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

[Noctosphere]

Bye bye Momo challenge's death creepypasta videos

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

It kind of already started. YouTube states on RussiaToday's videos the following:

The Western media is obsessed with Russia and blaming everything on Russia.

That said, would I trust YouTube "fact" checks? Haha. No.

 

[Xzi]

It kind of already started. YouTube states on RussiaToday's videos the following:

The Western media is obsessed with Russia and blaming everything on Russia.

That said, would I trust YouTube "fact" checks? Haha. No.

That's a different addition they rolled out quite a while ago, just tells you what ads/videos are sponsored by Russia. And no, we don't "blame everything on Russia," but they are an international adversary, not an ally. Pretending Putin is a good guy that never interferes with other countries would be disingenuous, to say the least. Hell, Russia already has its troll-bots working the web for the 2020 election, and the primaries haven't even begun yet.

 

[the_randomizer]

You can't trust Russia, period. Look at their Kaspersky antivirus program, why would anyone want to use that on their PC?

 

[ShadowOne333]

Hope the first victim is MatPat and his bullshit "theories"

 

[the_randomizer]

Hope the first victim is MatPat and his bullshit "theories"

Why? His videos are actually entertaining lol

 

[Xzi]

Hope the first victim is MatPat and his bullshit "theories"

I kinda doubt video game theory Youtube vids are inspiring violence or spreading dangerous misinformation.

 

[the_randomizer]

I kinda doubt video game theory Youtube vids are inspiring violence or spreading dangerous misinformation.

He actually uses science and math to ridiculous levels in his videos too.

Still more reliable than CNN or ASSNBC.

 

[Noctosphere]

He actually uses science and math to ridiculous levels in his videos too.

Still more reliable than CNN or ASSNBC.

that reminds me @FAST6191 who over analyse every post i make
always too serious...

 

[FAST6191]

Hope the first victim is MatPat and his bullshit "theories"

Why do conspiracy when you can do better with copyright infringement?

 

[Xzi]

Why do conspiracy when you can do better with copyright infringement?

Eh, I watched the whole video, and he didn't make a great case for actually being copied here. Toward the end he even conceded that the wording was completely different and MatPat still managed to make a couple mistakes that LegalEagle did not.

 

[Glyptofane]

The same thing and "people" responsible for everything we are currently organizing to resist. Okay!

 

[Xzi]

The same thing and "people" responsible for everything we are currently organizing to resist. Okay!

Wait, who's organizing to resist Google? They haven't always made the best decisions, but I'd still prefer if they were in charge of government right now as opposed to who we actually have.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

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.

Wat? How does it come down to opinion? If anything your statement is an example of how dangerous misinformation spreads.
First of all, I'd like to see your sources for your statement that "other videos of those same kids yelling "it's not rape if you enjoy it" at women".
All I can verify is that:

1. there aren't videos (plural) there's one video, with someone saying "it's not rape if you enjoy it"
2. it's not kids (plural) in that video it's one kid, so unless guilt by association is a thing for you maybe not villify the whole group
3. he isn't directing it at women, they're confronting a known male black anti-LGBT hate group, you know, the one that the native american gentleman described as the kids' prey

Here's the video


So really we're talking about one kid saying something stupid when the camera is pointed at him and somehow that's good enough to justify high profile twitter users actively calling for violence and doxxing of these kids which DIRECTLY lead to the school having to close down? This is not a small issue and it certainly isn't one of opinion.

To be fair there's an out of context video of what looks like these kids yelling something at girls passing by. I will be careful with assessing what happened there as the whole story was built on out of context video snippets and I can't really make out what they're saying either.
Here's the tweeted video of that exchange
https://twitter.com/roflinds/status...://www.dailydot.com/irl/covington-boys-video/

I'm not sure on the legal matter but I highly doubt no crimes have been committed, there's numerous examples of verified twitter users calling for violence against these kids. With regards to news outlets, I'd say it's at least a violation of journalistic ethos, the story has not been researched at all, it's pretty obvious they didn't make the effort to look at the whole recording. Whether that's libel if it doesn't involve public figures is for the courts to decide, calling the lawsuit frivolous is ridiculous.

Again, I will give you the benefit of the doubt of being dangerously misinformed here. But at the end of the day the outrage mob caused, in part, by bad reporting without any research directly lead to a school closing down due to violent threats.

but videos promoting outrage or violence over wild speculation need to have a clear warning label

You can easily make the argument that news outlets produced videos promoting outrage over wild speculation. I hope you can now see where people that have a problem with fact-checking algorithms are coming from.
The fear is that, with regards to controversial stories, too much trust is extended to certain certain people, outlets or channels that in the recent past have shown to not be deserving of this trust. Not to mention the obvious conflict of interest should a hoax or cover-up effort be driven by an advertiser.
I will agree that giving a PSA type warning that a virus has not been found in medication as shown in the article you posted is a good thing. The challenge I see is that with political stories, which they mention they will apply this to as well, it's rarely as black and white as this. I guess the question I have would be: "Would a warning pop up that says there's no evidence for the Covington kids having chanted 'Build that Wall'?"

 

[DBlaze]

You can't trust Russia, period. Look at their Kaspersky antivirus program, why would anyone want to use that on their PC?

You can't trust USA, period. Look at the company called Cisco, why would anyone want to use their hardware in their network?

Oh no it's like countries like to spy on / meddle in other countries, who would've thought.
Surely the USA would never do these things and it's only Russia and China doing these big bad things, right?

:^)

 

[Xzi]

I'm not sure on the legal matter but I highly doubt no crimes have been committed, there's numerous examples of verified twitter users calling for violence against these kids.

Twitter is the platform that even the president uses to make threats directed at others, but Twitter's ToS is not the law and they barely enforce it anyway.

You can easily make the argument that news outlets produced videos promoting outrage over wild speculation. I hope you can now see where people that have a problem with fact-checking algorithms are coming from.
The fear is that, with regards to controversial stories, too much trust is extended to certain certain people, outlets or channels that in the recent past have shown to not be deserving of this trust.

This is simply whataboutism and not really relevant. TV news has its own regulations and issues it has to deal with, but that's a different discussion. Youtube and Facebook are likely two of the biggest culprits when it comes to the spread of 'fake news,' and though nobody should be getting their news from either source, the sad reality is that a lot of people do. They aren't oppressing anyone's speech with factoid bubbles, it's the least intrusive method of combating disinformation.

 

[supersonicwaffle]

Twitter is the platform that even the president uses to make threats directed at others, but Twitter's ToS is not the law and they barely enforce it anyway.

I'm certainly no fan of trump but can you see the irony in equating threats of violence from the person being mandated to run the organisation that has the legal monopoly on voilence and regular citizens that don't and on top of that call me out on whataboutism?
That being said I am not aware of threats of violence from Trump on Twitter, that's not me saying there are none, I'm just not informed about it.
I also fail to see what legal difference it makes whether you make a statement via twitter or a different medium.

This is simply whataboutism and not really relevant. TV news has its own regulations and issues it has to deal with, but that's a different discussion. Youtube and Facebook are likely two of the biggest culprits when it comes to the spread of 'fake news,' and though nobody should be getting their news from either source, the sad reality is that a lot of people do. They aren't oppressing anyone's speech with factoid bubbles, it's the least intrusive method of combating disinformation.

Sorry, you're dead wrong.

1. You're using the word whataboutism wrong according to its Wikipedia definition. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism). I was obviously not trying to attribute hyprocrisy to your argument, I even stated that I could be in favor of such an implementation. You're just using it as a cheap cop out to stop thinking about consequences.
2. TV shows are regularly uploaded to YouTube by stations themselves. I fail not to see its relevancy.
3. YouTube and Facebook are not sources, the people posting on these platforms are the source. I understand that algorithms are responsible for serving up recommendations and that accellerates the spreading of fake news. This, however, would be a discussion about how recommendations should be tweaked.
4. I agree with the premise of such an implementation. But as I've outlined, political issues aren't as black and white as a substance never being found in pills. It's fair to have a discussion to what extent these algorithms should be applied and how it determines something as factual. Obviously in case of the Covington kids fake news have been spread in TV which was in turn uploaded to YouTube (even days after it was debunked), in papers and on different news sites. How would a machine learn that information spread by the biggest news outlets in the world is non-factual? If it's humans applying these warnings manually, how do you ensure they're correct? You'd essentially have to hold them to a higher standard than journalists. Crowdsource it? Wikipedia has conflicting information! Again, I'm not trying to call out hyprocrisy, I'm trying to discuss challenges.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Hell, Russia already has its troll-bots working the web for the 2020 election

There it is again. Russophobia has been normalized, that's for sure.

 

[the_randomizer]

You can't trust USA, period. Look at the company called Cisco, why would anyone want to use their hardware in their network?

Oh no it's like countries like to spy on / meddle in other countries, who would've thought.
Surely the USA would never do these things and it's only Russia and China doing these big bad things, right?

:^)

Let's face it, no country can ever be trusted

There it is again. Russophobia has been normalized, that's for sure.

I don't care as long as Bernie doesn't win

 

[BlastedGuy9905]

It might end up like the copyright system. I've got a bad-ish feeling.