YouTube Unleashed a Conspiracy Theory Boom. Can It Be Contained?
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The problem with online opinions is that while the "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one" adage is true, online nobody is there to tell you "stop watching this stupid thing". And we all know YT comments are a heap of garbage. Also YT/Instagram comments are fully moderated by the author, so removing all disagreements is easy. Easy to give the appearance of consensus.
And worse, once you watch one, YT's algos want to keep you watching so suddenly you are flooded with related vides.
This leads to a problem.
I have countless examples like this. YT keeps pushing me down a specific ideological path without any action on my part. Sometimes it's great but in those cases where it's not it's not just bad but outright dangerous. I don't think YT has the effect on my since I'm way past a point (age) where my behavior can easily be formed. But I can see how this sends somebody over the cliff who is still figuring out who they are.
People like rockstar2016 (aka the MAGA killer) or the woman who went into Youtube HQ and starting shooting the place up were probably a good examples of how social media can radicalize those that are the most vulnerable.
EDIT: “All but one of 30 Flat Earthers interviewed said they hadn't considered the Earth to be flat until watching videos promoting the theory on YouTube” https://www.engadget.com/2019/02/18/researchers-blame-youtub...
My favourite one right now is "5G is bad and will kill us all and microwave birds". There is not a single article on 5G without the Facebook comments being full of people shouting about the extreme dangers (even when it's just about enabling the fake 5G on frequencies previously used for LTE). No matter what you say, they will keep linking you vague YouTube videos by people who claim to be doctors and misinterpreted documents from the 80s. I don't get it at all.
Off-topic: David Dees has some funny (to me hilarious) artwork on his site that describes these conspiracy theories better than words: http://ddees.com/new-art/
The ones about "blockchain" and 5G are so friggin good I've set them as desktop wallpapers :)
From the Russian collusion narrative, to the Avenatti client claims, to the Covington school coverage, to the recent Jesse Smolett coverage. Western media increasingly does not bother to check facts before running with stories.
It's fair to blame the "msm lies movement", but that movement itself has a root cause.
The premise of this article is that these videos are going to brainwash/hypnotize poor fools into believing crazy things.
Newspapers need to win not be being the only voice in the room, but by being the most relevant, clear, researched, reliable, unbiased voice in the room.
And social media giving these people what they want creates a vicious circle that does real damage to society as a whole.
A platitude like "free exchange of ideas" does not address this problem.
You seem to be under the impression that the truth will win out based simply on the virtue of being true, but that is simply not how humans work. Disinformation spreads because it can be crafted specifically to take advantage of the flaws in how humans think and decide truth. We can't just bury our head in the sand and think this is not a problem.
I am not, in any way, arguing for censorship of false information. However, I do think we need to be aware of the threat disinformation plays, and work on strategies to help inoculate our population against it. It is a false dichotomy to think our only two choices are 'ignore disinformation' or 'censor it'. We can do other things.
It is dangerous to ignore it, or to act like it isn't a threat . While I do believe that the overall arc of history is towards more understanding and truth, it is foolhardy to assume this path just happens naturally. It happens because people pay attention to threats against the truth and respond in ways to counteract it.
It used to be that while we had free speech, publishing companies had standards of respectability. Newspapers weren't going to print smut even if it would sell more papers for example.
The problem with YouTube is that it's basically a newspaper editor with no ethics, it only cares about selling papers/maximizing on screen time. My son has recently been into watching videos of the moon landings/the lunar rover. If I leave YouTube running, the recommender will automatically start playing moon hoax conspiracy videos. What's worse is that it uses this same asinine recommender algorithm that tries to get me to watch as much YouTube as possible even though I pay them $18 a month. Given that they already have my money and aren't showing me ads, I would appreciate it if the recommender had my best interests at heart rather than just showing me videos that an algorithm thinks will addict me.
But being relevant, clear, researched, reliable and unbiased doesn't get as much attention as feeding people's biases and fears and all the rest of that. Is it possible to win if all you have to offer is relevance, clarity, research, reliability and lack of bias?
Today it's increasingly difficult to point to any particularly stable source of information. The media has become ubiquitously driven by partisanship, agenda, and sensationalism. And reporting of falsifiable facts has been replaced with opinion, conjecture, speculation, and leading statements. And one of the biggest issues is that this is all happening during the era of the internet. In times past if you wanted to read older news articles you needed to go to a library and hope they had the paper scanned onto film, and then dig through the paper to try to find whatever you looking for. Now when a paper engages in shoddy reporting, it can be instantly referenced and used as an example to all.
The lowest common denominator always wins the short game in society. Offer somebody a sensational[ized] and poorly researched story, or a well researched, considered, and frankly somewhat boring story. The sensationalized story will almost always win in a one-off. It's fun to read light weight trash when you're just going for a taste. Who didn't occasionally flick through that National Enquirer at the checkout stand? It was fun! But in the long game, the trash loses. It may be fun to read a trashy story here and there, but it's not fun when that's all you have because it's ultimately meaningless.
The big problem is that I think the media was very late to react to the internet, and then overreacted by trying to compete with social media. And that inevitably meant becoming trash. I'm going to conclude with a very high hanging target, The Intercept. In my opinion The Intercept remains arguably the most reputable media outlet today. Nonetheless, especially in recent times have also started to go down the path of partisanship and it always ends the same way.
---
[1] - This is an archive of an article The Intercept ran some time back suggesting it was absurd and unimaginable for the president to suggest that some bomb threats against Jewish community centers might be driven by something other than anti-semitism. The outrage driven article focused on his suggestion that attacks can, in lieu of anti-semitism, sometimes by done because "Someone’s doing it to make others look bad." The paper suggested such thoughts were "white supremacist conspiracy theories."
[2] - This is an article The Intercept ran two days later after it was revealed that one of their former reporters had been the person executing the bomb threats. He was an extremely liberal black individual who reported almost exclusively on social justice and racial issues. He had been calling in the hoaxes in a convoluted attempt to frame his ex-girlfriend (whom had recently broken up with him) for calling in the bomb threats.
[3] - This is how the article was updated given #2.
----
[1] - https://archive.fo/DwZLx
[2] - https://theintercept.com/2017/03/03/statement-on-the-arrest-...
[3] - https://theintercept.com/2017/02/28/trump-suggests-anti-semi...
What we know already is that powerful organizations have secrets that they spend big money on protecting. The difference now is that with the internet the time for which a secret can be kept shortened significantly.
Yes, we have a long way to go and we should continue to seek improvement, but don't try to tell me that things are getting worse when that's clearly not the case. Or at least provide some evidence that's not anecdotal.
That said filter bubbles and ai feeding us more what we “want” is probably increasing conspiracy theories and making us less tolerant of different views. There has been little talk of the morality of ai algorithms.
Personally I was recommended “hot” dating sites advertisement when having relationship issues. Not what I needed but surely what most likely pays the best. The issue is lack of ai moral or for that sake profit first. Obectivivly the ai was right but morally not I am a parent. Ads probably should be regulated at least you should be able to say no to ai algorithm and behavioral psychologist maximizing profit for private companies.
One underappreciated aspect of the rise of conspiracy theories in the last 20 years is the fact that more people are insecure financially and have lost trust in institutions, often justifiably so. So conspiracy theories meet less resistance than they would have from people who are not worried about their survival in the face of a society that seems determined to immiserate and impoverish them if not destroy them.
Additionally we have a number of examples of institutions being subverted to malign ends, from Wells Fargo to Wikileaks, we consistently see dishonest behavior from organizations that claim to have the publics interest at heart...
Yeah, but that's true.
Totally plausible, and in some cases (certain malicious apps etc, on Android or jailbroken iPhone) totally true.
At some point aren't they responsible for hosting it?
If I were hosting it, I'd feel somewhat responsible.
This stuff starts with Authority. on Live TV. Not some rando youtube channels.
I have no idea what you mean by "More guilty".