'Why YouTube's New Plan to Debunk Conspiracy Videos Won't Work' (vortex.com) 308
Slashdot reader Lauren Weinstein believes YouTube's plan to combat conspiracy videos with "information cues" is "likely doomed to be almost entirely ineffective."
The kind of viewers who are going to believe these kinds of false conspiracy videos are almost certainly going to say that the associated Wikipedia articles are wrong, that they're planted lies... Not helping matters at all is that Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy -- never all that good -- has been plunging in recent years, sometimes resulting in embarrassing Knowledge Panel errors for Google in search results...
The key to avoiding the contamination...is to minimize their visibility in the YouTube/Google ecosystem in the first place... Not only should they be prevented from ever getting into the trending lists, they should be deranked, demonetized, and excised from the YouTube recommended video system. They should be immediately removed from YouTube entirely if they contain specific attacks against individuals or other violations of the YouTube Terms of Service and/or Community Guidelines. These actions must be taken as rapidly as possible with appropriate due diligence, before these videos are able to do even more damage to innocent parties.
The key to avoiding the contamination...is to minimize their visibility in the YouTube/Google ecosystem in the first place... Not only should they be prevented from ever getting into the trending lists, they should be deranked, demonetized, and excised from the YouTube recommended video system. They should be immediately removed from YouTube entirely if they contain specific attacks against individuals or other violations of the YouTube Terms of Service and/or Community Guidelines. These actions must be taken as rapidly as possible with appropriate due diligence, before these videos are able to do even more damage to innocent parties.
Censoring vs. Educating (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Censoring vs. Educating (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Censoring vs. Educating (Score:5, Informative)
I notice Lauren's attitudes towards censorship have not changed. When he blogged on Google+, he would delete any comment on his posts that disagreed with him even in a mild and reasonable way.
Re: Censoring vs. Educating (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously far-left communists confused about their gender should be responsible for dictating to the rest of us what's true, what's false, and what ideas are too powerful for normal peons to know about.
Agree. (Score:4, Insightful)
Originally, I was very supportive of the whole LGBT movement and feminism etc., but, it seems like they've just veered into a place where they are anti-free-speech, anti-white-man, anti-man, anti-normal. If you don't have some kind of social dysfunction, then you are the problem. It couldn't possibly be that they are wacko!
Re: Agree. (Score:2, Funny)
Cutting off my cock and calling myself sally isn't normal? Well fuck me.
Re: (Score:2)
"gender changes is some seriously messed up shit"
Don't you mean sex change?
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Sex is often a facet of gender but I don't think it can determine it. There are so many factors that fall under biological sex that changing some facet(s) by surgery or other means, will always be change but it will never be a comprehensive or complete biological change, likewise philosophically as one's biological sex isn't a binary expression (genetically).
On seriously messed up shit, assuming that's a thing, I guess that depends on who's doing the judging and what they're judging, likewise f
Re: (Score:3)
Feminist here. Against censorship and pro-free-speech. Being a white man myself in somewhat in favour of them too.
Anyway, what she seems to be saying it's don't promote these videos. Don't remove them, but don't give them front page billing or put them high up the recommendations.
Who decides? A better question would be who decides what gets promoted. Should popular TV news channels be giving equal time to flat earth and fake moon landing theories every time NASA gives a press conference? It's a spectrum, so
Re: (Score:2)
Feminist here. Against censorship and pro-free-speech. Being a white man myself in somewhat in favour of them too.
I'd place myself in the same grouping. It seems to be the logical one - to assume people are of equal worth until their actions prove otherwise, but to also give people second and third chances whenever it is reasonable to do so (love the sinner, if not the sin).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny... My wife pointed out just yesterday that almost every man she has ever heard call themselves a feminist turned out to be a sexual predator.
That seems an odd assertion. Of my circle of friends, pretty much all would, if asked, consider themselves feminists, but none seem to be sexual predators. We're talking about dozens of men, here.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignore the AC. This is just the latest shitty bit of trolling they get up to. Seems to be some kind of reaction to guys like Weinstein finally getting called out. Sad to say it was started by Mashiki, who was the first to imply that I'm some kind of sexual predator.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hard to ignore.
Personally, I am simply for equal opportunity, whatever shade your skin, or plumbing. Apparently that makes me a feminazi and sexual predator and anti-free speech, and a dozen other things I don't believe in, somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
It's their favourite tactic. Try to paint you as some kind of monster.
I really recommend this series of videos:
https://youtu.be/4xGawJIseNY [youtu.be]
https://youtu.be/CaPgDQkmqqM [youtu.be]
https://youtu.be/wmVkJvieaOA [youtu.be]
TL;DR ignore them, make your compelling case. Don't apologise or try to defend against their accusations, because it's a losing proposition. I actually screwed up by doing that in my post above, although at least I didn't engage too much with their nonsense directly.
Re: (Score:2)
I say this as a (male) victim (of a female), myself. Yes, the knife does cut both ways. And no, I don't hate or avoid women for it; I just recognize the fact that the crazies and the sickos among us are very good at hiding their proclivities until the moment when
Re: (Score:2)
Originally, I was very supportive of the whole LGBT movement and feminism etc., but, it seems like they've just veered into a place where they are anti-free-speech, anti-white-man, anti-man, anti-normal. If you don't have some kind of social dysfunction, then you are the problem. It couldn't possibly be that they are wacko!
There are a lot of people with differing views in feminism and in LGBT. Don't assume that all (or even more than a minority) are against free speech, men, white men, or anything else. I know a number of feminists, and those who are LGBT, and it is not reasonable to generalise either of these groups, let alone lump feminism and LGBT together. It's not necessarily reasonable to lump L, G, B and T together, other than they tend to face similar challenges.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a town that contains an unusually high number of people who like to label others and claim everyone who gets a particular label is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just basic reality, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. This is also why it's important to treat people based on their words and actions, and not what they identify as. If the "normal" (for whatever that means) majority of the LGBT community would stand up, after the vocal sick minority, and declare "they are not one of us, we are
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe Lauren Weinstein used to be paid as some kind of Google shill and now that the agreement has been terminated, he seems to have turned on his former employer. Most of his posts now seem to have an anti-Google bias.
In your world, does anyone ever say anything merely because they believe it, rather than because it supports their tribe or pays their bills?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Censoring vs. Educating (Score:4, Insightful)
... on a dodgy notion that censoring speech we don't like is somehow better than combating it with truths.
And yet, you should never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Also, YouTube can do as YouTube pleases. They're not the government and they don't have a monopoly on the online video space.
Re: Censoring vs. Educating (Score:5, Insightful)
If a baker has to make cakes for gay weddings, YouTube has to offer an equal platform for diverse users that they might disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://xkcd.com/1357/
People with any form of intelligence are getting tired of stupid asshats like you thinking your
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube is a private company, not some sort of public square or civic space that must accommodate free expression in all forms. They offer an equal platform to everyone no matter what their political persuasion. (Being a private entity, they're not required to,
Re: (Score:2)
If a baker has to make cakes for gay weddings, YouTube has to offer an equal platform for diverse users that they might disagree with.
When the gay couple removes the cake from the baker, no one attending the wedding will be associating the wedding with the baker. There's a clear division between the two. But with hosting a video on YouTube, YouTube is associated with the video. It's not difficult to see the video to YouTube connection, whereas with the baker one would had to go way out of their way to associate the gay wedding with the baker.
The gay wedding does not tarnish the bakers good name. Hosting democracy destroying videos on your
Re: (Score:2)
While a business can refuse to serve anyone, they are not allowed to discriminate against certain groups. These bakers who refuse to make wedding cakes are not simply refusing to serve someone, they intentionally go out of their way to make sure the
Re: (Score:3)
Look, I wasn't saying whether it's right or wrong, or even whether it's right or wrong for groups that are protected, just that law prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, and sex (which the courts have ruled includes sexual orientation). That means you can't refuse service to black people, but you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Censoring vs. Educating (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, YouTube can do as YouTube pleases. They're not the government and they don't have a monopoly on the online video space.
Fundamentally I agree with you, but I'm still a bit uneasy. Really, YouTube DOES pretty much have a monopoly when it comes to the average citizen being able to upload a video and having a decent chance of it being seen by at least tens of thousands of people. With great power comes great responsibility. If YouTube either is ineffective at rising to that responsibility, or doesn't take it seriously, then perhaps legislative intervention is in order. And perhaps it's NOT in order - I'm simply saying that a kn
Re: (Score:2)
The phone companies are not monopolies, and are not government, should they be able to censor your calls, or your messages, or the websites you visit?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, you should never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
You're right, don't argue with an idiot, but in this case we're not talking about arguing with the one in the pulpit, we're trying to educate his followers (the viewers on YouTube) and I think that's different in a very meaningful way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they may ignore Wikipedia but not all of them. It may take longer but it's the more righteous path than censoring. imho
There is a danger in giving a wingnut a soap box. Not only does it embolden the wingnut, and give him a sense of authority because people are stupid enough to figuratively look up to people they literally have to look up to, but it also legitimizes them by associating them with your brand of soap.
On the other hand, carriers who moderate some content are sometimes held responsible for moderating more content. It's best to moderate no content, except as demanded by the law. But how do you avoid legitimizing t
Re: (Score:2)
They give you a soapbox here...
Re: (Score:2)
They give you a soapbox here...
Sure. And Slashdot has built a reputation for permitting wingnuts like me to speak freely. But Youtube has no such reputation...
Re: (Score:2)
seriously, neighbor, this is remedial and settled. "Yes there is a danger. Wingnuts get to stand on soapboxes anyway," is what free speech means. Article _One_, the first one, should not be a controversial position. Why is this even up for discussion?
Because you (and others like you) don't understand the first amendment. Google is not obligated to provide a soapbox to a wingnut in the first place, and they're well within their rights to take their soapbox and go home, or to decide who can stand on their soapbox.
The first amendment is a limitation on government, not on corporations.
Re: (Score:3)
censoring speech we don't like
It's more censoring speech that is not fact but passed along as fact. If it can be proven not to be factual, then it shouldn't be afforded any sort of censorship protection.
Re:Censoring vs. Educating (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more censoring speech that is not fact but passed along as fact. If it can be proven not to be factual, then it shouldn't be afforded any sort of censorship protection.
Aaaand there goes all of fiction, since it can be proven to be non-factual.
No, not all of fiction. Only fiction being passed along as fact. This is why teaching creationism in public schools is outlawed. It is demonstrably false.
Also, there goes an scientific discoveries that are against the currently understood science.
If they can be proven to be non-factual, it doesn't matter if whether it goes against the currently-understood science. It's simply not true, and shouldn't be passed along as fact. If a claim it is merely unsubstantiated, that's one thing. If a claim is demonstrably false, that's another.
Let's not forget that newspapers are now going to have trouble breaking scandals, especially against popular figures
Can the scandals be proven not to be factual? You do understand there's a difference between that and not being able to prove that it is a fact, right?.
What's that? You say science and news can prove themselves correct? Well, how are they going to do that, when they can't publish because they're being censored? No one hears the arguments, no one's mind is changed, and the Groupthink is reinforced once more.
The burden of proof is on the censor. The scientist and journalist cannot prove that they are absolutely true, but if they can be proven to be false, then it is junk science or fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
Aaaand there goes all of fiction, since it can be proven to be non-factual.
Straw man much?
Re: (Score:2)
It may take longer but it's the more righteous path than censoring.
It's only righteous if they are completely fair in determining when to link to the "accurate" story. But there is no way that can ever happen because you will never get anyone to agree on what's fair (especially with Google making the call).
Re: (Score:2)
What the of author of the article is failing to see is that there's no such thing as "conspiracy theory switch", and there are a bunch of people on the middle of this path to crazy shit that can most likely be tossed off the path of the gay frogs.
But i think allowing people to post debunk responses to videos would help quite a bit too, as you have video vs video instead of video vs boring text, and even allow you to post videos of people that are not considered exactly left but still debunking the thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Her main supposition is that the videos that will be censored will, of course, be the ones that disagree with her own specific brand of liberal politics. And that will probably be true at first. But what never occurs to her or her ilk is that someday the winds could change out of nowhere, and it could become *their* speech that's suddenly being censored. When you create the censorship machine, it's pretty arrogant to think that only you and your allies will ever control it.
Robespierre sent many men to the g
Idiots (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that they think they know best for everyone else. Their default position is authoritarian and dictatorial.
The best way to entrench an idea is to tell someone they're wrong, and be a smug, condescending, elitist asshole while doing so.
So... Basically why the Democrats lost in 2016, and why the left in general is losing the culture war. They can't get over how fucking smart they think they are, and how stupid everyone else is for not thinking the same thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that they think they know best for everyone else. Their default position is authoritarian and dictatorial.
The best way to entrench an idea is to tell someone they're wrong, and be a smug, condescending, elitist asshole while doing so.
So... Basically why the Democrats lost in 2016, and why the left in general is losing the culture war. They can't get over how fucking smart they think they are, and how stupid everyone else is for not thinking the same thing.
This.
Re: (Score:2)
Farenheit 451 didn't come from the right
I'm not sure what this statement means, but the man that wrote that book was conservative leaning Ray Bradbury.
https://www.nationalreview.com... [nationalreview.com]
Re: (Score:2)
KKK and Nazis don't represent the right any more than Stalin and Mao represent the left.
So we all agree KKK and Nazis represent the right to some degree. The difference is the thousands of people that proudly march with KKK and Nazi banners in America, while I've never seen a Stalinist. In other words, one side is reping 'elitist asshole', and it's not the dems.
Of course it won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you need humans for debunking.
And humans are biased.
AI won't be of effective help as it lacks trasversale knowledge.
And in the end, you need humans to train AI and to sample the outcomes.
It won't work.
Re: (Score:2)
trasversale knowledge
???
"De-Platforming" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's how opposing voices are to be swept from public view & dissemination. Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al are all working along the same path to de-platform views conflicting with Leftist/Progressive dogma and silence them. It's not too far down this path where we get to the pogroms, camps, and ovens part.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Right. Because liberals are constantly campaigning for increased police power, more government surveillance, and less protection of civil rights, while conservatives campaign against them.
Oh, wait a minute, it's the other way around. Well, whatever. I Know I'm Right Anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because liberals are constantly campaigning for increased police power,
A.k.a. Gun control. So yes.
Also licensing laws for professions, telling people what health care they must purchase, prohibiting plastic grocery bags, mandatory recycling, etc., etc. etc.
more government surveillance
Snowden caught which president’s administration spying?
and less protection of civil rights
Gun ownership is a civil right.
while conservatives campaign against them.
Oh, wait a minute, it's the other way around.
50 years ago maybe you could make this argument. The facts don't support it now, and they haven't for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Google, Facebook, Twitter, et al are all working along the same path to
So go to Gab then. You'll fit right in.
Antagonism helps Conspiracy (Score:2)
A single video with some far-out theory? Crackpot.
A far-out video with a host of other videos and links claiming it's false? Obviously a kernel of truth someone is trying to cover up, they can't tell me what to think...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Far better is to link to equally far out crackpot conspiracy theories that disagree with the first. It's the style of these things that appeals: let me tell you the secret that will make you smarter than the smug assholes who look down on you. Simply present the truth in that style.
Shit, I just figured out why 12 Rules for Life is selling like it's printed on money. Damn psychologists knowing more about psychology than me and getting there first.
Easy to explain (Score:3)
Now can you figure out why Michael Isikoff's book about the collusion between Trump and Russia is selling way more than 12 Rules?
Yes, because people enjoy a good fantasy that meshes with ideological beliefs.
Myself, I like Trump but think people who spend their precious free time thinking about him are insane. Doubly so if they hate him...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, let me get this straight -
Sales of a book that supports your worldview is proof that your worldview is correct, but... ...greater sales of a book that does not support your worldview is also proof that your worldview is correct.
Oh, how I wish I had your perfect ability to surrender to confirmation bias. I've tried it, but having a conscience gets in the way.
Re: (Score:2)
The Trump Russia book is exactly one of those conspiracy theories that make you feel smarter than those smug assholes that look down on you. There's no surprise why it's selling well.
It is a bit surprising to see a self-help book selling well, but the answer is it's not mainly a self-help book - that's just an excuse to ramble on about interesting topics in psychology. By its very nature, studying psychology makes you feel smarter than normal people who aren't in on the secrets. Further, some of the psyc
Re: (Score:2)
Jordan Peterson is what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like. And, he loves making pronouncements on things about which he's completely ignorant.
My favorite example is when he said that Disney's Little Mermaid is superior to Disney's Frozen because one comes from classical mythology and one was written by SJWs. They were both written by Hans Christian Anderson.
And it's really rich that the alt-Right have made Jordan Peterson their champion. People who claim climate science is bogus are embr
Re: (Score:2)
None of which has anything to do with his self-help book, which has as little to do with politics as any book about human behavior can reasonably be.
But, hey, if he disagrees with your deeply held beliefs about which Disney Princess cartoon is better, by all means condemn him as an evil blasphemer! I'm not trying to start a holy war about such important topics here.
But how loose are adaptations of HCA stories? (Score:2)
My favorite example is when he said that Disney's Little Mermaid is superior to Disney's Frozen because one comes from classical mythology and one was written by SJWs. They were both written by Hans Christian Anderson.
But does Disney's The Little Mermaid preserve the themes of H. C. Andersen's original story more closely than Frozen keeps the themes of "The Snow Queen"?
Re: (Score:2)
No. In fact, the opposite is true. Anderson's Little Mermaid ends with her dissolving into sea foam, whereas Disney has her marrying the prince or some shit. Frozen is more faithful to the original.
But none of this speaks to the point, that everyone the alt-right embraces as some intellectual leader ends up being some flim-flam artist who wants to sell
Re: (Score:2)
Now can you figure out why Michael Isikoff's book about the collusion between Trump and Russia is selling way more than 12 Rules?
Telling gullible people exactly what they want to hear has paid off many times throughout history.
Re: (Score:2)
That's never been more true.
Re: (Score:2)
So, identify intersection points of community (the posts, videos, etc about which users are related) weighted to adhere to a quantifiable stylistic norm time series. Use the topical semantic classifier to force antithetical communities into each others' spaces. Not actually force, but make the domains "one click away" through in-platform recommendations.
In this way, communities of strife would be further separated from less contentious ones. They would hopefully, expend themselves against each other, and normalize out.
That's a damn good idea. Sadly, there's no evidence that Google algorithms use anything but the video description/keywords and thumbnail to learn about the content, and related links seem to be based on clickthrough, so opposing views get filtered out by the algorithm.
Same retard who thinks ad blockers are unethical ! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same retard who thinks:
https://plus.google.com/+Laure... [google.com]
And now he thinks censorship will work?
Only cowards censor.
Why?
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.
ONLY by having a rational discussion, where people are FORCED to confront their biases will they ever learn to see the pros/cons of BOTH sides.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you propose forcing someone to confront their biases? Like this? [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I can tell you how NOT to do it.
By trying to ignore the issue.
That doesn't work.
Eat it? Then the cake will be gone! (Score:2)
Whatever solution or mitigation one suggests, if it cuts into google ad revenue it is a non starter. As far as Google is concerened.
Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flat Earthers don't believe the Earth is flat. It's a joke, and it's fun to try and contrive ridiculous explanations for physical phenomena (moon, stars, day/night cycle, etc.) that pass increasing levels of scrutiny.
They offer nullable hypotheses, accept contradicting evidence, and revise. They're following the exact style of reasoning that astronomers did up until a century or so ago. They're just having a laugh by anchoring to the presumption that the Earth is flat.
If you don't get the joke, you're du
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't get the joke, you're dumber than you think they are.
You were saying? [youtube.com]
Clearly you don't actually talk to these people. There are some people on this world that don't believe in basic science. You apparently think they don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some people on this world that don't believe in basic science.
There are also people on the world who can't see a joke when it hits them in the face.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, his username is "UnknowingFool", so his position on this is appropriate...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My teenage kids debate it with their friends. They're completely joking and so are their friends. It's used to make obscure physics references.
The newsworthy guy with the rocket recently, he was completely joking.
So I guess you just hang out with a different crowd.
Re: Flat Earthers are the perfect counterexample (Score:2)
Wrong... (Score:2)
I know several Flat Earthers... they certainly don't believe it is a joke. They are very serious. Almost all serious Flat Earthers are that way for religious reasons... they already believe totally bizarre stuff and the trip to Flat Earth isn't that far of a walk.
Tax doesn't fund spending. (Score:3)
The economics doesn't lie - Tax doesn't fund spending, and cant fund spending.
Yet this is against the mainstream politics view that it does and we need to cut spending, or increase tax to reduce the deficit.
Will the mainstream attempt to limit visibility of these 'fake' articles that say tax does not fund spending?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Yay censorship (Score:2)
Yup (Score:3, Funny)
The Wikipedia articles ARE wrong.
They ARE planted lies.
That's WHY Google is doing this.
Not going to want to minimize their visibility. (Score:2)
The way you stop this is funding schools, especially the liberal arts. e.g. reading. Critical thinking is a skill and like any skill it can be taught.
Whoes to say (Score:2)
What is truth and what is conspiracy theory? Or what is Truth or what is PROPAGANDA?
Just because the government or the media says it makes it true? Is there REAL video of the incident or is it staged like a Hollywood film? How do you know Trump is REALLY president? You saw something on the Television, video, on the news? How do you know it's not a Hollywood staged video? Where YOU personally there WHEN it happened?
You were ON SITE and physically SAW JFK shot by Oswald right? You PERSONALLY were on the 6th f
Its not possible to "debug" conspiracy theories (Score:4, Insightful)
1. All evidence that disproves the conspiracy is planted and thus part of the conspiracy. It must be suppressed.
2. All evidence that can be construed as even remotely supporting the conspiracy is the only true evidence. It must be echoed.
3. All lack of evidence either way is proof of a cover up by the conspiracy. The lack of it proves the conspiracy.
4. Any authority figure that speaks out against the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy. They must be suppressed.
5. Any authority figure that agrees with the conspiracy is part of the enlightened ones and is the only trusted source of truth. They must be echoed.
Once someone has sunk that deep into a conspiracy theory (and I'm sure several readers have) there really isn't any point arguing with them or disagreeing with them or trying to engage with them in any meaningful way, they are lost.
Re: (Score:3)
There ARE some real conspiracies (see watergate, bigfoot, etc) which generally involve a small number of individuals, and in general are discovered somewhat quickly (timescale is hours to a couple years), but then you get the "grand" conspiracies which involves the to-the-deathbed collaboration of hundreds or thousands of people and multiple different internati
stupid move (Score:2)
People like freedom (Score:2)
The freedom to comment.
The ability to search and find a result with out another site getting placed over the results for political reasons.
The freedom to search for any topics like history.
The freedom to comment on politics.
To talk about topics like illegal immigration.
To talk about their OS.
Cryptography and maths.
About cars and trucks.
The more a US party political brand attempts to get between the user and their use of search the more users will look for a better search
Remove 'push' tech (Score:2)
Wikipedia went through their hurdles long ago. As in 10-15 years ago. It is being managed at surprisingly good levels. It hasn't outwardly programmatically changed in all that time.
This is testament to the basic 'pull' tech of ordinary HTML.
The only real problem is the 'push' technologies that support rapid spread of ideas, any idea, good or bad. Eliminate 'push'ing and the fake news problem mostly goes away.
Let the Web go back to what it was intended to be - an information repository.
Re: (Score:3)
((( IN STEREO )))
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No- no- you shouldn't be censoring results. People should discern for themselves what is and isn't true. There is a far greater danger to implementing censorship to democracy than there is from dumb fuckers believing some conspiracy non-sense. We already have tyrants in power- we don't need to further erode our freedoms to a point where we're all living in a NAZI or Soviet like shit hole. The United States is already well on that path and other countries like the UK have certainly achieved a great deal of this already.
You don't realize that the recent turn toward tyranny is caused in large part by the ideas in those videos?
There is some merit to censoring content meant to exploit people who are basically immune to factual information. Throwing facts at them does nothing. Discussing the issue has no effect on people who believe in an objective reality other than perhaps entertaining them, but helps to expose more people to it, some of whom are unmoved by facts. If you censor it, drive it underground, that helps reduce the
Re: (Score:2)