Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Youtube

'YouTube's Plan To Rein In Conspiracy Theories Is Failing' (huffpost.com) 257

Posted by EditorDavid from the awful-algorithms dept.
An anonymous reader quotes the Huffington Post: Six months ago, under tremendous public pressure, YouTube announced that it would tweak its algorithm to recommend fewer videos "that could misinform users in harmful ways." It was a major step for a company that has spent years driving people toward increasingly sensationalist content -- including dangerous disinformation -- that would keep viewers glued to their screens for as long as possible to maximize advertising revenue. The announcement in late January triggered panic within YouTube's sprawling network of conspiracy theorists. [But] the audience for YouTube's top conspiracy theory channels is still growing, a HuffPost investigation has found... Some channels are growing at slower rates than before, others at around the same rates or a bit more rapidly... [A]ll are still drawing in new viewers -- and the creators behind them remain undeterred.

There are significant financial incentives for conspiracy theorists to keep churning out clickbait disinformation on YouTube: They can still promote their merchandise and third-party fundraising pages on their videos, and they can still take a cut of the earnings from ads on their content through YouTube's monetization program. The payoff can be huge.

Views from video recommendations, which can be especially vital for new YouTube pages trying to develop audiences, have been cut in half for content featuring harmful misinformation, a YouTube spokesperson told HuffPost. But for massive conspiracy theory channels -- channels that YouTube's algorithm has already catapulted into notoriety, giving them large and loyal followings -- the change has been largely ineffective in suppressing their influence.... YouTube acted "way too late," said former Google engineer Guillaume Chaslot, who helped design YouTube's algorithm. "The harm that's been done in many cases can't now be undone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'YouTube's Plan To Rein In Conspiracy Theories Is Failing' More

'YouTube's Plan To Rein In Conspiracy Theories Is Failing'

Comments Filter:

  • Ob (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Saturday July 27, 2019 @02:39PM (#58997636) Homepage Journal

    That's because any plan against conspiracy theories looks like a conspiracy to conspiracy theorists. As, indeed, does anything else.

    • Re:Ob (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Z00L00K ( 682162 ) on Saturday July 27, 2019 @02:54PM (#58997716) Homepage Journal

      The only way out of that would be just to avoid monetizing those channels and leave them alone but instead throw in contradictory videos as related videos. Would mess up things for the conspiracy theorists.

      • instead throw in contradictory videos as related videos.

        But *that* would look like a conspiracy. The only way to win is to not play, or something.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        They already tried that, the conspiracy theorists just make videos with titles that the YouTube AI thinks are contradictory but lead to more conspiracy videos, and found alternative sources of funding like Patreon.

      • They already do something like that - they will force a link to refuting Wikipedia articles above the description if a video is something like anti-climate or anti-vaxx.

        The link is suppressed by adblock, so many people will not see it.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

          I would rather consider something more subtle that would look like a conspiracy theory but isn't.

    • It was a conspiracy, just not a secret conspiracy.

    • Re:Ob (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Saturday July 27, 2019 @04:20PM (#58998116)

      Indeed. That is part of the problem. The other is that stupidity will find a way, because stupid people are extremely persistent. As Dunning and Kruger found out, they are not mentally equipped to understand that they are stupid and that their "insights" are faulty with high probability, so they believe they have the truth. And then some of them become true believers that are convinced that the _others_ are wrong and that it is their mission in life to enlighten everybody.

      I call that a fail of the second order: They are incapable of recognizing their own limitations and when they are wrong. Interestingly, being defect in this way does not imply low intelligence. It does imply intelligence a significant step lower than they think what they have. Hence somebody that thinks they are a "stable genius" is not necessarily actually a moron, evidence from current political reality notwithstanding. For example, Boris Johnson is utterly incompetent, but he is pretty smart by most accounts. His problem is that he thinks he is a lot smarter than he actually is and hence basically everything he touches fails, because he attempts things on a complexity level he is not capable to handle.

      These people may be the destructive force known to the human race. Basically every religion, ideology, fanaticism, anti-truth and anti-science movement is fueled by their fundamental defect.

      • A few nutters sitting at home rocking backwards and forwards mumbling about illuminati lizards aren't a problem. The danger is when people who actually are smart start manipulating the ones who think they're smart to nefarious ends.
        Actually, "when they start" isn't really correct. They've being doing it since forever and they've never stopped.

      • Sounds like a good explanation for the nearly universal phenomenon of "Get Woke Go Broke".

    • Isn't that odd? When YouTube, Big Brother Google, Faceboot and other Surveillance Valley corporations conspire to silence controversial public personalities - some people have the temerity to call it a conspiracy! Those wingnuts!

    • We are all conspiracy theorists (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Excelcia ( 906188 ) <slashdot@excelcia.ca> on Sunday July 28, 2019 @10:13AM (#59000938) Homepage Journal

      Every single one of us is a conspiracy theorist. For the very good reason that you would have to be illiterate and living in a hole all your life for some "conspiracy" for some conspiracy not to have been proven correct. You can talk to people and go online and talk the voice of reason and moderation all you like, but if you claim not to harbor any you're just a liar.

      Forget Snowden and just do a google search on conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true. Better yet, do a duckduckgo search, because if you think Google isn't an agent of the US government for tracking you then you ought to stop forgetting Snowden.

      The fact is, any effort to curtail conspiracy theories will fail because we are conditioned to believe them. We are conditioned not only by the ones that are true, but by generations of politicians who are concerned more about never being caught saying anything of substance than ever admitting anything. But more than that, is the actual likelihood, statistically speaking, that a not insignificant number of the even kookier conspiracy theories out there right now that will turn out to be right.

      So, ya, Youtube isn't going to shut it down any time soon.

    • For that "obviousity" you got an insightful moderation?

      Having looked over some parts of this discussion and read a few samples, I can't tell which is sicker and a bigger waste of time, Facebook or Slashdot.

      There is a big difference, however. I think someone is profiting or at least claiming economic profits from the brokenness that is Facebook. I suspect Slashdot has devolved into a kind of portable debt machine. Each new "owner" of Slashdot is basically restructuring the assumed debt.

      I do think there are s

  • it's just been removed from search results.

    • Yes, this. The truth is out there, but it is hard to find with a search engine (youtube or plain google). For many topics, the blogs and crap sites outnumber the well researched sites by a large margin. I don't actually mind blogs but I often have to search through a sea of crap just to find the few ones that have proper links to real scientific articles and also quotes the articles correctly.

      I'd say the low quality of search results is a threat to Googles business model. For example, I would prefer a sear

      • The problem is that most bloggers who quote scientific articles are no different than most journalists who quote scientific articles. They do not understand what they are reading and they misuse the data and quotes. Citing scientific articles is a good way to develop ethos but it is not always deserved. If you look at the abundant climate science denialist blogs you will see this phenomenon. Look at any slashdot article about climate science and the comments are littered with links to blogs that supposedly

      • Remember back in the day, when Google was actually _good_ at searching the web?

        Nowadays the search results are almost entirely semi-official propaganda outlets and various utter crap "content" sites owned by the same Silicon Valley cartel. Independent voices have already been stifled, without the slightest public debate.

        It's time for Uncle Sam to get out his trust-busting stick. Break up Alphabet! Whether Trump or Warren wins it's going to happen.

        Get ready, Google Nazis. The ghost of Thurman Arnold is comin

  • Why do they have to "reign them in"? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 27, 2019 @02:50PM (#58997694)

    Some people like that shit. So what? It's not illegal.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly. Television shows have been around for MANY years about this stuff:

      - Crop Circles
      - ET and UFOs
      - Area 51 and S4
      - Faked Moon Landings
      - Lizard People in Disguise
      - Bigfoot
      - Loch Ness Monster
      - Men in Black

      It's all bat-shit crazy but nothing new. In fact, when I need a good laugh I may indulge in a few myself.

  • If someone likes watching conspiracy videos, they are going to find and watch conspiracy videos. Tweaking the algorithm isn't going to do much.

    Youtube needs to decide if it's going to be a neutral content hosting platform, and let it's users decide what they want to watch, or be a curated content platform and, possibly, end up like the cable companies.

    • Of course not, and, just like every other case of attempting to censor speech, do you want Youtube or some other "authority" to determine what constitutes a "conspiracy theory"? Anyone who thinks this is a good idea doesn't really grasp the concept of free speech.

      • So instead Google shoud decide which videos you should watch? Oh wait, they already do.

      • Anyone who thinks that you don't have a right to determine what *you* publish at *your* expense doesn't really grasp the concept of free speech.

        • Indeed. None of these people are publishing anything, and certainly not at their own expense.

          The publisher is actually Youtube.

        • YouTube is the digital town square. Duh.

          • Then it's your own fault for allowing a privately owned space, which was never public and never claimed to be public, to become the town square.

            • Yes, of course, I personally caused the massive technological and social changes that made YouTube the de facto town square.

              What's worse, I single-handedly caused the Nazi monopolists at Google to buy YouTube; while I personally prevented the Bushbama administration from enforcing the antitrust laws.

              It's all my fault!!!

    • Re:Doesn't Work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Saturday July 27, 2019 @03:09PM (#58997780) Homepage

      Youtube needs to decide if it's going to be a neutral content hosting platform, and let it's users decide what they want to watch, or be a curated content platform and, possibly, end up like the cable companies.

      Try posting porn on YouTube and get back to me if you think it's still "neutral".

      So many people don't grasp this concept, but private companies aren't obligated to carry your message on their dime. How would you feel if I came over to your front yard and started putting my favored political signs on it? You'd probably yank them out and tell me to go exercise my "free speech" on my own yard.

      I've got no love for Google, but the problem here is herd mentality, not the evil company taking advantage of it. This pretty much applies to Facebook and Amazon, too. Don't like what these big companies are doing? Stop using them and support a competitor.

      • And this case isn't even about what YouTube hosts, it's about what they promote. You definitely have no right to free promotion.

        • And Alphabet has no right to be a monopoly. Time to swing the trust-busting stick and smash it to pieces.

          • Does trust busting override the first amendment? I don't think so.

            • Trust-busting is orthogonal to freedom of speech. Corporate censorship would be less troubling if Alphabet and Faceboot did not possess so much monopoly power.

              As an aside - while it's true the Supreme Court gave one very controversial opinion that corporations are people, it's quite clear that the Framers did not intend to grant the natural rights of free men to fictitious legal "persons".

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        This reminds me, has anyone else signed up to Jordan Peterson's free-speech platform Thinkspot? I did, got one email saying it was "coming soon" and nothing since.

        I'm guessing he went looking for a host willing to sign a contract promising to take any and all content without question, and couldn't find one.

        • I'm guessing he went looking for a host willing to sign a contract promising to take any and all content without question, and couldn't find one.

          I think even if he does, he'll simply be overrun with massive quantities of spam. Is spam free speech?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            There was an interesting case recently where a guy claimed that being banned from a game was a violation of his freeze peach and human rights. Of course the judge slapped it down, noting that the constitutional right to free speech doesn't apply to random video game companies.

            • Of course the judge slapped it down, noting that the constitutional right to free speech doesn't apply to random video game companies.

              Big shock there!

            • It's the same thing for spammers. Spammers have tried the free speech argument before, but get slapped down because their constitutional right to free speech doesn't apply to random other people's email servers.

        • So what you're saying is, the whole "derp, if you don't like our corporate censorship, start your own platform!!!1!!" trope is utter hokum. The Owners of the various hosting providers won't actually permit freedom of speech.

          Sounds like a serious problem in a country where Freedom of Speech is a constitutional value. A problem like this requires a political solution. The Law can and eventually will force the Owners to allow Freedom.

          If not, we're done for. Better start learning Chinese.

      • Except it's not their dime, it's OUR dime. Their infrastructure exists entirely because of OUR money being used to massively subsidize its development and operation. In return they are required to either behave as a platform and have safe harbor exemption, or behave as a publish and be held 100% responsible for their editorial choices in what they do and do not allow.

        • It's no more your dime than saying you bought a car means Ford built its assembly line on your dime. Trillions have been invested in Internet infrastructure over the past 30 years, and fractionally very little has been government.

        • You're thinking of the ISPs [irregulators.org]. Youtube's (Google's) infrastructure is the datacenters full of cat videos and people screaming at clouds. Those are unsubsidized.

      • There is an important concept that the supporters of corporate supremacy seem to forget or willingly ignore: free speech is not just an amendment of a country's constitution. It is a human right, and in fact, perhaps the most important value of the Western world, because through free speech people have the opportunity to exchange knowledge and change minds. This is why free speech was always the first victims of totalitarian regimes, be that fascism, communism, or your garden variety dictatorships.

    • Youtube needs to decide if it's going to be a neutral content hosting platform, and let it's users decide what they want to watch, or be a curated content platform and, possibly, end up like the cable companies.

      Google wants to pretend to be both.

      If a video really is "dangerous disinformation" then the answer is simple -- take it down. As a private company, Google can prohibit anything they want, for any reason they want. They can take down your videos simply because they don't like you, and there's nothing illegal about that.

      But they don't do that. And they never will. Sensational/controversial content makes money. A lot of money.

      Their "algorithms" are bullshit. Google will never ever do anything that cuts i

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      There's no way to "curate" something as wide open as youtube. What would they do, have someone view every video and decide the edge cases?

  • someone then what does it matter? Let people say whatever they hell they want. It is up to the viewer to decide if they believe the speech in the video. You are not going to stop conspiracy theorists from believing in conspiracies by trying to ban the speech in a video.
  • that is what 4chan is for... There are plenty of other outlets for CT and propaganda spreaders to work.

    • because actual conspiracies between rich and powerful actors that affect large populations don't happen?

      For example, you're saying there aren't large and powerful banking families that have existed for centuries with governments in their pockets?

      There aren't large corporations buying laws they want?

  • The content is bullshit.

    Just turn off the money machine.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Myopia is a condition that can be treated. Try figuring out how to change out the large washer in a Kohler toilet valve. Bet you cannot do it without looking at those youtube video explaining how to do it.

  • Because you only need one piece of evidence and it's not a theory anymore, it's a Conspiracy. Conspiracy Theory is simply a sound byte to dismiss the evidence without considering it whilst painting those who present the evidence as crazy. Quite simply, it allows the conspiracy to occur unchallenged.

    People who don't believe conspiracies occur are simply being naive, mentally lazy, deceived or possibly part of the conspiracy itself. The way to tell is they use the words "Conspiracy Theory" without proper

  • lost 3 million referral views [youtube.com]. Not saying he's a conspiracy theorist, but rather the algorithm is now just pushing establishment media (which ironically includes Fox News along and MSNBC [youtube.com] these days).

    YouTube's solution seems to be to only promote the big news channels. Of course, This doesn't help [youtube.com] either.

    For my money I gave up on establishment media when I found out what the Gulf of Tonkin incident [wikipedia.org] was. Finding out MSNBC told multiple employees to blackball Bernie Sanders in the 2016 campaign didn't h

  • Nobody tried to censor Oliver Stone, as far as I know.

    Conspiracy theories about JFK have been around for decades. As have conspiracy theories about moon landing, and the attack on the WTC.

    So what? Why not let people express their conspiracy theories?

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      It makes a difference who expresses conspiracy theories. The guy with the electric hair honking on about ancient aliens is one thing. Trump explaining how the little brown people are all out to screw the sainted whites is another.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        Basically, just different hair.

      • > Trump explaining how the little brown people are all out to screw the sainted whites is another.

        Did that actually happen? Or are just a filthy liar?

  • Google is _reinforcing_ conspiracy theories (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    For the past 3 years, much of the US political establishment - including the Democratic Party, the FBI and others - have put forth several conspiracy theories regarding Russia and the 2016 presidential elections:

    * The theory that Russia conspired with the Trump campaign to unduly promote Trump's candidacy.
    * The theory that Russia conspired with WikiLeaks to influence the 2016 elections, with Russia supplying confidential DNC information provided through cracking.
    * The theory that Russia influenced the 2016

    • You're an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kludge ( 13653 ) on Sunday July 28, 2019 @07:01AM (#59000372)

      Russia conspiring to influence the US election is not a conspiracy theory, it is corroborated by many sources other than just the US government.
      Other world governments have stated the same. Facebook has said that the "Internet Research Agency" was meddling with many fake accounts. Twitter has said that the IRA was meddling.
      Yes, pro-Trump wackos like you may see a vast pan-world pan-corporate pan-media conspiracy, but the rest of us see a much simpler explanation: Russia was trying to meddle to get their candidate elected.

  • Hey! Leave them kids alone (Score:3)

    by davide marney ( 231845 ) on Saturday July 27, 2019 @04:26PM (#58998146) Journal

    We don't need no thought control. Your job is to serve up video. Just do that well, we'll take care of the rest.

  • sounds like there is a conspiracy against conspiracy theories???

  • "qmap.pub --just in case anyone here hasn't been there yet... ;)" --That's what got my Youtube account access suspended. I've just had my Twitter account locked for pretty much the same. Just generally recommending that people go to qmap.pub, do their own research, compare to what they're being told, make up their own mind. Makes me wonder what the hell is at qmap.pub that demands such action......

    • FWIW: you are in good company.

      All of the following have been, in some way, censored from social media. None of these have expressed bigotry, or incited violence.

      Angel Mom Mary Ann Mendoza
      Belle Delphine
      Lindsay Shepherd
      MiniAOC
      Ann Corcoran, had her invaluable 12-year-old website, Refugee Resettlement Watch
      Rep. Mark Meadows
      Rep. Devin Nunes
      Judicial Watch
      Independent Woman's Forum (IWF)
      Viva Frei
      Hamed Abdel-Samad
      Vox Es
      Tim Pool
      Black Pigeon Speaks
      Project Veritas
      Julian Assange
      Steven Crowder
      Pat Condell
      Paul Joeseph Wats

  • All the lies of the world on your fingertips.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday July 28, 2019 @02:15AM (#58999842)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Well the programing sucks so have turned to Youtube.com.
    It used to be I'd start with Egyptian Pyramids and wake to someone trying to convince me into some conspiracy related subject.

    A bit ago it stayed the same, what I started with; I wake to similar.

    Now I'm waking to anti-alien history, disproving previous alien conspiracies (they lied is bottom line).

  • So what makes it a conspiracy? Because MSM doesn't agree with it? Because we all know how truthful MSM is, oh wait! Is this post now a conspiracy theory post? Because I don't agree with some bullshit article about "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
    Who gets to decide what should be censored or not?
    Youtube?
    The current political wind of the day depending on who farts hardest?

    To be honest if I'm looking for certain things I don't bother using google, 10 tons of advertising junk or no results at all.
    I

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close