The YouTube platform will include links to Wikipedia alongside controversial videos in order to discredit Conspiracy Theories and correct “misinformation.”
After videos reached top trending of the Florida Shooting exposing interviewee David Hogg as a “Crisis Actor” and accusing him of being an agent of propaganda, YouTube has proceeded on efforts to prevent such theories from going viral.
The CEO of YouTube has announced it will use the forum of Wikipedia to combat against conspiracy theories and information that is not the official narrative. This will mean censorship in a more extreme way. Truthers, Christians, and Alternative media are the target of this propaganda.
PLAY THE PODCAST EPISODE OF JIM DUKE PERSPECTIVE
In the coming months, conspiracy videos posted on YouTube will display text boxes called “information cues,” which link to Wikipedia and other third-party sources to discredit them as a hoax.
Here’s how it will work: If you search and click on a conspiracy theory video, YouTube will now link to a Wikipedia page that debunks the hoax alongside the video. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki says the feature will only include conspiracy theories right now that have “significant debate” on the platform. “Our goal is to start with a list of internet conspiracies listed on the internet where there is a lot of active discussion on YouTube,” the CEO stated.
However, Wikimedia — which hosts the Wikipedia site — released a statement saying it wasn’t given advanced notice of YouTube’s announcement.
“Neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation are part of a formal partnership with YouTube,” it said. Which makes us wonder who ordered the compliance.
YouTube told CNN the announcement was not a partnership with Wikipedia and that it’s a part of a broader effort to tackle misinformation.
This gives us reason to suspect another “conspiracy” (that’s it for this post, poof!). That this is not a cooperative effort of YouTube and Wikipedia, but some bigger controlling factor making it a mandatory effort. YouTube admits it is part of a “broader effort.” Does that give us reason to believe that a higher Elite force has stepped in to enforce its jurisdiction on these private entities?
According to Wikipedia it can also be edited by anyone, and has had its own reliability issues in the past. However, others have reported that Wikipedia do in fact have a board of editors who constantly monitor and edit its information, and in some cases one department overriding another, if “orders” to do so. Who is giving these orders? That is a question in itself.
Wikipedia acknowledges it’s not best equipped to handle breaking news events: “Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper … as a result, our processes and principles are designed to work well with the usually contemplative process of building an encyclopaedia, not sorting out the oft-conflicting and mistaken reporting common during disaster and other breaking news events.”
According to an article, the recommendation system at YouTube isn’t designed to ensure you’re informed; its main objective is to keep you consuming YouTube videos for as long as possible. Even if every conspiracy video is served up with a Wikipedia article contradicting the information that it presents, there’s no guarantee that users will choose to read it over the video they’ve already clicked on.
However, we know YouTube to have increased their monitoring procedures, using audio technology to detect information of certain buzzwords, and flag them as necessary. And have the ability to lower the rating of search words to impact its visibility. Yet some still must get passed. Though they have demonetized many conspiracy videos already.
YouTube has recently been criticized for implementing clear rules for when uploading conspiracy theory content violates its Community Guidelines. Nothing in the rules explicitly prevents creators from publishing videos featuring conspiracy theories or misleading information, but lately YouTube has been cracking down on accounts that spread hoaxes anyway. Reports tell that it already has actively increased censorship for certain material.
The move comes amid criticism that YouTube and other tech companies have allowed misinformation and conspiracy theories to spread on their platforms. Most recently, tech companies came under fire for promoting conspiracy theories about David Hogg, a student who survived a mass shooting at a Florida high school.
The top trending video on YouTube at the time indicated that Hogg was actually an “actor.” Similar theories about Hogg were trending on Facebook. These types of conspiracies often emerge after mass shootings, alleging the tragedies are a hoax and victims are paid crisis actors.
“Finding ways to counter conspiracy theories and media manipulation efforts is critical and I applaud YouTube’s acknowledgment of the problem,” said Whitney Phillips, a professor at Mercer University who studies online trolling and digital culture.
Yet, the extra policing on the forum will not only attempt to rid “fake news,” but will also squash any hope of exposing real news and information with the already biased monitoring of social media.
Facebook has partnered with fact-checking sites to tag posts as false and decide for itself as to what it considers fake or not. This is nothing less than Nazi propaganda control over its streams of information. “Fakebook” will use CNN and entities like Snopes as its watchdog. Two questionable sources that have their own issues and low opinion of conspiracy theories, and will do whatever it can to discredit them, whether true or not. Will You Tube follow in the same manner?
“[Facebook’s] approach invites speculation about smear-campaigns against people who see themselves as merely questioning mainstream narratives, and the fact-checkers can always be accused of being biased,” Brotherton said. “Taking a relatively light touch like [YouTube] might be a good way to reach people on the fence.”
We question the social media forums as it is. They have been suspected of being CIA related and funded. Google, Twitter, and Facebook all have connections with Intel and it is no wonder it is used to collect algorithms, our habits, patterns, and suspicions. These are just pbulic examples for excuses to tighten down. Perhaps these incidents are deliberately orchestrated to make their case plausible for public consumption. Of course, that is just for the “sheep.”