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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Youtube

YouTube Bans QAnon, Other Conspiracy Content That Targets Individuals (nbcnews.com) 117

YouTube said Thursday that it would no longer allow content that targets individuals and groups with conspiracy theories, specifically QAnon and its antecedent, "pizzagate." From a report: "Today, we are taking another step in our efforts to curb hate and harassment by removing more conspiracy theory content used to justify real-world violence," the company announced on its blog. The new rules, an expansion of YouTube's existing hate and harassment policies, will prohibit content that "threatens or harrasses someone by suggesting they are complicit in one of these harmful conspiracies, such as QAnon or Pizzagate," the post read. YouTube said it would be enforcing the updated policy immediately and plans to "ramp up in the weeks to come."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Bans QAnon, Other Conspiracy Content That Targets Individuals

Comments Filter:
  • So YouTube would have banned the people who were talking about the Epstein Island child sex trafficking evidence before the FBI made its arrest at Teterboro. Sean Attwood and his (regularly work on Prince Andrew's abuses and the like.

    Is that correct?

    They seem awfully concerned with protecting the power-elite.

    • Seems like they are still doing it.

      The entire pizzagate thing was based on a tweet, from an anonymous person, with no followers, reported on by journalists that had previously been covering the epstein/clinton story, who then stopped reporting on the epstein/clinton story.

      The conspiracy of pizzagate is that the journalists turned a non-story into a story, on purpose, so that they wouldnt have to talk about the real story.
      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        I'll bet they ban zero US deep state propganda, like the Syrian war, created by UK PR=B$ corporations for profit, private UK corporations used media to promote, back and support terrorism in another country. How much of that was banned, NONE, how much of the stuff exposing that was banned, a whole fucking bunch.

        US major tech corporations aided and abetted terrorism in another country, backing the entirely fabricated propagandan and actively censoring the truth.

        Got a claim to make to censor some one, prove

      • No, Pizzagate came about because of John Podesta's very real leaked emails that were posted to wikileaks.

        Some emails were code phrased like this one [wikileaks.org] leading to a lot of speculation.

        Qanon seemed to have grown out of people trying to crowdsource their own investigation, because it seemed doubtful someone as politically connected as Podesta would be scrutinized.

        • "handercheif with a map that's pizza related" will probably forever remain a mystery of its true meaning, like what Biden actually learned about roaches. Us mere mortals will just have to try to use our imagination.

    • Nope just Qannon (Score:5, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday October 15, 2020 @02:14PM (#60611366)
      and Pizzagate (a Qannon thing). If you RTFA you'd know they are specifically targeting Qanon, likely because it's long since proven to be completely baseless nonsense that can and has lead to violence.

      Also if you'd RTFA you'd know this is less about going after baseless conspiracy theories and more about the harassment. Qannon has been baselessly accusing people of pedophilia and YouTube won't have that.
      • by laxguy ( 1179231 )

        totally unlike the Wayfair thing, right? You do remember that one?

        • Pretty much. I'm assuming you're referring to this [bbc.com]. Where out of nowhere Qannon accused Wayfair of being involved in child trafficking (and with no evidence).

          Qannon seems to have got it started with a classic "I'm just asking questions" attack and by leveraging reddit's r/conspiracy forum and going from there.

          To me it looks like Qannon is just feeding off of frightened people trying to make sense of the world. The problems in the world are extremely complex and require complex solutions. Focusing on
          • by Sigma 7 ( 266129 )

            The problems in the world are extremely complex

            If you disregard the fake complexity within these problems, most of them turn out to be quite simple.

            One of the listed problems is food security - there's more than enough food produced, yet there's still starvation because some people don't have access to it. Additionally, there's an obesity issue in some countries, simply because there's a preference to purchase the cheap stuff that's not as nutritious as it should be.

            There's a COVID-19 epidemic going around,

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Pizzagate was long before QAnon. Despite the popular conception thereof, it split off into a lot of investigations, Alefantis' creepy Instagram, Epstein, and whatever Podesta was doing by writing 13 and a fish symbol on his hands in that photo, pizza-related maps on handkerchiefs or discussing whether one would do better playing dominoes on pizza or pasta. The emails, BTW, were DKIM validated and have a bh (body hash) parameter.

        Very few people ever believed there were tunnels under a pizza place and Hilla

        • It's called Pizzagate because of Comet Ping Pong. If it had stayed in it's own little bubble of crazy then it wouldn't matter, but it burst out of that bubble like a popped zip because of the connection with Hilary Clinton.

          As for Qannon being a LARP... I don't think you understand just how many of those people weren't LARPing....

          If you haven't already I'd get yourself away from those communities. They're not healthy, and you sound like you got way, way deeper into them then you should. I mean that.
      • If you RTFA you'd know they are specifically targeting Qanon, likely because it's long since proven to be completely baseless nonsense that can and has lead to violence.

        Can you provide a reference for the claim that Qanon has led to violence? I have seen a lot of evidence linking BLM and Antifa to violent incidents (some of it elsewhere in this discussion) but I have not seen anything connecting Qanon to violence. (I am not saying it does not exist, just that I have not seen it).

      • And who is responsible for responding to baseless allegations? Is it YouTube, or is it the person those charges are laid against? Does YouTube know whether or not the allegations are baseless? Can YouTube know if they are or are not true? If YouTube cannot know whether or not the allegations are factual, can it possibly be appropriate for them to decide whether or not they can be heard?

        Or how about this - does YouTube have the right to deny the accused person the opportunity to challenge the allegatio

    • by dstwins ( 167742 )

      Not at all..

      The Epstein issue was not a conspiracy that impacted anyone other than those that were actually involved.. QAnon tries to tie baseless conspiracies to a number of people and much more importantly, they then go harass (verbal/physical/financial) these same people.. basically acting as vigilantes (which is also against the law) based on false information. So if people say, harassed the Epstein players family/friends and physically/verbally/financially assaulted them.. then it would be the same bec

    • *before his arrest* are the key words. If you are aware of crimes, they need to be reported to police for investigation which may lead to arrest. On conviction talk about them, write the articles. But when they are being reported publicly without even reporting to police, its slander.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's not correct because they are only targeting QAnon, but let's say for the sake of argument they did decide to ban that particular conspiracy theory. What difference would it have made?

      Seems like none. Nothing happened until the FBI investigated, the rumours seemed to make no difference as it was well known the guy was extremely dodgy, banned from donating to certain universities and the like, but people kept going to his island anyway.

      And don't forget that for every time one of these conspiracies turns

  • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Thursday October 15, 2020 @02:15PM (#60611370)
    Took them frikkin long enough to realize that these things are getting too hot to handle.

    I'm gonna be watching very closely after the election. I give Facebook and Twitter a 50/50 odds that they'll quietly roll these policies back. A LOT of people enjoy that stuff, and lots of eyeballs means lots of ad sales. Crushing conspiracy theories definitely hurts their bottom line.

    I'm sure the Zuckerberg knows exactly how much surpressing Qanon is going to cost him in ad revenue, and he's carefully weighing that cost against the potential damage of a regulatory blowback or the damage of ushering in a brave new world where facts don't matter and nobody believes anything. Zuck's home would be prime target for looters.
    • I'm sure the Zuckerberg knows exactly how much surpressing Qanon is going to cost him in ad revenue, and he's carefully weighing that cost against the potential damage of a regulatory blowback or the damage of ushering in a brave new world where facts don't matter and nobody believes anything. Zuck's home would be prime target for looters.

      It may already be too late to stop the regulatory blowback. [theverge.com]

      LK

  • That headline is like saying "Beetlejuice" three times. Here they come ...
  • For every 100 wackos, there is one legitimate whistle blower calling out real crimes. How important is it for us to hear these whistle blowers? How hard is it to filter out obvious B.S.? How can you stop the weak minded from being gullible?
  • People have every right to level accusations at or make disparaging statements about public figures. Those figures are welcome to reply with lawsuits if they are being slandered/libeled, but face a higher bar than the average person due to their position.

    Why should YouTube be permitted to intervene and prevent individuals from exercising their free speech rights in order to protect public figures from criticism without the requisite court order? It doesn't matter if the criticism is grounded in reality

    • Why should YouTube be permitted to intervene and prevent individuals from exercising their free speech rights in order to protect public figures from criticism without the requisite court order?

      You do know that free speech rights don't apply to private properties. Youtube does have the right to ban anyone they want. The 1st amendment doesn't apply to private sites like Youtube, Facebook or Slashdot. Now a government run version of any of these WOULD be protected by the 1st.

  • At what point did we decide as a society to allow groups (such as google, facebook, etc ) to determine the future of social discourse? Whether or not you agree with the content, the right to speak your mind and to hear opposing viewpoints has been fundamental to the growth of society as a whole. Limiting the discussion through the arbitary decisions of a few usually invites corruption and abuse of power. Inevitably these abuses lead to whistleblowers and eventually the ever beloved "Conspiracy Theorists"

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...