Can Wikipedia save YouTube from conspiracy theorists?

[nad]

Interesting approach. I'm more of a conservative person so I find those theories about flat earth and faking the moon landing rather ridiculous. But I think that people that don't want to listen won't listen. So I doubt that it will have a significant efffect.

 

[Crown]

How do they define "conspiracy theory" anyway? It sounds like what they mean is "An opinion or theory we don't agree with".

If people want to put forward an alternative opinion about something, regardless how crazy it may seem, then so what? So long as it's not full of hate speech or inciting violence or racism, then why does Youtube feel the need to interfere?

At the moment, it seems as though every time a snowflake is offended by something, he/she tweets Youtube and then they introduce some new policy or update to the platform. Do people really want a platform (and society) full of opinions and theories that they agree with? What a sterile, boring place that would be and it's what Youtube is turning into. YouTube is no longer a neutral platform or social media. It's become a media in its own right with a real bias like any other mainstream media outlet (BBC, CNN) - Nothing wrong with that if it's made clear that that's what it is but the issue is that Youtube is still trying to pretend it's a social media.


And as for Wikipedia, I believe students are told never to use Wikipedia when writing academic papers because it's not considered as a reliable source! Anyone can sign up at wikipedia and start editing a page! I predict we'll see more fake wikipedia pages just to prove this point. What a mess and it could all have been avoided.

 

[6StringMadMan]

So is this the end of the flat-earth niche?[DOUBLEPOST=1521213028,1521212786][/DOUBLEPOST]

How do they define "conspiracy theory" anyway? It sounds like what they mean is "An opinion or theory we don't agree with".

If people want to put forward an alternative opinion about something, regardless how crazy it may seem, then so what? So long as it's not full of hate speech or inciting violence or racism, then why does Youtube feel the need to interfere?

At the moment, it seems as though every time a snowflake is offended by something, he/she tweets Youtube and then they introduce some new policy or update to the platform. Do people really want a platform (and society) full of opinions and theories that they agree with? What a sterile, boring place that would be and it's what Youtube is turning into. YouTube is no longer a neutral platform or social media. It's become a media in its own right with a real bias like any other mainstream media outlet (BBC, CNN) - Nothing wrong with that if it's made clear that that's what it is but the issue is that Youtube is still trying to pretend it's a social media.


And as for Wikipedia, I believe students are told never to use Wikipedia when writing academic papers because it's not considered as a reliable source! Anyone can sign up at wikipedia and start editing a page! I predict we'll see more fake wikipedia pages just to prove this point. What a mess and it could all have been avoided.

Exactly. I don't like the idea of YouTube (Google) "censoring" things. I suspect they're already doing this in some regard. It's dangerous for a corporation that's sole purpose is to be able to provide information to be able to censor whatever they wish.

 

[zhkopec]

I would bet money that Flat earth channels won't be harshly effected. Their main goal is shutting down people they don't agree with politically and socially. Flat earth helps discredit legit "conspiracy theories" by making anyone who doesn't buy what CNN says into a lunatic.

 

[videoeditgr]

How do they define "conspiracy theory" anyway? It sounds like what they mean is "An opinion or theory we don't agree with".

Allow me to disagree.
We must have some common base as humanity.
Achievements, goals, etc.

We cannot afford those people spreading theories that challenge logic and scientific proofs.
Do not forget that people died for causes, for achievements or just their sayings and beliefs.

A really good example is the anti-vaccination movement mentioned before in a post.
We cannot afford to lose people because someone might accuse us that we mute "a theory we do not agree with"....

 

[Boris Qs]

How do they define "conspiracy theory" anyway? It sounds like what they mean is "An opinion or theory we don't agree with".

videoeditgr you need to edit your post using the quote otherwise the person you are disagreeing with will not note your post.

 

[videoeditgr]

videoeditgr you need to edit your post using the quote otherwise the person you are disagreeing with will not note your post.

thank you Boris Qs!

How do they define "conspiracy theory" anyway? It sounds like what they mean is "An opinion or theory we don't agree with".

Allow me to disagree.
We must have some common base as humanity.
Achievements, goals, etc.

We cannot afford those people spreading theories that challenge logic and scientific proofs.
Do not forget that people died for causes, for achievements or just their sayings and beliefs.

A really good example is the anti-vaccination movement mentioned before in a post.
We cannot afford to lose people because someone might accuse us that we mute "a theory we do not agree with"....

(sorry for double posting...)

 

[6StringMadMan]

thank you Boris Qs!



Allow me to disagree.
We must have some common base as humanity.
Achievements, goals, etc.

We cannot afford those people spreading theories that challenge logic and scientific proofs.
Do not forget that people died for causes, for achievements or just their sayings and beliefs.

A really good example is the anti-vaccination movement mentioned before in a post.
We cannot afford to lose people because someone might accuse us that we mute "a theory we do not agree with"....

(sorry for double posting...)

That's all fine and dandy when it's used ethically, but what happens when they use it to fit their own agenda? What if they abused this power during an election? Let's say for example that in the last election Google (YT) decided that HIllary Clinton was a better candidate than Donald Trump and then altered the search results in her favor?

 

[zhkopec]

thank you Boris Qs!

We cannot afford those people spreading theories that challenge logic and scientific proofs.
Do not forget that people died for causes, for achievements or just their sayings and beliefs.

A really good example is the anti-vaccination movement mentioned before in a post.
We cannot afford to lose people because someone might accuse us that we mute "a theory we do not agree with"....

(sorry for double posting...)

If you believe in muting opposition you do not believe in the science of which you preach.

 

[videoeditgr]

what happens when they use it to fit their own agenda?

I know that you wanted to give a good example 6StringMadMan but this already happen.
At the last US elections, you cannot imagine the information and commenting that flowed all over my country's web, tv and print press.
Media and parties even in tiny Greece had opinion and debated over the US presidency elections.
I found it wise not to follow them and try to be informed from a variety of sources.

If you believe in muting opposition you do not believe in the science of which you preach.

zhkopec There are facts and there are opinions.
Opposite opinions exist until a proven fact appears.