tech

Fact-checkers urge YouTube to fight disinformation

36 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

Censorship up again.

6 ( +17 / -11 )

Difficult in Japan with so much fake news running around and state sponsored publications.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Can’t wait for web3 type of decentralized youtube… it will come online soon

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Who fact checks the fact checkers though?

Major vaccine ‘fact-checker’ funded by group headed by former CDC director with $1.9B in J&J stock

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/major-vaccine-fact-checker-funded-by-group-headed-by-former-cdc-director-with-1-9b-in-jj-stock/

There are so many conflicts of interest amongst them, e.g. Reuters' has the Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation on their board so they're not likely to criticise each other https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board-of-directors/james_smith

5 ( +11 / -6 )

As a professional fact checker, I believe YouTube, Google, Twitter are spreading dis information.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

They need to attack the problem based on hits or subscribers. Start with those accounts that have the most hits and validate their "facts". If they are lies, bury their content. If there are mostly true and a few misstatements, bury their content halfway.

Content with 50 subscribers and 40 hits isn't worth fact checking, but as soon as there are 1000+ subscribers and the channel covers controversial topics, that's when fact checking by disinterested 3rd parties is necessary.

Each video should have an icon for whether it has been fact checked and by whom did it.

That way, we'll see when the CCP organization makes claims that ADV channel is full of lies that there is an ulterior motive and can ignore it. Any channel that tells the truth about bad things inside China gets reported as hate speech by the CCP, then demonetized and possibly removed. This shouldn't be allowed. It isn't like Youtube can be see inside China (and soon won't be available in Hong Kong).

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

during the early outbreak, China has stopped all domestic flight from Wuhan, but didnt stop international flights going to all over the world.

↑well, this is just an example of a piece of information that would be purged by these "fact checkers".

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"Who is going to fact-check the fact checkers?"

Any organization that claims to be a fact-checker will have citations from respected feild experts, peer-reviewed journals, and other publications that have good reputations for journalistic quality and reliability.

The real problem is that the public is so badly educated that they don't understand the criteria for that, and tend to reject any publication that doesn't agree with their personal view as "biased."

Personally, I'm sick of arguing with the uneducated, so I say let them believe what they like - and if that gets them dead from drinking Ivermectin, so be it.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Digger_NickToday  09:51 am JST

There were a lot of people permanently suspended from social media, YouTube included, for spreading "fake news" about COVID and/or vaccines, only for some of the stuff they were suspended for saying turned out to be correct. For example, we were told that the lab leak theory was just conspiracy theory BS, then a few months later politicians and the media start talking more about it. The people who got kicked off Twatter and YouTube didn't get their accounts restored though.

When YouTube started there were misfits and cretins pulling fake 'suicide' pranks, acts of humiliating other people for pleasure, ego trips and propagandic lies. I remember a 'docu' bashing Muslims as if they were a race or ethnic group (not a religion) and that 'Muslims were multiplying to engulf Europe and destroy "White civilization"'. During the Trumpian nightmare years there was quite a bit of that. Then came the anti-vaxx conspiracy crap. YouTube has been doing a good job filtering out the hateful lies but there's work for them to do.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Who fact checks the fact checkers though?

Major vaccine ‘fact-checker’ funded by group headed by former CDC director with $1.9B in J&J stock

There are so many conflicts of interest amongst them, e.g. Reuters' has the Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation on their board so they're not likely to criticise each other

I have come across this custom before from members of anti-vax groups and other far right aligned groups. It is a way to dismiss any message by finding a (sometimes obscure) link to another group which would create an apparent conflict of interest. This allows them to dismiss anything they say out of hand.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

during the early outbreak, China has stopped all domestic flight from Wuhan, but didnt stop international flights going to all over the world.

↑well, this is just an example of a piece of information that would be purged by these "fact checkers".

For a "fact" to be checked, it normally needs to be controversial and highly debated. I know of no such controversy surrounding your claim, so I'm not sure why it would be checked.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

And just who are these fact checkers?

Self appointed political correctness lecturers?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

who are these "fact checkers",who is paying for their "services"?

i feel this is just more sofiscitated censorship isnt it?

there is no one in world who is absolutely right and correct-or these "fact checkers" are?

or at lest they thinks so?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

You choose what you watch on youtube.

Watch what you like and let others do the same please.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Sounds good—because I always believe what the “fact-checkers” say anyway.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Fact-checkers? Isn’t that basically the job Winston had?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Bad idea

You should be free to spout what you want under free speech. And others should be able to discern what isn’t right or correct.

When someone else in power withholds your right to speech because of another issue, you know you’ve been had.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

If you can’t question the science then it’s not science. It’s propaganda.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Hmmm. Then CNN, NBC, NYT, WAPO, et al would all be banned as well as Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and countless other democrats.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Once, the view that the Earth orbited the Sun, and the view that humanity had evolved from ape-like creatures would both have been considered misinformation.

People have a right to voice unpopular opinions and dissenting views. They should not be censored. Adults do not require state censorship, because they are not children and the state is not their parent.

Any nation with a half decent education system should prepare children to analyse what people say, especially politicians, to determine how much credence they choose to give it.

Fact-checking is censorship. Hopefully, a more distributed internet and more user options will allow people to moderate their own access to content as they wish.

Incidentally, some of the major global broadcasters produce 'documentaries' on the paranormal as if it was real, and nobody complains about misinformation. Religious groups peddle anti-scientific views and are not subject to censorship. And politicians campaigning are not subject to 'fact-checking' by an independent body. But mainstream media channels and governments are happy to scaremonger about 'misinformation' on the internet and demand censorship.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

For a "fact" to be checked, it normally needs to be controversial and highly debated. I know of no such controversy surrounding your claim, so I'm not sure why it would be checked.

The claim that China allowed international flights and stopped all other travel to/from Wuhan is disputed, by the Chinese. They will try to re-write history from today - while it is live streaming if they can get away with it. Even piddly stuff. The BIG lies become state policy. "1 positive COVID test found" when there are 10,000+ is an example.

They will use youtube's own "hate speech" review policy, claim it is anti-ethnic Chinese, and get it removed or at least demonetized. Happens to ADV Podcast all the time because they tell the truth about China. They have friends who didn't leave and still have access to illegal VPNs and travelers to get video and stories out that the CCP doesn't want repeated.

Then there are entire popular social networks that bend on knee to whatever the CCP wants. This is embarrassing that tiktok is still used by anyone outside the CCP-China mainland. It is more than just having good support for hanzi.

We were taught in school "not to believe everything you read or what's on TV." In college, we were taught not to trust anything on the internet, since it takes no effort to lie. Alas, seems most of the world didn't learn these things.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Fact-checking is censorship. Hopefully, a more distributed internet and more user options will allow people to moderate their own access to content as they wish.

It's only censorship if the original claim is then censored. An organisation that reviews controversial claims in an objective manner an provides a balanced answer is not censoring anyone.

Any nation with a half decent education system should prepare children to analyse what people say, especially politicians, to determine how much credence they choose to give it.

Most people aren't equipped to analyse scientific claims. Or a lot of other claims - they have no idea where to find the evidence. You have a huge misinformation industry in Russia pushing out memes to the gullible. They need some way to check.

A large percentage of American voters believe that the election was stolen, based on no evidence whatsoever. Facts are endangered.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The claim that China allowed international flights and stopped all other travel to/from Wuhan is disputed, by the Chinese.

I hae never heard this claim, so if it is being claimed, they aren't doing a very good job of it. After all, no one thinks that COVID-19 got to other countries by posting itself in the mail.

Flight records are a publicly available resource.

And here's the fact check you believe doesn't exist:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/trumps-flawed-china-travel-conspiracy/

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

As a professional fact checker I've checked all my facts and found them to be 100 percent accurate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Terribly ironic for this to be published here, where antivaxxer people routinely comment disinformation without any problem. A few user profiles are a collection of disinformation being tacitly approved.

Who fact checks the fact checkers though?

Irrelevant, COIs can help explain why some of the information published is false, but if you can't demonstrate the fact checking is wrong then it is still valid.

 example, we were told that the lab leak theory was just conspiracy theory BS, then a few months later politicians and the media start talking more about it

Saying that the "lab leak" has been confirmed, scientist lied about it, etc. was conspiracy theories, and still is. What never was is to conisider it a possibility, even if hugely unlikely in view of the evidence that clearly points out to a natural origin as the explanation that better fits the facts.

And just who are these fact checkers?

Never mind who they are, is what they are writing correct? then that is fine.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

There are so many conflicts of interest amongst them, e.g. Reuters' has the Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation on their board so they're not likely to criticise each other https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board-of-directors/james_smith

Yes, the entire pandemic response (and creation) is filled with conflicts of interest. I know what you meant, but it's important to correct your statement:

Pfizer has the Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation on their board so they're not likely to criticize each other.

Also, from almost a year ago:

Reuters, the world’s largest multimedia news provider, announced today the launch of a new fact-checking initiative aimed at identifying misinformation on social media, in partnership with Facebook’s Third-Party Fact-Checking Program. The newly created fact-checking unit at Reuters will verify content posted on Facebook and Instagram and identify where media is false or misleading.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Yes, the entire pandemic response (and creation) is filled with conflicts of interest

Which still do not matter if anybody can also corroborate if the corrections are valid or not, after all it is not like you have to trust people about information they only have access to. Is the fack checking correct? then it does not matter who repeats it.

Pretending the whole scientific and medical consensus is on a global conspiracy because of COIs and that is why what you believe is being censored is not a realistic proposition, specially when you fail to disprove the information you do not want to accept.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

If fact-checkers did their job correctly, half the videos from the BBC would have been deleted.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@GBR48,

Interesting post, especially the reference to religious groups, politicians, and the media. Those are perhaps the three main groups that want fact checking focused on "weirdos" and not themselves.

About this...

Fact-checking is censorship.

I'm assuming you're referring to fact checking organizations and not the idea of checking facts. I think fact checking should be something all individuals try to do. I'm thinking of various lessons in my science and statistics classes that encouraged it by posing challenges.

Science teacher's question: In a vacuum, a steel ball will fall faster than a feather. True or false?

Statistics teacher's challenge: If we ask 30 random people what their birthdays are, I bet you £5 that at least two will share the same birthday. Will you take the bet?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@albaleo -I'm assuming you're referring to fact checking organizations and not the idea of checking facts.

Yes. As adults we should not simply accept things we are told, instead making an effort to research contentious statements.

When an organisation sets itself up as an arbiter of 'facts', it is time to suspect their motives. Some may have good intentions and be doing good work. Others may have a political agenda.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What is more scary than any "misinformation" is that so-called "fact checkers" get to decide what the public gets to see. Are we all children now, unable to form an opinion? We have all been told that in the medical world, we should get a second or third opinion. That is how information flow works. And now suddenly, there is only on official opinion, enforced by big media employed "fact checkers"? That is world of countries like China.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

virusrex

Pretending the whole scientific and medical consensus is on a global conspiracy because

Please stop treading out this "whole scientific and medical consensus". It only looks like a consensus because dissident scientists and doctors are being actively stifled by Big Tech and ignore by the legacy media.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Fact Checking" is a rather dubious and very divisive term these days...

Relying upon "Statistics" reminds me of a rather famous quote... which I am sure everyone has heard before :

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

The origin of that statement is itself in dispute, but many believe it came from the American author - Mark Twain.

My point here, is, how do you trust the facts you're being fed, especially if you don't understand the data and the way it's been collected, and simply wish to accept it ?

Furthermore, who decides what is "Truth" and what is not ?

Consider an extreme example , the "Tiananmen Square" protests back in 1989, do you think the Chinese Government would have allowed any media coverage related to that, to be circulated ? (Even now, they are removing references to that event, within Hong Kong).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You should be free to spout what you want under free speech. And others should be able to discern what isn’t right or correct.

And if it contains factually inaccurate data, these private platforms have a duty to point that out and have it seen by fewer people.

Censorship is what govts do. It isn't censorship when my bogus lies about something that 95% of the experts agree to be true is marked as "untrue." It just lets anyone seeing my lies know it is untrue.

If I'm a recognized expert in the specific field and not just some idiot posting crap for hits, that's a little different.

Real fact checkers have a reputation to maintain. Since I'm interested in posting lies just to get you to engage and have more hits to my pages with advertising, that puts me and the platform allowing my crap statements at odds against the truth.

Seems like a conflict of interest to me when the platforms allowing the lies earn more money for allowing those lies. Give me independent fact checking organizations with good reputations in the field over the conflict-of-interest people every day.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

BTW, "alternative facts" is just another term for lies or uninformed statements. Take your pick. Some "fine people" have been saying the same lies early and often for decades to wear down their competition. That doesn't make any of them true.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites