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

[Meeho]

If you don't understand the difference between "bad words" and the inciting to violence it says a lot about you.
And you can actually say what you posted in Denmark....nice fail

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7452/denmark-free-speech-islam

"Last week, a Danish district court ruled that what a Danish citizen had written on Facebook in November 2013 violated the Danish criminal code.

The man was fined 1600 Danish kroner (approximately $240), which makes it unlikely that he will be allowed to appeal the sentence: the fine is so small that an appeal to the Higher Court requires special permission.

The Danish district court found that the man's statements about Islam were "generalizing statements" that were "insulting and demeaning towards adherents of Islam.""

 

[Factum]

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7452/denmark-free-speech-islam

"Last week, a Danish district court ruled that what a Danish citizen had written on Facebook in November 2013 violated the Danish criminal code.

The man was fined 1600 Danish kroner (approximately $240), which makes it unlikely that he will be allowed to appeal the sentence: the fine is so small that an appeal to the Higher Court requires special permission.

The Danish district court found that the man's statements about Islam were "generalizing statements" that were "insulting and demeaning towards adherents of Islam.""

Let me bring you up to date:
https://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/...acisme-at-sammenligne-islamister-med-nazisme/

Acquitted by the Danish Supreme Court.

Thank you for your contribution of "Fake News" and proving my point

What the term you from the US like so much.
Oh yeah...wait:

PWNED!!!

Find a better source, I doubt the honesty of that "institute"...

 

[Meeho]

Let me bring you up to date:
https://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/...acisme-at-sammenligne-islamister-med-nazisme/

Acquitted by the Danish Supreme Court.

Thank you for your contribution of "Fake News" and proving my point

What the term you from the US like so much.
Oh yeah...wait:

PWNED!!!

Find a better source, I doubt the honesty of that "institute"...

1. The source is accurate at the time of its writing.

2. It takes a supreme court ruling to get you free out of something that should never had been considered forbidden

3. The very ruling you linked by the supreme court confirms that he would have been guilty if he had used the word religion instead of ideology, thus confirming that free speech is very much dead and censored in Denmark, i.e. constitues "bad words" even when there's no call to violence of any sort

Thank you for playing.

I will quote you contradicting yourself once more, in case you forget:

Censurship of media is a mostly US thing. In Denmark we don't censur "bad words" or "nudity" unlike in the US. You will get into problems if you do hate-speech

 

[Factum]

1. The source is accurate at the time of its writing.

2. It takes a suoteme court ruling to get you free out of something that should never had been considered forbidden

3. The very ruling you linked by the suotrme court confirms that he would have been guilty if he had used the word religion instead of ideology, thus confirming that free speech is very much dead and censored in Denmark, i.e. constitues "bad words" ecen when there's no call to violence of any sort

Thank you for playing.

A lot of words for saying you are posting fake news.
And stop using google translate...you crack me up

(The reason he did nothing wrong is because that law is not intended to protect a "group" but "individuals").

More fake stuff you want to post?

 

[Factum]

(The irony here is that you, Meeho, now needs a fact-checking link on your posts....thus confirmning a lot of my points)

 

[Meeho]

A lot of words for saying you are posting fake news.
And stop using google translate...you crack me up

(The reason he did nothing wrong is because that law is not intended to protect a "group" but "individuals").

More fake stuff you want to post?

A lot of words that debunk your claims make you laugh...Ok.

"Against this background and following the wording of the statement containing the words" ideology Islam "and" Islamists ", the national court agrees with the defendant's statement that the opinion was aimed at Islamic ideology and Islamists. Since the protection provided for in section 266b (1) of the Criminal Code. 1, after the wording and the prescriber does not include reprieve etc. of a group of people because of their ideology, dismissed accused of the accusation, "concludes the Supreme Court."

From your link. It is clearly about ideology vs religion distinction, not group vs individuals. Another wrong statement by you debunked. What do you call fake news when you lie about what your own sources say?

Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freed...f_the_press_in_Denmark#Hate_speech_and_racism
"Whoever publicly, or with intention to disseminating in a larger circle makes statements or other pronouncement, by which a group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, colour of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years. Sec. 2. When meting out the punishment it shall be considered an especially aggravating circumstance, if the count has the character of propaganda."

And I am so sorry for not speaking Danish, just like 99% of the world.

Anything more you would like to be wrong about?

 

[Lifelite]

TIL people still say "pwned"

 

[Meeho]

(The irony here is that you, Meeho, now needs a fact-checking link on your posts....thus confirmning a lot of my points)

State one wrong fact I've stated other than ideology-religion distinction that had no bearing on the broader point that there is no free speech in Denmark even when no call to violence is present.

 

[Factum]

A lot of words that debunk your claims make you laugh...Ok.

"Against this background and following the wording of the statement containing the words" ideology Islam "and" Islamists ", the national court agrees with the defendant's statement that the opinion was aimed at Islamic ideology and Islamists. Since the protection provided for in section 266b (1) of the Criminal Code. 1, after the wording and the prescriber does not include reprieve etc. of a group of people because of their ideology, dismissed accused of the accusation, "concludes the Supreme Court."

From your link. Another wrong statement by you debunked.

Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freed...f_the_press_in_Denmark#Hate_speech_and_racism
"Whoever publicly, or with intention to disseminating in a larger circle makes statements or other pronouncement, by which a group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, colour of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years. Sec. 2. When meting out the punishment it shall be considered an especially aggravating circumstance, if the count has the character of propaganda."

And I am so sorry for not speaking Danish, just like 99% of the world.

Anything more you would like to be wrong about?

Let me translate that for you, since you persist with FAKE NEWS:
"Da beskyttelsen i straffelovens § 266 b, stk. 1, efter ordlyden og bestemmelsens forarbejder ikke omfatter forhånelse mv. af en gruppe af personer på grund af deres ideologi, frifindes tiltalte for den rejste tiltale,” konkluderer landsretten."

"Since the protection in the Criminal Code §266b, section 1, after the wording and intention does NOT include scoff etc. af a group of peope due to their ideology the defendant is acquitted, concludes the supreme court".

Keep posting lie after lie...all you are doing is confirming my point about fake news from the US

And I trust the Danish Supreme Court to have a better understanding of danish law than Wiki.
Sadly for you, eh?

 

[Joust]

You know, it's amazing how the rest of the damn world is all up in our U.S. business. Like a bunch of nosey neighbors that have nothing better to do than comment on how the guy in the biggest house on the street keeps his lawn.

Censorship and interference? That lovely bastion of liberal European individualism that is France imposes language restrictions in a manner that is overtly nationalist. See: Tourbon Law.

Moreover, it's so lovely to get commentary from countries that are about as diverse as the Aryan Brotherhood. What perspective could these folks possibly have with regards to the issues that arise due to the truly remarkable amount of diversity we have here - culturally, ideologically, etc?

We have radical right, we have radical left. We have pretty much everything inbetween. We have them in considerable numbers due to the size of our population and composition of the same. It is what it is.

More like commentary on commentary rather than commentary on subject.

 

[Meeho]

Let me translate that for you, since you persist with FAKE NEWS:
"Da beskyttelsen i straffelovens § 266 b, stk. 1, efter ordlyden og bestemmelsens forarbejder ikke omfatter forhånelse mv. af en gruppe af personer på grund af deres ideologi, frifindes tiltalte for den rejste tiltale,” konkluderer landsretten."

"Since the protection in the Criminal Code §266b, section 1, after the wording and intention does NOT include scoff etc. af a group of peope due to their ideology the defendant is acquitted, concludes the supreme court".

Keep posting lie after lie...all you are doing is confirming my point about fake news from the US

And I trust the Danish Supreme Court to have a better understanding of danish law than Wiki.
Sadly for you, eh?

"due to their ideology"

You're disproving yourself. Seriously? At this point, you're either daft or trolling. Either way, there's no point in continuing.

 

[Factum]

"due to their ideology"

You're disproving yourself. Seriously? At this point, you're either daft or trolling. Either way, there's no point in continuing.

No, I am stating that your translations AND understanding is a joke!
Run off Mr. Fake News

(I guess the Danish Supreme Court was just trolling when they acquitted him...lol)

 

[DNMock]

No, I am stating that your translations AND understanding is a joke!
Run off Mr. Fake News

(I guess the Danish Supreme Court was just trolling when they acquitted him...lol)

Not to be that guy, but Denmark has a population of 5 million. It's not that shocking that you don't generate any fake news. I never hear any fake news coming from the state of Minnesota either (also population of 5 million). Hell the city I live in is 40% larger than the nation of Denmark and I rarely or if ever hear any "fake news" generated from here.

to say it's only a U.S. thing (which there is a ton of it, we invented the term) because Denmark doesn't have any is akin to me looking for Nazi's in my back yard, not seeing any and declaring that they only exist in Germany.

Is the U.S. as a whole a cesspool? sure, but to compare Denmark to the U.S. is just apples to oranges. If you wanna go apples to apples take the Dallas-Fort Worth area (still bigger than Denmark) and we have lower taxes, lower violent crime rates, a stronger economy etc. etc. Also we don't generate massive amounts of fake news either.

 

[Factum]

Not to be that guy, but Denmark has a population of 5 million. It's not that shocking that you don't generate any fake news. I never hear any fake news coming from the state of Minnesota either (also population of 5 million). Hell the city I live in is 40% larger than the nation of Denmark and I rarely or if ever hear any "fake news" generated from here.

to say it's only a U.S. thing (which there is a ton of it, we invented the term) because Denmark doesn't have any is akin to me looking for Nazi's in my back yard, not seeing any and declaring that they only exist in Germany.

Is the U.S. as a whole a cesspool? sure, but to compare Denmark to the U.S. is just apples to oranges. If you wanna go apples to apples take the Dallas-Fort Worth area (still bigger than Denmark) and we have lower taxes, lower violent crime rates, a stronger economy etc. etc. Also we don't generate massive amounts of fake news either.

You have any numbers for that area to compare?
After the latest batch of Fake News posters I cannot take your word for it.

 

[DNMock]

You have any numbers for that area to compare?
After the latest batch of Fake News posters I cannot take your word for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas–Fort_Worth_metroplex

crime

https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/levevilkaar/kriminalitet (lazy estimate annual 24,000 crimes of violence)
https://view.joomag.com/2016-annual-report-2016-annual-report/0974310001510064636 (10,000 in Dallas proper where the most violent crimes occur) [note, we are waaay better at murdering each other than you guys, too]

Too lazy to keep going, but you get the picture. Small sample size =/= the big picture.

To bring it back on topic, this is what Google is doing, even though they seem big, in reality they are tiny against the big picture so their perception of right and wrong, facts and "fake news" is by no means correct. They can do what they please, but I can criticize it too and I'm super good at being critical of others.

Edit:

Hopefully this brings it into perspective. Denmark is a pretty awesome place by all accounts. But what if I compared my larger sized metroplex to all of Europe and laughed at how trash you Europeans were. I'm sure you don't like being lumped in with the likes of Greece, France, Portugal, etc. etc. but Europe vs DFW sure makes DFW look like a resort in comparison thanks to the trashy parts of Europe bogging it down.

Same situation. I don't like being clumped together with backwoods west virginia and super violent Chicago.

 

[Factum]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas–Fort_Worth_metroplex

crime

https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/levevilkaar/kriminalitet (lazy estimate annual 24,000 crimes of violence)
https://view.joomag.com/2016-annual-report-2016-annual-report/0974310001510064636 (10,000 in Dallas proper where the most violent crimes occur) [note, we are waaay better at murdering each other than you guys, too]

Too lazy to keep going, but you get the picture. Small sample size =/= the big picture.

To bring it back on topic, this is what Google is doing, even though they seem big, in reality they are tiny against the big picture so their perception of right and wrong, facts and "fake news" is by no means correct. They can do what they please, but I can criticize it too and I'm super good at being critical of others.

Edit:

Hopefully this brings it into perspective. Denmark is a pretty awesome place by all accounts. But what if I compared my larger sized metroplex to all of Europe and laughed at how trash you Europeans were. I'm sure you don't like being lumped in with the likes of Greece, France, Portugal, etc. etc. but Europe vs DFW sure makes DFW look like a resort in comparison thanks to the trashy parts of Europe bogging it down.

Same situation. I don't like being clumped together with backwoods west virginia and super violent Chicago.

Those numbers arenot what you think they are....they all ALL crimes together.
From eg. drunk driving)
In 2017 there were 6.868 sentences of violence (from fighting to murder)
Of those 3.791 was a gulity verdict (55)%.
But the rest (3.791 or 45%) was no guillty.

How does the number look then?

 

[DNMock]

Those numbers arenot what you think they are....they all ALL crimes together.
From eg. drunk driving)
In 2017 there were 6.868 sentences of violence (from fighting to murder)
Of those 3.791 was a gulity verdict (55)%.
But the rest (3.791 or 45%) was no guillty.

How does the number look then?

The very first graph literally says "Crimes of Violence" and it's broken down quarterly at a rate of around 6,800 per quarter. I don't really care how many people were found guilty of violent crimes, I care about how many were committed. If anything, your numbers show that you have a ton of violent criminals still on the streets. Hence why I linked the police numbers which are not responsible for prosecuting crimes. But whatever, I don't care enough to argue semantics. I'm assuming you agree with my overall point? Yes?

 

[Factum]

The very first graph literally says "Crimes of Violence" and it's broken down quarterly at a rate of around 6,800 per quarter. I don't really how many people were found guilty of violent crimes, I care about how many were committed. If anything, your numbers show that you have a ton of violent criminals still on the streets. Hence why I linked the police numbers which are not responsible for prosecuting crimes. But whatever, I don't care enough to argue semantics. I'm assuming you agree with my overall point? Yes?

I am having trouble downloading the PDF from that site b(and the flash part is just crap), but my fast math tells me that:

6800 x 4 = 27400

5,2 (mil) / 1,3 (mil) = 4

Since I doubt they count arrests it would indicate for me that you math is off as 6800 > 3800 it would appear the opposite infact.

So no, I do not agree.

 

[DNMock]

I am having trouble downloading the PDF from that site b(and the flash part is just crap), but my fast math tells me that:

6800 x 4 = 27400

5,2 (mil) / 1,3 (mil) = 4

Since I doubt they count arrests it would indicate for me that you math is off as 6800 > 3800 it would appear the opposite infact.

So no, I do not agree.

That would imply that for every 24,000 violent crimes committed, there are 3,800 convictions or about 90% of violent crimes going unpunished. (first post)

Also I chose Dallas of the cities that represents the DFW metroplex because it is the worst. I'm too lazy to pull all the numbers from all the municipalities but the fact that the worst of the area is close should be telling.

Again I don't really care, my overall point that if you reduce the sample size and area down small enough it is not representative to the larger whole, much like your personal home is not representative of the average living conditions of everyone on the planet. Denmark, having a population of 5 million not having "fake news" isn't all that surprising given the small sample size, just like Minnesota not having "fake news" is not a surprise. If all of Europe, China, or the U.S. didn't have fake news it would be a much bigger shock than Denmark not having it.

Edit: As an aside, the global population is 8,000,000,000, with a .1% margin of error. Denmark with a population of 5,000,000 means it is like .07% of the population of the planet. Therefor, the entirety of Denmark isn't even statistically relevant enough to even consider it to exist.

Not important to the the topic at all, just a fun with maths thing.

 

[Factum]

That would imply that for every 24,000 violent crimes committed, there are 3,800 convictions or about 90% of violent crimes going unpunished.

I think you are looking the the wrong numbers again.

But try and lump all of Scandinavia together:

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland...+15 million people.
We have very identical societies and taxes.

I bet the numbers favour Scandinavia over any part of the US you pick.

 

[DNMock]

I think you are looking the the wrong numbers again.

But try and lump all of Scandinavia together:

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Finland...+15 million people.
We have very identical societies and taxes.

I bet the numbers favour Scandinavia over any part of the US you pick.

Do I get to cherrypick?

Edit: I may be looking at it wrong, hell I'm not smart. no idea. Also even if you wanna subdivide all of Scandinavia off, it's still over an order of magnitude smaller to to the U.S. as a whole. If it's whole U.S. you gotta take the whole of Europe.


Edit 2: No surprise you picked the countries that have the most white people per capita out of all the ones in Europe. Racist.... I cant find a 15 million person population anywhere that white in the U.S. because we are too busy being racially egalitarian unlike some inbred racists... (this is sarcasm btw)

edit 3: I'm gonna stop now anyway, been fun but this is getting so far off topic it's sad.

 

[Factum]

Do I get to cherrypick?

Edit: I may be looking at it wrong, hell I'm not smart. no idea. Also even if you wanna subdivide all of Scandinavia off, it's still over an order of magnitude smaller to to the U.S. as a whole. If it's whole U.S. you gotta take the whole of Europe.


Edit 2: No surprise you picked the countries that have the most white people per capita out of all the ones in Europe. Racist.... I cant find a 15 million person population anywhere that white in the U.S. because we are too busy being racially egalitarian unlike some inbred racists... (this is sarcasm btw)

edit 3: I'm gonna stop now anyway, been fun but this is getting so far off topic it's sad.

AFAIK there are 19 US states with a population smaller than 15 million?
And I picked this region because apparently Denmark has become a topic in US elections.
Bernie Sanders used us as an example...and then some Fox bimbo tried to "Fake News" Denmark..and it backfired.

But I agree..were are getting off topic...you are not "fake news" unlike some other posters

 

[DNMock]

AFAIK there are 19 US states with a population smaller than 15 million?
And I picked this region because apparently Denmark has become a topic in US elections.
Bernie Sanders used us as an example...and then some Fox bimbo tried to "Fake News" Denmark..and it backfired.

But I agree..were are getting off topic...you are not "fake news" unlike some other posters

oh lol yeah, I saw that. Pretty hilarious

 

[ironforge]

Why not just put a big tag up top of every video, this is the internet! Make sure you think for yourself!

 

[Zion Halcyon]

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.

Done.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2017/08/is-twitter-a-public-forum.html

By the way there is more out there if you care to look. This one, by someone who is a lawyer doing a Blog for a website, took me two seconds on Google to find and there were other entries as well.

so the question is, with this information about Twitter being under a public forum government protection being so easy to find, did you really want me to find it for you or were you hoping I wouldn't and now you have to start categorically denying the preponderance of evidence that's out there?

I found you one link in two seconds. If you can't be bothered to look for the others given I was practically tripping over them, all that tells me is you weren't interested in the first place.

 

[Lizard Testes]

That's not to say that Twitter or Facebook are themselves public forums

 

[MavericK]

Done.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/technologist/2017/08/is-twitter-a-public-forum.html

By the way there is more out there if you care to look. This one, by someone who is a lawyer doing a Blog for a website, took me two seconds on Google to find and there were other entries as well.

so the question is, with this information about Twitter being under a public forum government protection being so easy to find, did you really want me to find it for you or were you hoping I wouldn't and now you have to start categorically denying the preponderance of evidence that's out there?

I found you one link in two seconds. If you can't be bothered to look for the others given I was practically tripping over them, all that tells me is you weren't interested in the first place.

Yeeeah...as Lizard Testes pointed out, that link does not support your argument. I already addressed the President's Twitter as being considered a public forum, which is all this link really says.

The TL;DR of that link is that if it's a government official's account specifically, it might be considered a public forum. Since Alex Jones is not, doesn't apply.

 

[RanceJustice]

This is another one of those things that seems on its surface potentially beneficial, but really is a horrible idea in practice.

As others have said there is a "Who Checks the Fact Checkers" discussion over which "authoritative" sources are to be used but the bigger question is if YouTube should be doing this at all and from what I can see the answer is a resounding "No".

YouTube came into its prominence based on user content. Yes, it was its own company and then Google's subsidiary, who maintained ultimate control ; also worth discussing but that's another issue. However, for the vast majority of its lifetime YouTube had very few, reasonable limits to the kind of content not allowed upon it. Porn was nixed from the beginning, along with the kind of blatant incitement to violence or doxxing, DMCA takedown requests were handled etc... but overall YouTube did not make value judgements for the kind of content its users uploaded. Now, this is the latest tech company to decide to start value judgements outside existing TOS on user-created content - a shot across the bow so to speak, when there used to be a policy of neutrality. Putting aside that Google/YouTube used to monetize on all sorts of clickbait and other videos, this is targeting particular videos for ideological content. This opens a Pandora's box from all sides as now Google/YouTube is an arbiter of "acceptable" content to a much greater degree - some will claim their videos are being targeted unfairly while others will demand that they restrict more because clearly there are other "bad" videos without a link to "proper' information below them. All of this means Google/YouTube is put into a position where they are now, by their own actions, considered to be curating every single video and must decide if a certain viewpoint is "good" enough to stand own its own and which are "bad" and thus need a "warning label" essentially saying "we don't think you should believe this garbage, instead look at X source we think is authoritative for the real story". Thus, like Twitter and others etc... this now puts them in a position they must not only curate but will be considered to be supporting certain views and opposed to others - a bad idea all around and a major change from what made them successful.

Of course it is worth saying that exactly what controversial perspectives are considered "bad conspiracy hogwash" and which sources are "authoritative" in and of itself IS a major issue. For instance, lets not forget that some things today that are today nearly universally accepted historical fact - such the Gulf of Tonkin event, Operation Northwoods, Operation Ajax, MK Ultra experiments, Tuskegee bioweapons and other horrid human experimentation typically upon the poor and prisoners, the entire Iran-Contra affair, the USS Liberty attack (which is still controversial today), Gulf War Syndrome, 9/11 itself (including assertions about Saudi gov't knowledge in the YEARS before the full commission report was declassified; to many it is still a major point of contention), Abu Ghraib / Guantanamo Bay , TONS of information in regards to international financial institutions and intrigue, everything released via Wikileaks, and everything pertaining to surveillance state leaks provided by Snowden - have been considered "wild conspiracy theories" and had "very authoritative" sources debunking them in the periods of time before they were fully dragged into the light. "The NSA has a secret room in an ATT facility? They're secretly tapping digital communications of the entire nation and beyond it, analyzing it for keywords/persons of interest and saving what they find? They, combined with an Israeli team, wrote a computer virus with both worm and rootkit functions that exploited zero-day vulnerabilities to replicate itself the world over until it found itself on the specific hardware at suspected Iranian nuclear centrifuges? Sure, sure... put on your tinfoil hat kiddo etc..."

Medicine is another area where this could be really hurtful. From the past to the present, what is accepted in medicine can move rather slowly and is a place where you can have a large percentage of authoritative physicians or physician groups claiming that something has "no benefit / bunk / pseudo-science" , many patients deemed often mentally unstable and health professionals pushing treatments that differ from the norm as "harmful/dangerous" , only for years later for it to be revealed they were actually right all along! We can go back to the days hundreds of years ago when the best doctors of the time talking about bleeding people and balancing humors, where those who postured early versions of germ theory and treatment with herbal medicines that we know today to have antibiotic or other benefits were often punished and occasionally burned as witches! People may say that's the dark "pre scientific method" days, but it really hasn't changed as much. For instance, consider that a decade or two ago illnesses and symptoms like chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia were basically considered by "experts" as psychosomatic often suggested that those complaining of them were "lazy" or afflicted by "yuppie flu", with many patients being labeled more or less as crazy and the doctors that treated them seriously being called "alternative medicine quacks"; it wouldn't be until much later they were vindicated and of course the industry as a whole never came out with a public "our bad" statement because the very same thing is happening today on other conditions that defy easy understanding and treatment. Hell, look at the discovery of H. pylori - at a time when ulcers were commonly thought to mainly be caused by food/stress, a researcher postulating that a bacterium was involved was basically disregarded and maligned - it took him drinking the newly discovered bacterium and presenting with an ulcer before others conceded it was possible! If this new YouTube existed back then, any lay person, patient, or physician explaining possible causes for these conditions (and in all cases these aren't illneses with a single cause or single treatment) would have to contends with a label from YouTube/Google liking to whatever "authoritative/official" source showing the "real" story!

This is not to say that every conspiracy or alternative explanation for something has merit; many of them are misguided/incorrect and some are thought to be active disinformation. However, since some of them have been maligned unfairly and others get stuck in some sort of limbo and are only vindicated decades or longer for sufficient evidence to escape classification, rise to public view, and generally be ignored by those in power etc... there are many reasons why its better for Google/YoutTube to not take this sort of stance. Aside from all these problems, there is also the issue that Google/YouTube - and really any site that depends on user-created content - is taking a dangerous step when they evolve from one set of rules/TOS to another that includes curation based upon ideological grounds. Especially in an age when so much of the popular Internet activity has been centralized around a handful of megasites and controlled by the corporations behind them, an incredible amount of power is wielded in terms of who gets to speak and how far their message (or in some cases like Amazon, etc... product) is carried. For better or worse, if user content otherwise fits the TOS, I feel its better to allow differing opinions - even those that seem strange, incorrect, or even ludicrous to others - and leave it up to the users to decide what to believe. Its far from a perfect system, but I think it is likely better than one where an entity - especially a profit-seeking one - marginalizes certain viewpoints when they used to offer a level playing field.

 

[OnceSetThisCannotChange]

There is a very simple solution to all this - don't like it, go somewhere else.

Steemit, Dtube, Bitchute, Minds come to mind .I am sure there are more, so if enough people are up in arms over this type of behaviour, behemoths of today will end up as MySpace.

Enough of you should just be upset enough to stop using it, and that's that.

 

[Factum]

There is a very simple solution to all this - don't like it, go somewhere else.

Steemit, Dtube, Bitchute, Minds come to mind .I am sure there are more, so if enough people are up in arms over this type of behaviour, behemoths of today will end up as MySpace.

Enough of you should just be upset enough to stop using it, and that's that.

I think that is an EXCELLENT idea...let all the conspiracy muppets/Fake News-tards go to their own place...then the rest of the world don't have to suffer their ignorance!

 

[Meeho]

This is another one of those things that seems on its surface potentially beneficial, but really is a horrible idea in practice.

As others have said there is a "Who Checks the Fact Checkers" discussion over which "authoritative" sources are to be used but the bigger question is if YouTube should be doing this at all and from what I can see the answer is a resounding "No".

YouTube came into its prominence based on user content. Yes, it was its own company and then Google's subsidiary, who maintained ultimate control ; also worth discussing but that's another issue. However, for the vast majority of its lifetime YouTube had very few, reasonable limits to the kind of content not allowed upon it. Porn was nixed from the beginning, along with the kind of blatant incitement to violence or doxxing, DMCA takedown requests were handled etc... but overall YouTube did not make value judgements for the kind of content its users uploaded. Now, this is the latest tech company to decide to start value judgements outside existing TOS on user-created content - a shot across the bow so to speak, when there used to be a policy of neutrality. Putting aside that Google/YouTube used to monetize on all sorts of clickbait and other videos, this is targeting particular videos for ideological content. This opens a Pandora's box from all sides as now Google/YouTube is an arbiter of "acceptable" content to a much greater degree - some will claim their videos are being targeted unfairly while others will demand that they restrict more because clearly there are other "bad" videos without a link to "proper' information below them. All of this means Google/YouTube is put into a position where they are now, by their own actions, considered to be curating every single video and must decide if a certain viewpoint is "good" enough to stand own its own and which are "bad" and thus need a "warning label" essentially saying "we don't think you should believe this garbage, instead look at X source we think is authoritative for the real story". Thus, like Twitter and others etc... this now puts them in a position they must not only curate but will be considered to be supporting certain views and opposed to others - a bad idea all around and a major change from what made them successful.

Of course it is worth saying that exactly what controversial perspectives are considered "bad conspiracy hogwash" and which sources are "authoritative" in and of itself IS a major issue. For instance, lets not forget that some things today that are today nearly universally accepted historical fact - such the Gulf of Tonkin event, Operation Northwoods, Operation Ajax, MK Ultra experiments, Tuskegee bioweapons and other horrid human experimentation typically upon the poor and prisoners, the entire Iran-Contra affair, the USS Liberty attack (which is still controversial today), Gulf War Syndrome, 9/11 itself (including assertions about Saudi gov't knowledge in the YEARS before the full commission report was declassified; to many it is still a major point of contention), Abu Ghraib / Guantanamo Bay , TONS of information in regards to international financial institutions and intrigue, everything released via Wikileaks, and everything pertaining to surveillance state leaks provided by Snowden - have been considered "wild conspiracy theories" and had "very authoritative" sources debunking them in the periods of time before they were fully dragged into the light.

Medicine is another area where this could be really hurtful. From the past to the present, what is accepted in medicine can move rather slowly and is a place where you can have a large percentage of authoritative physicians or physician groups claiming that something has "no benefit / bunk / pseudo-science" , many patients deemed often mentally unstable and health professionals pushing treatments that differ from the norm as "harmful/dangerous" , only for years later for it to be revealed they were actually right all along! We can go back to the days hundreds of years ago when the best doctors of the time talking about bleeding people and balancing humors, where those who postured early versions of germ theory and treatment with herbal medicines that we know today to have antibiotic or other benefits were often punished and occasionally burned as witches! People may say that's the dark "pre scientific method" days, but it really hasn't changed as much. For instance, consider that a decade or two ago illnesses and symptoms like chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia were basically considered by "experts" as psychosomatic often suggested that those complaining of them were "lazy" or afflicted by "yuppie flu", with many patients being labeled more or less as crazy and the doctors that treated them seriously being called "alternative medicine quacks"; it wouldn't be until much later they were vindicated and of course the industry as a whole never came out with a public "our bad" statement because the very same thing is happening today on other conditions that defy easy understanding and treatment. Hell, look at the discovery of H. pylori - at a time when ulcers were commonly thought to mainly be caused by food/stress, a researcher postulating that a bacterium was involved was basically disregarded and maligned - it took him drinking the newly discovered bacterium and presenting with an ulcer before others conceded it was possible! If this new YouTube existed back then, any lay person, patient, or physician explaining possible causes for these conditions (and in all cases these aren't illneses with a single cause or single treatment) would have to contends with a label from YouTube/Google liking to whatever "authoritative/official" source showing the "real" story!

This is not to say that every conspiracy or alternative explanation for something has merit; many of them are misguided/incorrect and some are thought to be active disinformation. However, since some of them have been maligned unfairly and others get stuck in some sort of limbo and are only vindicated decades or longer for sufficient evidence to escape classification, rise to public view, and generally be ignored by those in power etc... there are many reasons why its better for Google/YoutTube to not take this sort of stance. Aside from all these problems, there is also the issue that Google/YouTube - and really any site that depends on user-created content - is taking a dangerous step when they evolve from one set of rules/TOS to another that includes curation based upon ideological grounds. Especially in an age when so much of the popular Internet activity has been centralized around a handful of megasites and controlled by the corporations behind them, an incredible amount of power is wielded in terms of who gets to speak and how far their message (or in some cases like Amazon, etc... product) is carried. For better or worse, if user content otherwise fits the TOS, I feel its better to allow differing opinions - even those that seem strange, incorrect, or even ludicrous to others - and leave it up to the users to decide what to believe. Its far from a perfect system, but I think it is likely better than one where an entity - especially a profit-seeking one - marginalizes certain viewpoints when they used to offer a level playing field.

/thread

 

[Lenard]

Yeeeah...as Lizard Testes pointed out, that link does not support your argument. I already addressed the President's Twitter as being considered a public forum, which is all this link really says.

The TL;DR of that link is that if it's a government official's account specifically, it might be considered a public forum. Since Alex Jones is not, doesn't apply.

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archiv...-amendment-purposes-duh-johnson-v-twitter.htm

 

[Jagger100]

There is a very simple solution to all this - don't like it, go somewhere else.

Steemit, Dtube, Bitchute, Minds come to mind .I am sure there are more, so if enough people are up in arms over this type of behaviour, behemoths of today will end up as MySpace.

Enough of you should just be upset enough to stop using it, and that's that.

Where you there to object to advertizer pressuring YT to clean up their content? Or is this philosophy convenient in the moment.

 

[Jagger100]

I think that is an EXCELLENT idea...let all the conspiracy muppets/Fake News-tards go to their own place...then the rest of the world don't have to suffer their ignorance!

So, do you believe in Russian collusion? Hillary had no health trouble? She bit bleached files out of ignorance and not deliberately? Hillary's foundation getting $20 million from the Russians was not a conflict of interest? He foundation closing due to lack of incoming funds after she lost was not more proof it was pay for play? The mis-reporting Trump's comments about MS-13 as if they applied to all immigrants wasn't fake news?

Just curious why you see what is called the MSM as harmless?

 

[Zion Halcyon]

Yeeeah...as Lizard Testes pointed out, that link does not support your argument. I already addressed the President's Twitter as being considered a public forum, which is all this link really says.

The TL;DR of that link is that if it's a government official's account specifically, it might be considered a public forum. Since Alex Jones is not, doesn't apply.

It's one of many out there. Like I said, and called, you are wrong, and not interested in getting educated on it because you would rather push your agenda.

Smelled it a mile away...

 

[tetris42]

So, do you believe in Russian collusion? Hillary had no health trouble? She bit bleached files out of ignorance and not deliberately? Hillary's foundation getting $20 million from the Russians was not a conflict of interest? He foundation closing due to lack of incoming funds after she lost was not more proof it was pay for play? The mis-reporting Trump's comments about MS-13 as if they applied to all immigrants wasn't fake news?

Just curious why you see what is called the MSM as harmless?

Don't forget the NYT reporting weapons of mass destruction with no evidence and no disclosed sources to drumbeat us into the Iraq War.

 

[MavericK]

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archiv...-amendment-purposes-duh-johnson-v-twitter.htm

I'm not sure if you're posting this trying to support or refute my point, but I read through this article and it's basically saying the opposite - Twitter has the right to restrict or remove content as they see fit.

Relevant quote:

The court says Twitter is private sector entity that provides services to customers only if they abide by its TOS. The court says Twitter has the “First Amendment right to exercise independent editorial control over the content on its platform,” and terminating Johnson’s account for allegedly bad behavior “is an editorial decision regarding how to present content.”

 

[MavericK]

It's one of many out there. Like I said, and called, you are wrong, and not interested in getting educated on it because you would rather push your agenda.

Smelled it a mile away...

I'd be interested in "being educated" if you posted something that actually supported your argument. So far all I've heard is "you're wrong" with zero evidence to the contrary.

But the "push your agenda" comment indicates you have no interest in a factual debate, so maybe we just leave it at that.

 

[Lenard]

I'm not sure if you're posting this trying to support or refute my point, but I read through this article and it's basically saying the opposite - Twitter has the right to restrict or remove content as they see fit.

Relevant quote:

I was just establishing that it is a public forum in the view of the courts. The fact that it can have TOS is not relevant to the principled position that public forums should not be held accountable for the content.

 

[tempertantrum]

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.

You're welcome to start a site that fact checks the fact checkers. I'm tired of listening to the attacks on reality... history whitewashed, science denied. There's got to be some kind of accountability somewhere. Remember. Youtube is a private company, not governed by "freedom of speech" as it would be if it were a public space or government institution. Why should they want to support often hurtful or destructive videos? I'm sick of living in a country where speech that would be considered harassment and intimidation if directed towards an individual, for example, is considered "ok" because it targets a group. Sure, it's legal, but it's hurtful and shouldn't be legal. Stop trying to force lies onto youtube. If you don't believe the fact check, then disprove it and move on.