Youtube bans all anti-vaccine misinformation

[Envitro]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Bare minimum they could de-monetize controversial topics like vaccines and covid. Remove the incentive for the grifters to be there in the first place. That'd be very easy to implement.

Yes, this.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Envitro

The issue that I take with this is that these corporations, with seemingly no political motivations, get to shape the information that is distributed and consumed.

On their private property. Private platforms REQUIRE the ability to moderate the content on their sites as they see fit. To allow otherwise would render them all unusable.

Imagine if CP wasn't allowed to ban Oiler fans who are just coming around to stir the pot. Or if a site wasn't allowed to ban highly disruptive but otherwise legal speech?

Originally Posted by Envitro

Very quickly we're veering down the path of "approved truth", whether it's government or corporations telling us what that is. Everything else is "disinformation", whether they're legitimate concerns or nutty conspiracy-types screaming at the clouds.

I don't know, this is just getting too dystopian for me. The slope is becoming slipperier as we go here. I don't like it.

The power of any platform's ability to spread disinformation only comes from the people giving them that power.

YouTube's decision isn't the dystopia, it's a symptom of the actual dystopia; people delegating the formation of their beliefs to others and being vulnerable to things like confirmation bias.

The thing is that that is a human condition. It's existed for a very long time. The difference is now we have instant ways to exploit it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Bare minimum they could de-monetize controversial topics like vaccines and covid. Remove the incentive for the grifters to be there in the first place. That'd be very easy to implement.

That's an interesting idea. Not sure how far it would go; the True Believer(tm) would still be highly motivated to spread their disinformation, but maybe it would have a big enough impact.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by photon

That's an interesting idea. Not sure how far it would go; the True Believer(tm) would still be highly motivated to spread their disinformation, but maybe it would have a big enough impact.

I think it would help drastically. Maybe it's just because I'm so cynical, but I just don't buy that, other than the first wave of these people, most of the others pumping out this content really believe this crap. I bet a huge percentage and just hype jumping to make money.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think you give too much credit to people. Most people find this stuff in a fairly benign way and then the algorithm pulls them along.

Yep, YT's algorithm is strong and almost instantaneous.

Last year I watched a right wing pundit video linked to from this board and for the next week or two I had recommendations titled "Watch this Libtard get OWNED!!" Similar results happened but from the other side after watching a couple Young Turks videos linked to from here. I have little to no interest in watching political stuff on YouTube so those recommendations faded away after I didn't click on any of them, but it's easy to see how someone (of any political stripe) could just become inundated with more and more like-minded videos. You see the same thing on Twitter (at least to someone like me without an account. Not sure what it looks like if you are logged in). Click on a tweet that's pro-vaccination and then scroll down to the "other people you may like" section and you'll get more of the same, click on an anti-vax tweet and well, it's a cesspit. If you're only watching or following certain people, then the algorithm creates a bubble for you.

Anyway, to the people bemoaning YouTube's ability to censor/ban videos as they please, aren't you already ok with that premise? You're ok with them making the choice not to show pornography or videos of death, dismemberment, suicides etc, right? It would seem odd to argue that private companies should be forced to show such videos in the same way that it would be odd to argue that CTV, say, should be forced to broadcast flat earth or anti-vax documentaries. If a private company doesn't want to broadcast these things, why should we expect them to?

Suggesting that YouTube should publish every video uploaded would be the same as suggesting that a newspaper should publish absolutely every letter it receives, otherwise Censorship! Anti-Free Speech!, etc.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

I've certainly been inundated with Norm MacDonald clips in my YT feed of late. Damn algorithm!

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

I've certainly been inundated with Norm MacDonald clips in my YT feed of late. Damn algorithm!

It is a double edged sword. YouTube's recommendations are generally very interesting and make it a platform I enjoy. The most political or controversial I ever get is maybe Seth Meyers. Although for some reason every time I fall asleep to YT, I wake up to unedited cspan coverage of Trump's impeachment hearings. I don't what that is subliminally doing to me in my sleep!

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by Swift

Yep, YT's algorithm is strong and almost instantaneous.

Last year I watched a right wing pundit video linked to from this board and for the next week or two I had recommendations titled "Watch this Libtard get OWNED!!"

the algorithm is either very selectively strong/instantaneous, or just blunt and stupid. I don't watch a lot of political content but if my many years of YouTube consumption had to be put in a bucket it's likely left to centre-left. you'd think that would have some weight in future recommendations, but just like you one click on a far right video here (not even visiting YT, just playing it embedded from CP), and suddenly next video on my home page is "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS feminist snowflake with FACTS and LOGIC". it didn't even try to ease me into it with an old Jordan Peterson lecture or anything.

the only reason I can think of for it behaving this way is that engagement with that type of content is far more intense (and therefore more profitable) than my regular video habits, so it was incentivized to gamble on pushing that direction as quickly as possible.

[Winsor_Pilates]

I agree with this move but they also need to be held accountable for now trying to stop a mess they've largely created.

As others have mentioned, the algorithm methods they use are the root cause of idiots going into such deep dives on these things in the first place.
How about changing your algorithm so anyone looking up antivax videos gets a good number of science based vaccine information in their suggesting videos?

[Azure]

They are saying they will 'ban' the content because they want to focus efforts away from the real issue.

Make a new account, start searching for anti-vaxx info, and within 3-4 clicks, the algorithm will take you so far down into the rabbit hole that you'll go insane.

This is true across many controversial subjects. 13 year old girls searching for stuff on depression, and all of a sudden you are served up content on cutting and self harm.

The better solution wouldn't be to censor anything, but just not recommend the damn stuff to people. Of course, that removes their monetizing abilities, which of course they don't want.

So instead they say they'll 'ban' it.

Can you find porn on Instagram? And yet I thought they don't allow it.

[d00little]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Bare minimum they could de-monetize controversial topics like vaccines and covid. Remove the incentive for the grifters to be there in the first place. That'd be very easy to implement.

This already happened March of 2020. Youtube has a history of doing this for "sensitive events" so people don't try to capitalize off it.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/11/yo...-and-covid-19/

[Azure]

YouTube's algorithms will push whatever they deem engaging, and it appears they have figured out that wild claims, as well as hate speech and outrage peddling, can be particularly so.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...s-a-dark-side/

Anyone who thinks YouTube is doing this for any reason other than smoke and mirrors is naïve.

The way the algorithm serves up content to keep you on site, keep you engaged and keep the money flowing has long been an issue, and nothing has changed.

This is from yesterday.

Senator Richard Blumenthal said his office created an account on Instagram posing as a 13-year-old girl and followed several accounts associated with extreme dieting to research the effects of the popular social networking app.

Within a day, its recommendations were “exclusively filled” with accounts that promoted self-injury and eating disorders, the Connecticut Democrat said during a congressional hearing on Thursday, during which senators grilled Facebook over how its products may have a negative influence on the mental health of teens and children.

“Our research has shown that right now, in real-time, Instagram’s recommendations will still latch on to a person’s insecurities, a young woman’s vulnerabilities about their bodies, and drag them into dark places that glorify eating disorders and self-harm,” Blumenthal said during the session.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/...ost-immediate/

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Envitro

The issue that I take with this is that these corporations, with seemingly no political motivations, get to shape the information that is distributed and consumed.

Whether they have the right to do this or not is another debate.

But for me the concern, given the breadth of reach and the extreme power that these platforms have on a global scale, is that there is no good way to determine which information is "truth" and which is not. If you're not given the opportunity to view two sides of the same coin then you're disadvantaged as a modern human.

Very quickly we're veering down the path of "approved truth", whether it's government or corporations telling us what that is. Everything else is "disinformation", whether they're legitimate concerns or nutty conspiracy-types screaming at the clouds.

I don't know, this is just getting too dystopian for me. The slope is becoming slipperier as we go here. I don't like it.

There has never in history been more uncensored information easily available to this many people in the world.

All normal media outlets are extremely "censored", and have always been. There's a massive list of topics that just weren't covered because of various reasons.

Without the social media landscape there would never have been a #metoo, because the media has always been controlled by powerful men. The Tulsa Race riots first started to enter global public knowledge through social media because the media in the United States has always been controlled by white people.

For the first time in history if you want to know what each side of a conflict have to say on the other side of the world, you can just go to see what they have to say without a mediator. You might not find it on Google, but it's all out there. And for the first time in history, every stay at home mom can get an endless source of anti-vaccination BS delivered right to their phone.

If there's a slippery slope we've been going down, it's the one where there is no unified understanding of even what is "news" anymore.

Just because it's not on the most popular internet video platform doesn't mean the information is gone or hard to find. It just becomes more something that you have to actually look for.

Originally Posted by Azure

The best way to combat bad information is with good information.

It's not. There's studies on this. The best way to combat bad information is to stop it from spreading.

Trying to stop it with good information will only mitigate the damage, but if the people spreading the bad information are aggressive enough, no matter how much the facts are on your side, you will only be believed by something like 50% of the people.

Originally Posted by Table 5

Do we no longer believe the old phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

Yeah but no one actually ever meant it, at least not unless they were talking about their rich white male friends.

[N-E-B]

I have no problem with them doing this as long as they show why the information was deemed false. If you're going to start banning content you have to provide data and facts that back up why you're doing this.

Otherwise people will just scream about freedom, censorship, and free speech. No minds will be changed if you don't provide justification for your actions.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I have no problem with them doing this as long as they show why the information was deemed false. If you're going to start banning content you have to provide data and facts that back up why you're doing this.

Otherwise people will just scream about freedom, censorship, and free speech. No minds will be changed if you don't provide justification for your actions.

They don’t actually, because people will just scream about that anyway. People are literally protesting in front of hospitals. How smart do you think they are? And what, exactly, do you think this would do to change minds?

[Matata]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

I have no problem with them doing this as long as they show why the information was deemed false. If you're going to start banning content you have to provide data and facts that back up why you're doing this.

Otherwise people will just scream about freedom, censorship, and free speech. No minds will be changed if you don't provide justification for your actions.

Every time big tech companies have enforced censorship, it's been shoddy work and primarily done to protect the political and business relationships the company has.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They don’t actually, because people will just scream about that anyway. People are literally protesting in front of hospitals. How smart do you think they are? And what, exactly, do you think this would do to change minds?

For the most part, yeah. But I feel like providing justification would increase the chances of changing people's minds.

Also I think it's unethical to censor content in general and not provide justification as to why. Censorship isn't always a bad thing, but it has to be shown that it's being done for the right reasons. Blindly censoring things will accomplish nothing and just further aggravate the hospital protesting mouth breathers.

[TorqueDog]

Any time I click on or view a video that is totally not something I want to be inundated with (any right-wing grifter, for starters), I have to go into my YouTube history and delete the video from my viewed videos. Otherwise, my landing page will appear all good... it will be savagegeese, Linus Tech Tips, Rick Shiels Golf, and suddenly "Ben Shapiro EMBARASSES WOKE LIBERALS at college campus" or some stupid sh-t out of nowhere and it grows from there like mold.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

For the most part, yeah. But I feel like providing justification would increase the chances of changing people's minds.

Also I think it's unethical to censor content in general and not provide justification as to why. Censorship isn't always a bad thing, but it has to be shown that it's being done for the right reasons. Blindly censoring things will accomplish nothing and just further aggravate the hospital protesting mouth breathers.

Why is it less unethical to censor content without giving a reason? The reason will likely just be that it violates their T&Cs regarding misinformation related to vaccines. That's how 99% of it works on social media now. If you get banned, or reported, or something gets removed, you're just told you're in violation, but it's not really explained well from what I've seen.

You can even look here. Some posts get removed with a mod edit that says "Too far" or whatever, is it unethical for them not to explain in detail what, exactly, went too far and why? I don't think so.

I don't really think people who produce and go to upload YouTube videos spreading vaccine misinformation are going to be swayed to believe differently by a short explanation about why they're wrong. If that was all it took, they wouldn't be producing those videos in the first place.

[djsFlames]

Even though it feels like a slippery slope, this is the most effective move that could be made in the battle against misinformation. Youtube is a huge influencer with what can be uploaded and the fact that you could claim to have credentials you don't possess. The algorithm just immerses you further.

I guarantee there are anti-vax creators with merch shops capitalizing off of their following. There's more incentive there when it becomes a source of income to keep banging the drum and going further down the rabbit hole to where you've lost touch with reality, and subsequently your audience as a result. Becomes all about keeping your viewers consuming by feeding them another story, another clickbait video title.

If they can no longer make a profit off of it because they don't have the platform you'll be amazed at how quickly they move on to another "cause" to keep making content and keep the money flowing. There will be outrage, but they will eventually disengage.

It sucks to come to this because I do believe we should have that freedom to create and post on any topic, but these content creators are actively harming our progress in moving past this pandemic and desperate times call for desperate measures. So here we are.

When we no longer have people organizing insurrections and maskless unvaxxed people rallying in public to broadcast it to their base then people can have their platforms back to speak about whatever they want.