Hi - Merely an FYI for anyone counting views of these preposterous videos - I am going to watch some for entertainment value and to help put this informative and useful article in context. I'm sorry that this doesn't further any greater good - indeed, doing so might even be slightly counterproductive - but I'm curious and could use some cheap laughs.
1
Why can't cases like Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) be used to protect the obviously political speech of the "9/11 Truthers" and other conspiracy theorists? Even if ultimately false, this is all information that should be out in the public, circulating in the marketplace of ideas). I'm sure at one point in time people who suggested that the U.S. Goverment was running clandestine programs like MKUltra or Project Artichoke were labeled as conspiracy theorists -- until files were declassified and the truth revealed to be stranger than the fiction. This happens all the time. Theories that seem outlandish at first, sometimes possess a kernal of truth not known until decades later. "Conspiracy theorists" speculating as to the CIA's involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking is another example...
YouTube is private, yes. But YouTube is arguably a shopping center, open to the general public, and the activities of conspiracy theorists do not interfere with normal business operations, etc. Is there any legal basis for the protection of free speech in a privately owned commerical forum? Why aren't cases like Pruneyard being used?
2
It would be nice if when I searched Archaeology I got archaeology results and not the balongna that turns up. Ditto history, science etc.
They could fix it but they don't want to spend the money necessary to pay that many people even though it would be a pittance to googles bottom line.
The very title of the article is misleading. ‘Can You Tube Quiet...’ When is ‘quiet’ in the NYT style
sheet a synonym for ‘censor’? Google is a public corporation. If they want censor and stamp out videos on their platform it is their right. But every video on You Tube should be proceeded by a warning that ‘Google decides what is truth and what isn’t...deal with it”
3
The more time one spends on YouTube, the higher the likelihood that one believes in idiotic conspiracy and has a brain that is, in essence, no longer fully functional.
"Social media" and online platforms such at YouTube are the bane of human existence and democracy.
2
Why though?
Honestly, I like conspiracy videos because the logic pretzels are fun to see. I mean, most people who watch them aren't being "indoctrinated." They're being entertained.
There's a huge difference and censoring entertainment artificially creates a sense that it's more than entertainment.
By "curating," they've transferred silly into serious, shallow into secretive, and repellent into seductive.
All conspiracy has an "if this, than that" mentality. You can't break it by saying it's not right. You break it by saying: "What if this, than something other than that?"
Will YouTube stop allowing videos by thin young women who believe they are fat showing other thin young women how to diet? Will they stop allowing videos by biological males who believe they are females celebrating their femininity? And if they reject the one in the name of science, how will they justify allowing the other? It is a slippery slope that YouTube is getting on, especially on the global warming debate in a year where the polar ice cap is currently large and we just had a cold 2019.
2
It is apparent from the comments here that squelching even the nuttiest conspiracy theories is generally viewed as something more onerous than those easily avoided fringe/cringe clips. And yet, the Times and the rest of the old school media can't stop themselves from their relentless and futile attempts to thwart any progress that they can't profit from.
1
YouTube does indeed seem to lead viewers (certainly me) into increasingly weirder and creepy perspectives.
I enjoy videos on cooking, Renaissance history, and rock hounding. Can’t begin to tell you how often ... my innocent foray into digging crystals in Maine...or corset making in 17’th century ...has led me into Alex Jones videos or creepy dark alternative histories—!
Talk about an ick (Icke)! factor...! And yes, so much anti-semetism, fear & hate mongering.
I’m looking forward to viewing a video on hand polishing rocks, and enjoying the latest cheering song from Randy Rainbow...but I’ve put off watching both ... cuz being on You Tube makes me feel soiled, dirty and sordid by association.
Freestyle of speech essential to democracy, but why does YouTube lead us into ever darker, paranoid places?
Thanks for this discussion.
"Beware the Ides of March", conspiratorial it is proven beyond doubt. It is a fact that youtube has all sorts of Videos. You should go to the comment section on youtube to learn that Food & Water has not made everybody stupid yet.
I have been a Usenet user for decades, you dont need videos to sway peoples opinion,just a good idea is good enough.
1
I'm not a big fan of censorship. But it needs to be said that anyone with a serious interest in history and current events- including those of us with an autodidactic inclination and a fondness for iconoclasm- needs to Read. Books. Extensively.
Video clips have a very low quotient of information content, compared to text. The "guided meditation" format of A/V media more closely resembles an exercise in hypnotic suggestion than the sort of interactive thought and questioning that's practically required in order to engage with a text narrative.
Do I watch YouTube clips and interviews? Sure. Also Frontline, 60 Minutes, podcasts, full-length film documentaries and series. As supplemental material.
It is commonly believed that the term 'conspiracy theory' was invented by the CIA to discredit those questioning the official explanation of JFK's death - a death that remains unexplained in the minds of many Americans.
It has been used to tar an feather anyone who questions the very flawed explanations of the events on 9/11.
There would be no need to 'discredit' those questioning official investigations of major events if those investigations made a real attempt to get to the truth.
4
Giant American corporation pushes falsehoods for its own profit using a top secret algorithm too powerful for any man woman or child to understand. Sounds quite conspiratorial!
1
I would be interested to read some informed opinion about the ways in which internet technology and companies like Youtube have impacted the lives and beliefs of those suffering from mental illness. There are literally tens of thousands of videos on that platform by people who consider themselves "targeted individuals," offering a variety of "proof" of their constant harassment and abuse by shadowy groups involved in "gang stalking." Unlike fanciful ideas about alien origins of the pyramids, these paranoid beliefs--which are reinforced, confirmed, and celebrated by an online community of similarly afflicted people--are often central to an individual's intense feelings of persecution and constant surveillance, which sometimes boil over into real-world violence, among other negative social effects such as tension within families. I have no answer to this problem but I am alarmed by the apparent growth of this networked community of delusional people.
1
Conspiracy theories are deflated by the public's rejection of their message, which is achieved through educating people about the topics the conspiracy theory addresses.
Know what does not stop conspiracy theories? Authority figures attempting to stamp them out from on high. That just legitimizes their message that "the people in charge don't want you to hear this".
Also, who decides what is a conspiracy video? This suggests there's some kind of authority that determines what the official narrative is, a "Ministry of Truth", as it were. I'm not really a fan of having stories you're not allowed to legally question or criticize. That's a quality of totalitarian regimes that need to be propped up by controlling speech.
If you can't fight conspiracy theories it's because you have a shortage of facts to explain the truth. Forcing people to be quiet because you can't explain yourself is not how a free society operates.
50
Why is it wrong for YouTube to curate their content, but okay for the NYTimes or Fox News to curate their own?
YouTube is a private company. They have no obligation to comply with first amendment jurisprudence. Even if it could be argued that YouTube is a public space the company would have every right to ban speech that is fraudulent, slanderous, or libelous. Most of the conspiracy theories posted on youtube would fall under this category.
The algorithm investigated in this article does not censor material. Rather, it is better thought of as a method of curating content. In order to improve public perception of the company (and to get the FBI of its back) it is sensible to recommend authoritative videos over those that are unverifiable.
I also think that it is reasonable for YouTube to take some responsibility for the content it recommends to its users. I accept that the company must recommend videos that are entertaining in order to earn from ad-revenue. YouTube is an entertainment outlet; not a news site. However, YouTube should not pander outrageous content to uneducated consumers in order to earn ad-revenue. People actually believe the conspiracy theories and act upon that information. Think anti-vaxers, corona virus hoaxers, etc.
34
@Justin Napolitano Thank you!
People need to know the reality of the First Amendment!
"Congress shall make no law... " Private concerns are not so restricted!
6
@Zeke Black
NYT and Fox News have editors that decide what is published and what isn't. NYT even reviews comments that are posted on their news articles.
YouTube has no editors. There's nobody at YouTube reviewing video submissions or comments.
This is the difference between publishers and platforms. A publisher reviews and approves everything posted on their platform, thus they have a higher degree of legal liability for their content. A platform reviews nothing and typically requires users to agree to terms that exempt the platform from legal liability for the content they post in order to even use the site.
Nobody can upload a video to YouTube without clicking "I agree" to a terms of service that specifically says the user assumes all responsibility for the things they upload and post.
YouTube does not want to be considered a publisher because that puts them on the hook for lawsuits and other legal obligations if their users misbehave. It also puts an immense burden on them to do NYT-style content reviews of everything uploaded, which is essentially impossible given the site's current level of traffic and the open way the user experience is currently designed.
YouTube being ruled as a publisher and not a platform would effectively kill the site.
8
@Justin Napolitano I think that there is some level of argument (it's mine at least) to be had around the fact that these services are now so large they could be considered public utilities/services, which makes their suppression/censorship a pretty awkward place to be. Not to mention that whilst yes, they are private companies, is it acceptable overall that we put the moral compass of our society in the hands of a bunch of software engineers in California?
3
Thou shall not question climate change. Really?
I believe in free speech. I don't think YouTube should be hiding viewpoints or theories they disagree with or believe are false. If you believe a theory is fringe or false, it can be ignored or argued against in a reasonable manner.
Pushing stuff underground will not work. In fact it gives credence to conspiracy theories about being suppressed, in addition to violating people's rights to hold different views and express them.
The only time videos should be removed is if they make actual threats or show abuse of people or animals, or a crime being committed filmed by the perpetrator. But that is just my opinion, since I don't own YouTube.
3
It's sad how some people have nothing better to do with their time then follow the trapdoor down into conspiracy theory land. Does anyone want to play ping pong? Cards? Go bowling? Take a walk? Ride a bike? Talk on the phone? Bake a cake? Volunteer? Pick up a hobby? When the age of duty gives way to the age of entitlement, this is what happens.
Just a correction:
This article implies that user not logged in do not get recommendations based on historic viewing behavior. I can assure you, as a longtime Youtube user who has never logged in, the recommendations are based on my viewing history spanning many months over many individual browser sessions.
They obviously collect unique user identifiers, so logging in gives no more or less a personalized experience.
1
Everyone should have a score. If they retweet something that is provably false or originated from a Russian Troll operation, then they get one point added to their score. The total score for each person would be shown on every tweet they publish, no matter who they are.
1
In a free society there will be all sorts of fringe opinions and conspiracy theories. It just comes with the territory. Pushing to silence those that you disagree with - even if you absolutely know they are wrong like flat earthers for instance - is a move toward totalitarianism. We must defend the speech and opinions of others, even those we disagree with and even abhor, because that's the foundation of our freedoms and is what makes this country the beacon of liberty that it is. I'm disappointed in the premise of the article that it should be silenced in the first place.
55
@David Agreed. It is all too easy to ban all those that do not appeal to us. Free speech how ever erratic demands responsibly from the speaker. That concept is highly debatable but nevertheless necessary. All are responsible in the court of human existence for their actions, POTUS to us!
3
@David I agree with you, but that is not what is happening here. YouTube has been recommending these conspiracy theory videos, and now they are being asked to recommend them less, and they are doing so. Whose freedom of speech or opinion is being infringed?
17
@David
Choosing not to promote something =/= Suppression
8
I have to say that I don't quite understand why it is YouTube's job to police any content that is not actively illegal. I don't agree with the content, and there is a case to be made that YouTube's recommendation algorithm and it's push to narrower and narrower topics is problematic, but the notion that we should expect or desire a them to act as arbiter of what (again non-illegal) content is hosted makes me deeply uncomfortable.
In truth I would almost rather we give that power to a public body than to a private corporation, with the instruction to err on the side of permissiveness. At least such a body would be more directly answerable to citizens, and could be forced to be more transparent. I'm sure big tech companies feel the same, as there is basically no upside for them in acting as gatekeeper. If we are going to have an Official Censor, be honest about it and make it a government one.
1
This is not a question of free speech.
Honestly, I don't understand this generation's reverence for companies like youtube. It's like how the first generation of TV watchers worshipped TV, believing what was on TV must be true.
But today, the reverence is different. Many today see tech companies as guardians of free speech. They are not. They are just another company that provides entertainment, information, and misinformation.
CNN chooses what stories to tell. NYTimes has editors and journalists. Netflix hires writers and boards to discuss the content they wish to show, on and on.
So, what I don't understand, how in the world can people NOT believe giving fewer recommendations for subject matter that is dangerously misleading, is not only within youtube's right but a really, really good idea.
7
The Auto-Play function was the Guilty conspirator in the system.
I would be watching some benign video--as a 70 might choose, and the next ones racked up-- unless I turned Auto OFF, were
increasingly distasteful to me. --
Usually evolving to Jordan Peterson. Clearly not what I understand as "Preferences" --
If I were choosing Colbert, or Daily Show-- it would veer me off to unrelated areas. Negative always.
I believe it was intentional. We are told that Outrage is "Sticky" -- keeping us watching.
I just recently noticed that I do not have to speed to turn the Default Auto-Play off, as the suggestions have changed.
Perhaps they've actually improved?
1
You can learn important things from YouTube recommend videos. For example, who knew that cats are afraid of cucumbers? YouTube knew!
3
It is VERY telling that there are folks who want to silence dissidents rather than counter bad speech with better speech. After all the title of this piece is CAN youtube quiet... not SHOULD youtube quiet...
2
Remember back when everyone was all worried about Wikipedia? It was editable by anyone, wasn't a reliable source of information, contained false 'facts', etc. etc.?
Does anyone worry about Wikipedia anymore? It's crowd-curated, reliable and a fantastic source of information.
Why hasn't YouTube risen to the level of Wikipedia? Indeed, why has it sunk so low? Part of the explanation:
- Wikipedia has real people -- (mostly) concerned with accuracy -- editing its pages and shepherding its content. YouTube has no one doing that, and never will.
- Wikipedia is a non-profit. It doesn't benefit from billions of eyeballs starting at its pages all day. Occasionally it tries to get the owners of those eyeballs to cough up a few bucks to help keep the servers online, which the users would never do if the information on Wikipedia was not useful and reliable.
- YouTube doesn't really care about useful, reliable information. What does it care about? Getting those billions of eyeballs to sit and stare at their site all day, because the main purpose is to get those eyeballs to absorb as much ad content as possible. What's that you say? The videos are false or misleading? Oh well. Did the eyeballs stay engaged? That's all YouTube cares about.
Make YouTube more like Wikipedia. That would solve the problem. I'm not holding my breath.
9
Legacy media urge suppression of journalistic competition on YouTube, by smearing every challenge to Establishment dogma as "conspiracy theory."
Legacy media have a religion that decrees global warming is exactly as apocalyptic as they say it is; that everything about the official story of the collapse of Building 7 at the World Trade Center on 9/11 is correct, and if any dreamer or poet dares to speculate there was a civilization on Mars, as perhaps suggested by NASA photos, they are dangerous and must be banned.
The legacy media promote conspiracy theories of their own, however, such as Iran being the number one threat in the Middle East, Israel being a flawed but fundamentally benevolent “democracy, most Syrian "rebels" factions are not al Qaeda terrorist fronts, etc.
Should the legacy media have been shut down after Bush's invasion of Iraq, based on the fact that legacy media promoted conspiracy theory falsehoods about Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of destruction that led us into war?
Capitalist enterprise seeks a monopoly, and for the legacy media to seek to crush its journalistic rivals online by smearing, in general, a large segment of radical information as "fringe conspiracy theory falsehood" is a clever business tactic.
Thoughtful people are supposed to be thankful that conformity is being enforced and legacy's proprietary self-designation as "The Press" (the one and only), is being secured by cooperative behemoths like Google (owner of YouTube).
9
"CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX, the Bible predicted President Trump’s election and Elon Musk is a devil worshiper trying to take over the world.
All of these fictions have found life on YouTube, the world’s largest video site, in part because YouTube’s own recommendations steered people their way."
The first is a fiction and legitimately a conspiracy theory with harmful consequences.
The second is perhaps crazy sounding to most of us, but it is neither a conspiracy theory nor is it "fiction" in any kind of objective sense (how would one go about "debunking" such a claim, for example--if I think there's a hidden message in the Bible predicting Trump, who are you to say I'm wrong?) Furthermore, it is not the kind of religious extremism ("Kill all the infidels") that is stirring up hatred or inciting violence. On what basis should this be removed? Most religious claims, including testimonies of miracles and literal interpretations of scripture, are fundamentally no different from this claim that you want to remove.
As for Elon Musk, probably if you dig deep into this video you will find objectively false claims, but who's going to judge whether we are being literal or merely metaphorical when we post videos decrying the power-hungry corporate titans casting ever-growing shadows over our daily lives? Algorithms? Shouldn't we allow a bit of hyperbole?
1
YouTube isn't in the business of recommending "correct" videos, but "engaging" ones, and as it turns out, conspiracy theories, racism, homophobia, and fascism are very "engaging" topics on the platform. Those who are attracted to these topics and engage with them uncritically are also people who have the highest potential of "engaging" with these topics again, and again, and again on the platform. YouTube will follow the direction customer clicks take them.
1
What's the matter? You don't like conspiracies? Stop trying to force Youtube into censoring anything. It's not like the same exact stuff isn't available on other sources.
When I watch videos published by NASA on YouTube, the recommendations I then get, are either videos claiming that the moon landings were a hoax, or videos claiming that the world is flat. Both imply that NASA is lying.
I never log on to YouTube. I automatically delete my entire browser history, every time I log off. I am not logged on to any other website or service in the background. YouTube knows nothing about me, except that I am watching this one video published by NASA.
Does YouTube want to convince people that NASA is bunk? Or is it just because that way they make more money?
Didn't Google used to have this motto "Don't be evil'?
I guess they have a revised motto now: "Be evil, if you can make a buck off of it".
9
And the MDs who treated the dying JFK in the emergency room in Nov 1963 explicitly and publicly stated, that day, that JFK was shot from the front.
But the official story is that he was shot from the back.
Unfortuately for history, the fact that JFK was shot from the front is oft dismissed by "authoritative" sources like, but not limited to, the NY Times.
Conspiracies exist, are they all real? No. But enough are so that using the appalation "conspiracy theory" as a method of disparagement and denial doesn't help.
6
Could everyone please stop using the phrase "conspiracy theorist" for these people? They are conspiracy hucksters, lying frauds usually out for a fast buck from the marks who swallow their garbage. Plus, what they are peddling aren't "theories" at all. They proffer their insanity as declarations of fact, false narratives designed to manipulate people's thoughts and beliefs about reality.
Conspiracy hustlers is more like it.
7
Are you seriously suggesting that those who question "climate change" should have their free speech suppressed? What I say is that is the only way the theory of global warming from industrial CO2 can prevail is by making the skeptics (like me) shut up. This theory is so flimsy and full of holes that if those who question this theory are allowed speak, they will win the argument and "global warming" will go the way of other false theories.
1
@Tony Wicher No one is suggesting curtailing your free speech, but you're confused as to what freedom of speech means.
Freedom of speech means the government can't throw you in prison for things that you say.
It does NOT mean that a private company (like YouTube) is required to host your opinions, and give you a platform to disseminate your views to others.
Here it is in comic form: https://xkcd.com/1357/
PS: Climate change is real.
5
@Paul
+100 for the xkcd reference. That sums it all up nicely.
@Paul So YouTube should be made a public utility and made to behave in accordance with the Constitution.
The First Amendment doesn't require publishers to print every book submitted to them. It doesn't require movie studios to film every screenplay they are offered. It doesn't require a cork board at a cafe to offer space for every poster, or a bar to book everyone who wants to perform there.
How do ones and zeroes change the logic here?
5
I think the bigger question here is "Should YouTube Quiet Conspiracy Theorists?" Not "CAN."
People are free to make up their own minds and believe whatever they like (shout out to Flat Earthers; you do you).
The old saying "where there's smoke, there's fire" is sometimes applicable for some conspiracy theories--like the reasons the US invaded the middle east after 9/11.
Remember, YouTube is an entertainment platform. Believe these theories, or not. Your call. But to try to silence them is inappropriate, IMHO.
Just the 2 cents of a rambling Canadian. Okay, 1 cent American.
16
@Rich
I agree. Does silencing them really promote the interest of a country who adheres to freedom of speech? But promoting these conspiracies is a different thing which is what they are doing. And Google has to decide whether making money should trump moral and ethical commitments to a healthy society.
Or wait, I guess they already have. So much for Don't be evil.
2
I must admit that I find conspiracy videos very entertaining at times, and I am reluctant to promote their censorship, but I do agree on a number of points expressed: I am against tracking my usage and flooding my home page with links to more, presenting an outsized impression of both their relevance and my desire to watch them; the shocking indication that our education system may be woefully deficient in teaching young minds to properly distinguish fact from opinion; and finally, I am of the opinion that their very existence motivates and challenges us to engage our own thinking and info gathering, to form our own educated and intelligent opinions - censoring would give cause for complacency in this area.
4
Well, one solution would be for YouTube to simply stop making recommendations altogether and just let people search Youtube with keywords the same way they do with Google. I liked YouTube when it was like that before the recommendations.
Admittedly, I spend way more time on YouTube now that they have the automatic recommendations and I find myself going down rabbit holes that I would never have gone down before had the recommendation feature not been there.
I would prefer if YouTube gave us the option of having recommendations turned on or off. I would choose to turn recommendations off so that it would help me limit the amount of time I spend on the platform and when I do use it, it would help me be more intentional and purpose driven and waste less time.
6
@J
I like that idea. I wonder how many users would actually turn it off? I'd wager not a lot.
This is in same category as attempting to influence politics and voting. If our educational system can't develop discerning minds, we are in trouble! Sadly, the evidence suggests that to be the situation!
2
The real problem is a complex mess of algorithmic engagement -- you have software that promotes content that keeps people on YouTube watching more videos -- and a high level of young people and others with low levels of critical thinking skills being constantly bombarded with high-engagement conspiracy theory videos because they promote engagement.
Couple this with the high level of authenticity in a well produced video, and you have a modern system that proves the notion that the lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.
I'm not sure the problem is with conspiracy theories themselves -- would you have banned a book in 1970 that claimed that the FBI conducted illegal spying on citizens? That the government tested LSD on unwitting citizens? Both were conspiracy theories first, and then proven facts later. Too much of 20th century history actually is defined by conspiracies.
7
The opponents of these conspiracies and their peddlers seem to take them more seriously than their intended audience does.
I have no use for these conspiracies myself--not even to make fun of them--but I'm not displeased that places like YouTube give people an outlet for them.
3
It would be more helpful to create a study where people of different political persuasions were logged in to their accounts. I.e where would a conservative Republican be steered v. a liberal democrat? That this study was conducted while the researchers were logged out makes it flawed. Google is a vast data collector and uses the information it has connected with our profiles to steer recommendations in its algorithm. The term often referred to in computer science is the feedback loop. If someone is more prone to certain thought, that ideological bubble will be captured in the algorithm. Therefore a study is most predictive with live subjects that have preordained leanings.
The problem with YouTube is NOT the producers of this crazy stuff. It's the morons who watch it! Apollo moon landing conspiracies, aliens and UFO landings, etc. It's total lunacy!
As with most of America's problems, the solution is the same: education.
It is worth pointing out that the quality and quantity of truly valuable educational materials on YouTube is truly FANTASTIC -- thank you, YouTube! There should be more articles that point to those materials. Of course, NYTimes readers are likely already aware of some of them.
6
@SalinasPhil A lot of those viewers are children.
1
This reads to me as the NY times is saying "if it isn't published in the NY times", it isn't true.
6
@Katherine Bartley
Even though you apparently don't believe in it, there is such a thing as actual reality.
There is also a way to tell the difference between what is real and what is not real: the Scientific Method.
The NYT is not perfect, but reasonably good at not publishing anything as fact that isn't. And of course the NYT does also publish a lot of opinion - on subjects where we either don't know what is true and what is not true (e.g. the future), or where there is no true and not true (e.g. moral issues, matters of taste).
5
@Katherine Bartley Unlike YouTube producers, the Times actually qualifies its research with fact checkers. So we should assume that if it is published in the NYT it has undergone vigorous scrutiny and is therefore closer to the truth -- unlike many clickbait purveyors and YouTube channels.
4
@Katherine Bartley One could just as easily read your comment reads as saying that if it's published on YouTube then it's true.
Uh how else are we supposed to learn about the war between the cloud people and the lizard people? The Obama/Saudi led UN 'information' services?? I don't think so.
5
In the days before YouTube and Whatsapp , email was popular way to spread misinformation.
I remember emails saying that Bill Gates was the anti Christ and another one saying that if you forward this Bill Gates will give you a laptop. Usually these both were circulated by the same set of people.
YouTube just gave them a better, faster and more visual medium.
6
The authors write as if they, or some unnamed "they", should be surprised that YouTube continues to push lies, cultish beliefs, and support for authoritarian ideologues such as the current Republican Party. Nonsense. There is money in those clicks and that's all anyone needs to know.
2
I use YouTube a lot for "how to videos". There are a lot of good informational videos out there. However, YouTube not only recommends a lot of conspiracy videos, they seem intent on making sure everyone gets herded in that direction. I think it's because the people who are susceptible to lies are also the kind of people who buy advertisers garbage.
You don't want to use YouTube to find and consider different views on real topics. They will use that opportunity to feed you into not just conspiracy on the topic but generally into conspiracy sites like that of Alex Jones.
Let me give you an example. Let's say you are viewing a videos about gun control. Inevitably you will be lead to Alex Jones, but this first video you view of Alex Jones, someone you don't know, is very tame for Alex Jones (you find this out later) because he seems almost reasonable and they also avoid advertising his stuff for sale, so you may not be aware of what a scammer he is. However, now you are going to get fed Alex Jones videos constantly, because you viewed one video on a specific topic.
Previously YouTube allowed you to reject recommended channels and that would reduce the number of crazy videos you would be subjected to, at least temporarily, because after some time they would be suggested again and you would have to reject them again. However, now their is no ability to suggest filters for your own content.
By the way, there are no conspiracy videos about YouTube on YouTube. Go figure.
4
@Chris Yeah, the biggest problem isn't the existence of the content but the way the algorithm pushes you towards more and more extreme view points. I think it's partially bc conspiracy nuts etc "engage" more than your average user so they draw more activity to the site. It also means any video is in danger of having crazy people flood it yelling nonsense
1
@Chris Watchful for the "UpNext" list of Videos, they used to be increasingly 'sticky' - intending to keep viewer watching by touching emotions such as outrage, or anger. It was intentional. How-to's would become Why's - and beyond.
I recently noticed a change in the AutoPlay choices. --
a relief.. Once on Colbert, it would stay with Colbert.
No longer do I need to rush to the Auto-Play OFF switch!
People did not land on Alex Jones, Jordan Peterson accidentally. They were led.. video by video!
1
Yes, but let's be candid about who the conspiracy theorists are. All right-wingers; all religionists; all governments. There are others, but these are the dangerous ones.
3
@sedanchair I know plenty of tons of libertarian conspiracy theorists..most of them that have met are
...the information “was given directly to me from a European billionaire”
Ah, yes, sign me right up.
1
Is it a "conspiracy theory" that victims' families have been at war with the US government over whether they're even allowed to sue Saudi Arabia for its involvement in 9/11? Because last I checked that was a fact.
Point being - do not lump together people who (rightfully) question the official narrative about very complicated, multi-faceted events with (for example) those who believe the earth is flat. Doing so only undermines your own credibility.
Powerful people have engaged in conspiracies since the dawn of civilization, and they will continue to do so. Denying this very basic fact makes one look as foolish as the flat-earther.
And this is the same paper that has reported on the Pentagon's "mysterious U.F.O. program." A few years ago, any mention of such a program would be labeled under the same "conspiracy theory" umbrella. Ironic, and pathetic.
8
I have watched my brother's mental state
deteriorate after observing him watch hours and hours of videos about things like Qanon, 9/11 conspiracies and lizard people (David Icke). A huge majority are anti-Semitic, something I'd never before heard him express. Apparently there has been a positive reassessment of Adolph Hitler not being such a bad guy after all. One reason: because he was a" nationalist not a globalist"-- Candace Owens/Steve Bannon territory. My brother has suffered from deep depression in the past, but not this kind of mental delusion.
11
The animal abuse sites are the ones that get me. This ranges from people making their pets do 'cute' tricks to outright abuse. Ditto for TicTok. I never look at animal videos of any kind and keep the up next off.
3
When The New York Times asks the us (and, essentially, the world), “Can YouTube Quiet Its Conspiracy Theorists?” this “Newspaper of Record” is telling us (and, essentially, the world) that The New York Times is positioning itself as the Grand Arbiter of what’s to be written, what’s to be read, and most importantly, what’s to be thought.
Freedom of speech (and along with it, freedom of thought) has long posed an extremely serious problem for those with extreme power—simply because free speech (coming out of freedom of thought) has long been the most effective check against those with extreme power. Quite simply, the freedom to exercise extreme power and the freedom to exercise free speech cannot coexist—it’s an impossibility. And what’s purpose of having either if you cannot exercise one in the presence of the other.
As a private multinational corporation (exercising extreme power), The New York Times current form and existence owes itself to the global network of private multinational corporations (exercising even more extreme power) that sponsor this “Newspaper of Record.”
Therefore, when The New York Times asks us (and the world), “Can YouTube Quiet Its Conspiracy Theorists?”, The New York Times is telling us (and the entire world) that the extreme power of private multinational corporations is trumping freedom of speech—and that The New York Times thereby sides with this form of power.
6
"Discredited"???
Please, you can do better. Fox had a video with lies.
Based on past history, if it's from Fox, it needs to be carefully fact checked. Since Fox won't do it.
1
Sadly, you can't fix stupidity.
This article saddens me. It does not ask the prime question: whether conspiracy theory posts are activities warranting censorious intervention. Whether or not you agree with opinions or find them "unsavory" or untrue does not mean they are not protected speech.
It is hard to make a case that they would not be, frankly. Youtube is very much a public forum, so we should all be worried that ideas and concepts that Google/Youtube disagrees with can be simply disappeared from public awareness.
That a fellow posted a wack-a-doo video and then went on a shooting spree does not mean taking away the video would change the person or prevent the act. What is the rationale behind this push?
34
@Clotario
Why is whether it is "protected speech" important? My understanding is that the first amendment only protects speech from the federal government, not a private internet television channel with radicalization problems.
8
@Gavriel YouTube is very much a public forum whether they like it or not. Yes it’s a private company but what they’ve created is very much public in every aspect. As a free and open society we should view it as such and work to protect the same freedoms that you and I would have in any other open forum.
Is it the governments role to intervene here? In my opinion no, but the digital frontier is new territory so who knows. By doing this I think YouTube and the like open themselves up to an immense amount of regulation and that would be a sad turn of events for our society as a whole. Platforms for new ideas shared openly whether they or right or wrong is what builds this country.
4
@David
I agree in principle that the platforms for mass communication have changed and are controlled by a handful of monopolies. I do not agree that youtube should have a light touch with regards to the content on their site. If you had seen the disastrous effects of youtube addiction on people in your own life, I think you would agree.
People rightly deride the "gateway drug" theory in narcotics policy. However, it seems the most fitting analogy for what happens with youtube's crank wing. Go into any lightly moderated conspiracy theory forum and you will be confronted with overwhelming amounts of racism, antisemitism, and not least, anti-scientism.
4
Anyone interested in the recent spread of misinformation and disinformation should check out "Network Propaganda" by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts from Harvard Law School.
Rather than act as fact-checking organizations, many right-wing media outlets have simply adopted the business model of giving media consumers whatever they want (even if it's total and absolute nonsense).
YouTube's business model isn't much different - although I applaud their efforts to at least try being decent stewards of truth. The pollution of information streams is the defining challenge of our generation and it's the responsibility of social media outlets to help people recognize fact from fiction.
What about these conspiracies: 19 men with box cutters took down 3 skyscrapers in lower Manhattan; the pyramids were built as tombs for pharaohs; dark matter and dark energy exist according to theoretical physics although they cannot be detected; cis-gendered, straight, white, working class men are, essentially, deplorable; the Great Flood myth is a silly children’s story, even though it’s known that the oceans rose 400 feet 12 millennia ago. Who among us has such a claim to Truth that they can sit as gate keepers for the rest of humanities. Ideas will work themselves out as they are tested by society, & the freedom to think is a prerequisite to develop the ability to think critically.
2
@Matthew Smith ummm... the first 2 are not conspiracies but facts based on the historical record; the third is a theory that has prevailed because it fits the current scientific models best, but may be revised at any time if somebody comes up with a better theory; The fourth (deplorables) is an opinion, and a hotly debated one at that, the facts you cite for the Great Flood don't hold up to any scrutiny (aside from the local flooding in parts of the world around the time that the ice of the Ice Age melted).
So it looks like you could use a gate-keeper since you have trouble distinguishing facts from theories from opinions from pseudo-science.
In any case, YouTube is already a gate-keeper -- since the algorhythm recommends videos non-stop, it may as well recommend good ones and not videos saying that the earth is flat.
3
I didn't see any conspiracy theories in this article that I subscribe to, so I don't say this as someone whose feelings were trampled. In fact, I found most of the ones mentioned to be stupid or worse.
That said, I don't particularly want help from big corporations or governments steering me to authoritative sources. Some of the most destructive conspiracy theories come from the government and its mainstream press stenographers--for instance, the idea that Saddam Hussein had WMD's that threatened the US and was allied with Al Qaeda. Those crackpot notions were put forth by both the Bush Administration and a couple of widely respected liberal outlets I could name--the WMD's were pushed by the NYT and the Al Qaeda link by a journalist at the New Yorker who failed upwards.
And there are stories that are largely ignored by the mainstream press which are legitimate, though not accepted as such until years later. People on the left said the US was involved in the Indonesian massacres in the mid 60's from very early on, but that didn't become a respectable thing to say until fairly recently. I saw a video of an Obama administration official basically downplaying the Saudi bombing of Yemen at a press conference in 2016, but the group carrying that video was Russia Today. It deserved much wider coverage. It was a real event. Just not covered by the "respectable" press.
7
If the viewers of this crazy stuff on YouTube had any critical thinking skills it would not be a problem.
One of the basic tenants of free speech is the assumption that the populace can filter out the crazy stuff. I hope we don't need to reconsider.
8
@Dave I think we do need to reconsider. Most people are simply not educated well enough to distinguish fact from fiction. I have degrees in Political Science and Statistics. I fall for bogus claims published by trusted media providers all of the time because I don't have the time to perform the research necessary to confirm a claim.
In general, we outsource the research process to trusted news organizations, think tanks, and academics. Those institutions are biased to some degree but they publish their research methodology along with their findings in order to be as transparent as possible. Bogus institutions and their social media followers make claims without backing them up with data..... and somehow they attract more believers.
How can we expect the general consumer of information to distinguish between valid research and bogus material, especially when the bogus material is easier to access, is recommended by youtube or facebook algorithms, and is easier to comprehend?
5
@Dave
You are mistaking propaganda for "free speech".
Free speech does not allow for purposeful lying Nor does it fix cowardice in confronting it.
@Justin Napolitano
This also requires reconsideration of the future of democracy. Democracy is a delicate institution. Can Democracy survive Facebook, Google, YouTube, Putin and Trump?
3
I've heard that lots of people believe there's a Man in the Sky that will give them whatever they ask for if they sincerely grovel to his majesty, and that he had a son who Rose From The Dead (A Netflix Original?) after completing a few miracles involving liquor and leprosy.
Not to mention The Big Four, Death, Famine, War, and Conquest which have been around since the dinosaurs and is hardly a Revelation of Apocalypse.
In sum, humanity is primarily made up of children pretending to be mature adults.
19
@Dasha Kasakova
The biblical narratives are a good example of how it's impossible to regulate content on the internet (beyond hate speech and terroristic threats). For example, the book of Genesis is considered by many Christians to be the creation story. But among many secular psychologists (and Christian Gnostics), that same story describes how human consciousness first emerged from the mists of time. For example, the emotion of shame did not appear (exclusively) in humans until they 'ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil'.
Myths, legends and fairy tales often tell a moral tale through metaphor. If the information police become too aggressive, the world will return to this art form - the art form of the Alchemists - where information was driven underground and everything had to be expressed in metaphor.
5
The problem with this article is that it suggests that there is, or even can be, a standard narrative...a standard worldview model...among the world's population. And anything that deviates from the model is misinformation. Unfortunately, that isn't how human psychology works. It's a pipe dream.
4
@W there is is an external truth about climate change. And many of these other things. Period.
2
@W. There cannot be a standard worldview, but conclusions backed by data (in other words facts) should at least be the standard by which we evaluate information. I think it is fair to say that Trump is president at the moment and not Hillary. I can use data to prove that. I can also use data to show the benefits of vaccination, the efficacy of cancer treatments, and the reality of climate change. If you want to challenge a fact, please bring some good data to advance your point.
If a youtube video makes bogus claims it should be relegated to an inferior rank than a video backed by empirical data.
5
@joanne c
I don't know what 'external truth' is. It's not a standard epistemological (theory of knowledge) term.
But climate change provides a good example of 'causality'...the cause for things. Nobody can dispute that we are in the midst of climate change..after all, the polar ice caps are melting. What we argue endlessly about is why it is happening.
This is the crux of almost every popular conspiracy theory. That's why YouTube videos and Wikipedia articles that answer the 'how things happen' question tend to be less biased than those that answer 'why things happen'.
I suspect there is content on the COVID-19 virus but it is unlikely posted on You Tube yet. No need, it is in plain sight and paid for by the taxpayers.
I understand the Czar job was awarded to the public servant whose public health credential include "smoking does not kill" and "needle exchanges are not necessary;" I understand that the Executive Branch recently said the U.S. would be done to zero COVID-19 cases very soon.
Well tick tock, "very soon" has come and gone; the count is 60 and climbing, especially with point of care diagnostic testing for the virus. Oh, and the warm temperature "miracle" resolution is not looking good for "smoking will not kill's" boss
Time is ripe for a Times Square board on false claims as recorded by Daniel Dale and COVID-19 occurrence and outcomes.
5
I find it a bit Orwellian that some unknown people in YouTube think its OK to disregard the 1st Amendment because they happen to think its in the interest of their vision of a sane society.
Here we are talking about limiting Freedom of Speech, the most precious right we have in free society, as if it is a plausible solution. John Seigenthaler would be aghast at such presumption. Ignorance is not resolved via suppression.
Do we need some form of online monitoring? Yes.
Violent overthrow, human trafficking, advocation of class violence all deserve attention. Questioning if the moon landings actually happened or if climate change is real can only be remedied by education - not suppression of opinion.
17
@Paul Van Hoesen
At risk of opening a contentious debate, I say the First Amendment is inapt to the publication of any opinion on the internet. Freedom of speech is a concept crafted for person-to-person communication, where claims are subject top immediate resbuttal and counteropinions can be immediately asserted. Freedom of speech should never be construed as covering material broadcast onto the internet where there is no effective response forum.
11
@Paul Van Hoesen I think you and a number of other posters missed a critical distinction. The videos have not been taken down. Rather, they do not appear as readily in the user's suggested videos feed. Anyone can still find this content with a search. No one has been silenced or had their rights infringed.
11
@Paul Van Hoesen My thoughts exactly. It’s still censorship, not matter how you slice it. “We don’t agree with you, therefore you shall be quieted and put in a corner”.
It’s the online version of book burning. Go ahead and tell yourself it’s not that bad. It’s a start , making tiny cuts so you won’t notice.
5
If you agree that goverments lie to us, then the question becomes why are they lying to us. Thus a conspiracy has taken place to produce the lie.
These videos are free and speach and should be encouraged not censored.
15
How will studies account for the fraction- significant, I expect- of viewers who are watching these videos for their entertainment value rather than because they think there might be truth in what’s posted?
8
@Michael McCollough It all drives views, which gets the videos in front of more unsuspecting viewers. So for the purposes of reducing the influence of conspiracy theorists there is no difference in the intentions of the viewer.
4
@sedanchair
It does make a difference in the total number of people who were 'influenced' though.
@Michael McCollough Right! We may assume that very few of the views are related to, "haw, haw, the nonsense in this video is just what I need for my parody act," but we can't really know. Every click makes the video more "important."
1
This is a free society. Who cares if a couple hundred thousand people believe (or want to watch a video claiming) that there was life on Mars? This stuff plays routinely on the "History" Channel and nobody complains.
Along with the nutcases, are plenty of thoughtful and fresh voices. Trust that most people will develop media literacy sufficient to distinguish the two. The alternative--billionaires and politicians strictly controlling the flow of information--has much greater associated systemic risks. It also should bother any of us who believe in freedom of speech, speaking truth to power, and so on.
It's important to note that these new sources are competition for places like the Times. As Warren Buffet says, "never ask your barber if you need a haircut."
49
@Darragh freedom of speech does not apply to private companies' policies. YouTube actively promoting this content is dangerous and undermines our democracy. I am glad they are taking steps to address the problem.
11
@Darragh
Along with thoughtful and fresh voices are sorry souls with shotguns and maps to notorious pizza parlors.
People with the will to torment the families of child victims of gun fire.
People who make a parade of declaring dead soldiers deserve their fate because gay people.
Free speech does not, cannot, exist in a vacuum.
If these clicks-for-profits empires will not take responsibility for lending their technology and their credibility to lies and incitements, those creating the posts must bear some responsibility, and the cost of the ensuing damage.
10
@Darragh
From the article, here's just one reason why:
"Last month, a German man uploaded a screed to YouTube saying that “invisible secret societies” use mind control to abuse children in underground bunkers. He later shot and killed nine people in a suburb of Frankfurt."
11
The problem here is that all progress happens on the fringes. All important ideas start out not being believed and then over time revolutions in thinking occur. The minority view becomes the majority. If YouTube were around in Alfred Wegner's time they would have banned videos on continental drift for example because they would have considered it a ludicrous fringe theory.
Yes they are a private company, but their value lies in not telling us how to think. Let people decide for themselves.
I am glad this article mentioned propaganda like Fox News. How come Youtube edits Flat Earth videos but freely promotes the lies of Fox News? People like Hannity and Limbaugh out to have all their videos removed from the platform.
Anyway the price of intellectual freedom is more valuable than cost paid by editing out ideas. The mainstream view often turns out to be wrong over time, so let time sort out the good ideas from the bad not YouTube censors.
22
@J.D. Well said.
2
There is so much gaslighting on YouTube. So much disinformation and misleading information and just lies that they risk becoming untrustworthy. Which they have in many areas. How do I avoid that? I tend to watch YouTube without the sound on. I watch a lot of cooking shows, and travel shows where they just walk around without speaking. But it is a very specific type that is untrustworthy, any influencer in my mind is a gaslighter. And I will not waste my time on them. If YouTube disincentivized these cranks, and they could not make money, it would certainly help restore accountability to YouTube. Now the argument they, [YouTube ] would loose money is absolutely false. Just recently Alphabet released figures on just how profitable YouTube is. Makes me glad I own stock in them.
2
My first reaction was to say no, they shouldn’t block out there yet non dangerous content. Censorship is not ok even when what is being censored is way outside the mainstream. Then I read and learned that they’re simply changing their system for recommending more videos to watch to make it less likely people, including impressionable children, will watch one simply because it pops up as the next video. That’s a reasonable and prudent step. Well done.
17
"Can youtube quiet these people?"
Probably not, considering that it would take a century to view all the videos uploaded in 2 weeks on that platform.
The question might be better phrased "How can we diminish their impact?"
Where I live this conspiracy nonsense is absolutely rampant, from Pizzagate to chem-trails to climate change and beyond into the truly bizarre and absurd. The most obvious common thread is a profound lack of education, followed closely by religious zealotry. Several times I have attempted to explain why jets leave trails in the sky, only to be told that chemistry and science is "just someone's opinion".
The religious zealots generally want so badly for prophecy of the end times to come true that they will believe any video which supports that idea, no matter how devoid of any truth it may be.
Much like Fox News, Youtube is a platform where many people seek to confirm their biases, not actual informative content. It is little wonder that invariably these are Trump supporters, many of whom get their "information" from YT because all the rest of media is Fake News.
I think there is little that YouTube can do about this, short of shutting down completely.
23
And yet some believe that Wrinkles the Clown is just an elaborate art prank.
2
@warrior ant press dude thank you for bringing this masterwork to my attention
YouTube is a wonderful source of information and beyond. But if it does not become a 'responsible citizen' in filtering out all the conspiracy theories and lies and false information introduced by malevolous minds, then we shall lose trust in it's value. The problem is, once the trust goes, it may take a very long time to recover. Dowe want that? Certainly not.
5
@manfred marcus I totally agree. When you loose trust in something, you move on and away. Much like a physician who tells you to eat raw eggs, a dozen, everyday. I found a new physician. As a healthcare provider when you abuse that trust, you can loose the respect of not just that person, but many many other people.
1
@manfred marcus I don't think it is up to YouTube to filter out all the conspiracy theories and false information, though I agree with the article that they should not be recommended so much. I do think it should take down videos that actually do harm to people, and for the rest it is up to us to decide whether we believe the videos or the many critical comments posted to rebut each one. I enjoy looking at Flat Earth videos just for the shock at the sheer audacity arising from their profound ignorance (the Dunning-Kruger Effect) and I enjoy the many creative responses to them.
And on the other hand I know that there really are conspiracies out there that affect us. Just mentioning the Pentagon Papers is sufficient proof of that.
1
@manfred marcus
Heaven forbid we lose trust in Youtube.