornography and illegal shit. Full stop.
 
Lenard said:
He never called on people to take up arms against the media. That is a lie.
Click to expand...
People know how to use internet search engines, you might learn how to use one yourself.

Twitter sanctions Alex Jones for video asking supporters to ready 'battle rifles' against media

From the Washington Examiner. The Washington Examiner has a Right leaning bias in reporting, but is generally factual in reporting through proper sourcing.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...pporters-to-ready-battle-rifles-against-media
 
Jim Kim said:
People know how to use internet search engines, you might learn how to use one yourself.

Twitter sanctions Alex Jones for video asking supporters to ready 'battle rifles' against media

From the Washington Examiner. The Washington Examiner has a Right leaning bias in reporting, but is generally factual in reporting through proper sourcing.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...pporters-to-ready-battle-rifles-against-media
Click to expand...

Here is video of the offense:
It is clear he is telling people to be prepared when the “commie red teams come”. Maybe you shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet. Maybe you should be a skeptic.

Your problem is you believe everything you Google. That makes you easily misled and exactly why big tech shutting down speech is so dangerous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top