YouTube will be rolling out a fact-checking feature for conspiracy theory/hoax videos

[Xzi]

https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-starts-rolling-out-fact-check-information-panels-2019-3

• YouTube is bringing out a feature which flashes up fact-checking information cards when people search for topics which attract hoaxes and conspiracy theories.

• The feature is only available to a select number of Indian users at the moment, but YouTube says it will eventually be rolled out globally.

• The spread of misinformation in India has been under the microscope recently, as last year videos circulated on WhatsApp led to lynchings.

Interesting news, seems like a step in the right direction to me, though I'm sure not everybody will see it that way. There are unfortunately a lot of people who do get their news from Youtube as well as Facebook, mostly younger kids, so there should be some sort of baseline feature for calling out blatant nonsense. A filter would also be great for those of us who don't ever use Youtube for that garbage and don't want it recommended to us.

 

[SG854]

Bad idea. It’s going to back fire. I can see them abusing this to fit an agenda. I don’t see what’s the problem from getting news from YouTube. People post links and sources to News Sites and Academic papers on YouTube.

YouTube has all kinds of people from Lawyers, Sex Reseachers, Doctors, Scientists, Math Educators. I don’t see the problem from getting News and Information from them. Or even idenpendent journalists who are good at reporting information accurately. Actually I trust them, a YouTuber with a Doctors, more then a CNN journalist who has no degree in Neurology.

Unfortunately Big Mainstream News organizations do get their information from Twitter because it’s the easy route for them because it saves them time and garuntees money. That’s why they had a problem getting the Covington story right. News Orinizations are not that much better in this department, they have gotten rid of many of their fact checkers and are not much more reliable. Some even have a agenda that doesn’t Match scientific research.

 

[Xzi]

YouTube has all kinds of people from Lawyers, Sex Reseachers, Doctors, Scientists, Math Educators. I don’t see the problem from getting News and Information from them.

The problem is that there is neither a journalistic standard that anyone has to uphold on Youtube, nor is there any fact-checking whatsoever at current. You can make any wild claim you want about anybody, and end up causing physical harm to that person or their family. If you're watching Ted Talks or something similar then it's obviously not as much of a concern, but videos promoting outrage or violence over wild speculation need to have a clear warning label. The people that think that label is just there to "push an agenda" are going to ignore it and watch the video anyway.

 

[Hanafuda]

The problem is that there is neither a journalistic standard that anyone has to uphold on Youtube=

And that should be all there is to it. News on Youtube shouldn't be considered any more credible than the National Enquirer or Weekly World News. That's the reality that needs to be disseminated, not the dictates of a "Ministry of Truth."

 

[SG854]

You can make any wild claim you want about anybody, and end up causing physical harm to that person or their family. If you're watching Ted Talks or something similar then it's obviously not as much of a concern, but videos promoting outrage or violence over wild speculation need to have a clear warning label.

If they are inciting harm then I agree they should get warnings, then shut down if they don’t follow those rules. Shuting down hoaxers. I’m not in agreement, people should be free to talk what they want. YouTube might abuse this and label people that doesn’t follow their agenda to shut them down.

The problem is that there is neither a journalistic standard that anyone has to uphold on Youtube, nor is there any fact-checking whatsoever at current. You can make any wild claim you want about anybody, and end up causing physical harm to that person or their family.

Just like the Covington case. Maintstream Media completely fabricated a story. They aren’t much better.

Even mainstream outlets aren’t any better then random people on YouTube.

Here’s the problem with Mainstream Journalist, they have a Degree in language, not a degree in Sciences. So it’s sometimes beyond their understanding. They report on what the scientists say. I’d rather get my information straight from the expert themselves rather then the journalist.

I have caught them many times putting out false information. The topic about more then 2 genders is one of them or that gender is a social construct. Sex researchers will tell you more then 2 genders and gender being a social construct is non sense like Dr. Debra Soh. And why pushing this has real life consequences.

They can’t even get the gender thing right. This is my problem with mainstream media. Their information isn’t always reliable, their fact checkers aren’t always reliable. The everyday person has to do their own investigation to find out the truth, looking for the right people because they at times put out false information.

 

[Viri]

You keep your dirty hands off my conspiracy theories involving aliens, Youtube! I love to watch them when I'm bored!

 

[Xzi]

And that should be all there is to it. News on Youtube shouldn't be considered any more credible than the National Enquirer or Weekly World News. That's the reality that needs to be disseminated

The problem is that this doesn't fix anything. The message won't reach the people that actually need to hear it.

If they are inciting harm then I agree they should get warnings, then shut down if they don’t follow those rules. Shuting down hoaxers.

If you read the article, that's exactly the reason it's being implemented: certain Youtube videos were circulated in India which ended up leading to lynchings.

Just like the Covington case. Maintstream Media completely fabricated a story. They aren’t much better.

No, nothing like Covington, don't belittle this. The spread of dangerous misinformation is much bigger than any one story on its own.

 

[FAST6191]

Is there much of "a journalistic standard" anywhere these days? Most places seem content to spew sloppily sourced, poorly checked, or out and out utter bollocks.

That said if it is mostly just treated as an effort rather than being dubbed some flavour of silver bullet then whatever.

 

[SG854]

The problem is that this doesn't fix anything. The message won't reach the people that actually need to hear it.


If you read the article, that's exactly the reason it's being implemented: certain Youtube videos were circulated in India which ended up leading to lynchings.


No, nothing like Covington, don't belittle this. The spread of dangerous misinformation is much bigger than any one story on its own.

The Covington case was not a small issue. They were being harassed because of the fake news that they had to shut down their entire school for their safety because there was threats of violence. It was not a small issue at all.

If a person says go beat up this person on a video then yes shut them down.

But I don’t want them to shut down Hoaxers. People should be free to talk about flat earth all they want.

They are going to police information as if they are the authority. They are essentially giving the top spot to who they think is better. But Politifact isn’t always right, or Quint (example used in the article). The way the fact checker is setup, it can perpetuate fake news rather then solve the issue. And they are shutting down, deplatforming alternative news and their competition.

Imagine this system with the covington case. YouTube actually got this right, and the alternative news is how people learned the truth.

 

[Xzi]

If a person says go beat up this person on a video then yes shut them down.

But I don’t want them to shut down Hoaxers. People should be free to talk about flat earth all they want.

Again it's clear you haven't read the article or even the bullet points I posted, they aren't proposing closing anyone's channel or taking down vids. Just a warning that pops up when searching for certain topics which displays the facts.

People getting their news from Youtube is how we end up with anti-vaxxers and pizzagaters. Stuff like this that's perceived as harmless in the beginning can quickly end up leading to bad outcomes on a larger scale.

Imagine this system with the covington case. YouTube actually got this right, and the alternative news is how people learned the truth.

Covington will always come down to opinion. There are other videos of those same kids yelling "it's not rape if you enjoy it" at women, so it's hard to buy the narrative that these kids are saints. In the end, nobody got hurt and no crimes were committed, so I think the lawsuit is frivolous and will be tossed.

 

[Captain_N]

more control is great. It never leads to anything bad, said nobody. People that believe stupid shit are themselves stupid. Question is do you all want the government to control the facts?

 

[IncredulousP]

Why stop at conspiracy theories? Why not on anything that claims to deliver news as well?

 

[bodefuceta]

more control is great. It never leads to anything bad, said nobody. People that believe stupid shit are themselves stupid. Question is do you all want the government to control the facts?

You do, if:
a) You're a radical collectivist
b) You'd use any method to sway people's opinion
c) You think "the governement"(in this case it's Youtube) is on your side
Which a surprising amount of people fit in. It's how you narrow Overton's window towards your side. Truly free environments, particularly ones where individuals had a lot of time to enjoy, are complete opposite to all of these ideas and also to most of these people's mindset. Some form of control is very neccessary for gaining popularity on their ideologies.

 

[Captain_N]

You do, if:
a) You're a radical collectivist
b) You'd use any method to sway people's opinion
c) You think "the governement"(in this case it's Youtube) is on your side
Which a surprising amount of people fit in. It's how you narrow Overton's window towards your side. Truly free environments, particularly ones where individuals had a lot of time to enjoy, are complete opposite to all of these ideas and also to most of these people's mindset. Some form of control is very necessarily for gaining popularity on their ideologies.

I agree. There has to be some control. Youtube is owned by google and google can choose to censor what ever they want. Same thing as facebook and twitter. The problem is people see these stories on all those stupid feeds on facebook. I dont use any social media except well forums like GBATemp. Youtube is about as good as wikipedia with facts. When im fact checking, i dont use them. Most collages will not let you quote from them either. When the government tells google what to censor then we have a problem. China censors about everything.

 

[notimp]

Here is the thing. How do they differentiate?

Algos based on factcheckers keywords based on algorithmically gleaned meaning, based on video description, based on auto speech to text, based on reputation of the channel?

It always strikes me as odd, when people would like for youtube or facebook to show editorial responsibility, because their businessmodels are built around the fact that you cant (Bazillion minutes of videos uploaded every minute).

Isnt this a millennial problem again, where some people simply will vote trump because of optimized for popularity, on something that no one even potentially factchecked, and now you somehow have to make an appearence of "democracy not broken" and algos will fix it all.

Depends on what "tone" the feature is set in I guess. Depends on how transparent they make the decision process for popup to activate.

Dont necessarily think that its bad, but there are potential tripping hazards and issues.

If you remember the fake news scandal in the german Spiegel for example, it was as bad, because they had a factchecking department.

Whasts likely to set in is people believing videos without the popup a bit more... :/ I'm thinking about unintended consequences again..

 

[Taleweaver]

Hmm... It's a step in the right direction, but I fear it's also a step in a muddy swap. The problem is a lack of oversight (aka an objective source with unlimited knowledge on everything and a bias toward nothing) on what is real and what isn't.

I mean .. Doesn't fox news just stacks up Pinocchios at this point? Isn't Donald Trump beating an average of 17 lies a day?
The answer isn't so much yes or no, but 'I choose to (not) believe it'.

And... I think even the experiment will fail. If hoaxes go viral on WhatsApp, then a filter on YouTube is just going to discredit YouTube before it can even gain a good reputation (which, again, is critical in this sort of thing).

 

[DarthDub]

Conspiracy theories are actually entertaining. Don't take my fun away Youtube!

 

[the_randomizer]

I don't use YouTube as a news source, nor do I give a tin schilling about conspiracy video crap.

 

[comput3rus3r]

I see youtube news the same way I see mainstream news. Full of lies.

 

[the_randomizer]

I see youtube news the same way I see mainstream news. Full of lies.

Yeah, I don't trust really any major news outlet, nor do I trust the lamestream media, all full of sensationalist BS just to get viewership up.