Comment by bArray | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bArray | Hacker News Reader

I think there are a few problems with this:

1. Definition of what is a conspiracy and what is not. There are some hot topics out there all the time (e.g. Trump and Russia collusion) - pointing out and not pointing out "conspiracies" is a statement within itself. You only have to think about Twitter and it's "verified accounts" hot water not so long ago [1].

2. Adding fuel to the fire - for some conspiracies the idea of covering them up makes them more real for many people. There are many posts on various social media platforms with the tag line "share this before <X> takes it down" (e.g. Facebook videos [2]).

3. Videos that debunk theories could also get thrown into this automated mess they'll undoubtedly make and will probably incur demonetization. The result of that may be less debunking videos, actually poisoning the well further.

4. Generally squashing freedom of speech means that needed discussion on a particular topic can't happen.

What I think they should do:

1. Have this as an opt-out feature which is mostly hidden, or an opt-in feature which is obvious.

2. Pick controversial topics of any kind and find for and against cases for them, allowing the user to investigate them both. Picking a side is dangerous.

3. Have smart humans go through and carefully select for and against cases - don't try to automate this as it will be gamed.

4. Don't use this information for classifying whether videos should be monetized.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com.au/twitter-clamps-down-on-ve...

[2] https://www.facebook.com/TaxationIsTheft2/videos/51317619238...

The most glaring problem is that it simply doesn't work.

The only people who take conspiracy videos seriously, are people who have already decided they don't like the truth, and either want someone to agree with them, or want someone to invent the details/logic so they don't have to.

You're not dealing with people who aren't aware of the moon landings. You're dealing with people who have already chosen, for whatever reason, not to believe it.

Have you ever won an argument about a moon hoaxer with "yes, they did", or against a flat-earther with "no, it's round"? Embedding wiki summaries into youtube is simply taking the argument that never, ever works, and automating it.

"You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into."

On the contrary, I reasoned myself into believing the moon landing was a hoax, and I have yet to be presented with acceptable evidence that contradicts my theory.

Obviously, I have stricter criteria for "evidence" than what the general public accepts, but I nevertheless consider myself a rational person with excellent reasoning behind my theory. And I am willing to consider fresh evidence, if such were presented to me.

Could you elaborate? Do you believe all moon landings were fake, or just some? What about unmanned landings?

I do believe that China's unmanned lander is real. I don't believe that the US manned landings were real.

Here is more elaboration than I had planned:

I came to the conclusion that the landings were faked by my own reasoning. I grew up believing they were real, and only changed my mind in my 20s, after learning more about cosmic rays.

Cosmic Rays weren't even on the radar for the Apollo missions; US states had only just begun banning shoe-fitting fluoroscopes in the 60s.

That was the first inkling I had that something was suspect. Later I learned about Stanley Kubrick's alleged involvement in the documentary film, "Room 237".

Every other recorded major scientific advance has been followed by more observed results in the same area. Yet the official story is that astronauts drove around in moon buggies and played golf on the moon in the 1970s. We just haven't been back because ... there's no reason to go back? Is it not funny that there was a huge reason to get to the moon in the 60s and 70s, but once we got there that reason just vanished?

No, the official story is to me simply not plausible, whereas the alternative makes a ton of sense. The US had every intention of going, but the task itself was simply too difficult. Thankfully, existing trick camera technology, as evidenced in science fiction movies of the time, made the hoax appear entirely believable (to a gullible public).

The last straw for me was around 2010, when I read one of Buzz Aldrin's accounts of the moon landing in "The Week"[0], and I thought, "wait a minute, I've heard that story before", and sure enough, went and found approximately the exact same story of the "last-minute, running out of fuel, manual take-over moon landing" in a novel by Heinlein called "Rocket Ship Galileo"[1]. I would encourage anyone interested to compare the landing story told by Aldrin with the landing story told by Heinlein and judge for themselves whether or not the official story is what actually happened in reality[2], and not just a really great (and wonderfully written, I might add) piece of sci-fi.

[0] https://theweek.com/articles/503621/last-word-eagle-landedba... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_Ship_Galileo [2] I also believe in an objective reality, where things either did or did not happen.

While I think what you say is often true, there is still room for informing people not fully into it.

When I was around 14 I got emersed into various ufo theories and all sort of allegedly "mysterious" things. This all broke down once Wikipedia came around. I went there to learn more about the things I have read, not disprove it. It just turned out that the explanations were way more reasonable in pretty much all cases.

Similarly, I often meet people that just binge watched some YouTube videos and are intrigued by then, not completely convinced.

Personally I would like if YouTube included Wikipedia articles in every video as a general service, not just focused on conspiracy theories. There is plenty of incorrectness in other videos as well.

Surely you can acknowledge that some conspiracies, including those involving high-level state actors, have occurred? Why do you pigeonhole all conspiracies in such a way?

It's a false equivalence argument used to discredit all investigative journalism. Any allegation of anything shady is instantly compared to Moon hoax and shape shifting reptile baloney.

I'll admit, I homed in on the moon hoax because that's what the screenshots in the article show.

But I am struggling to come up with any valid conspiracies which were unravelled on youtube, or disproven on wikipedia. Suffice to say youtube is not famed for its investigative journalism. That's not what nutjobs are soaking up.

I was watching a show that was profiling flat-eathers, and one lady made a comment that really stood out to me. "So I did my own research - I watched four hours of videos on youtube."

This isn't investigative journalism. This isn't classified leaks. It's monetising the gullible.

So, it happens that I have been indulging myself in watching flat earth videos on Youtube for the past few days. And I'm astonished that anybody can watch these and come to the belief that they're accurate. For example, no video explains the simple matter of how, in a "flat earth" model, seasons can occur without the sun traveling at different speeds across the sky through the year. Or how retrograde motion can be observed. These are obvious, glaring flaws.

On the other hand, I have found that there is a wealth of good information about the JFK assassination (although some whacky fringe bullshit too). In this case, I do think that the "establishment" narrative (if it's even reasonable to call the "lone nut" theory that anymore) is demonstrably false, and that Youtube provides good resources for showing it.

In other words: if you conclude, as I do, that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy but that the earth is not flat, then I think that the resources on Youtube does a good job of buttressing reasonable study on these matters.

I'm not nearly well versed enough on the JFK assassination to comment. But flat-earthers are pretty much the stereotype of what I had in mind with my original comment.

If you go into it disbelieving, you find something verging on absurdist comedy. If you go into it believing, you come out armed with theories and explanations to reinforce your belief.

What I do find interesting, is without knowing enough to form my own take on the JFK incident .. this same model also fits the experience you just described. You go in with your mind made up, and you come out with evidence. Whether you're right or wrong, you'll find exactly what you want to hear.

But to my original comment - would a wiki summary describing the "establishment narrative" have swayed you at all?

I went into the flat earth stuff absolutely ready to believe anything. I found some of the flat earthers to be surprisingly rational.

But at the end of the day, there are easy-to-observe phenomena (as I say, seasons and retrograde motion) which break their theory. And diving into the explanations of them drives the viewer much more directly into the insane and fringe elements of the group (you can confirm this yourself by searching "flat earth seasons" and comparing it to the results you get from searching simply "flat earth").

And while it's true that I already had a sense that the JFK murder was the result of a conspiracy, I wasn't certain when I started combing Youtube; I was prepared to accept evidence of any sort, pointing to any conclusion(s).

I remember finding "Rush to Judgment", a documentary-ish piece of media made just a year after the murder, and realizing how lucky I was to have a resource to find such a piece of media. Were my parents, who were just barely not yet born during this event, able to gain access to this media when they were my age? Of course not.

And then on the specifics:

I think that if there are similarly challenging facts to be found regarding the JFK assassination, on wikipedia or anywhere else, that I will be happy to accept them and change my mind. And I think that I'm fairly typical in this regard.

On the other hand, the lone-nut theory needs to overcome some basic facts that it can't explain, like the Sylvia Odio incident. And similarly, searching for explanations of this that fit into the lone-nut theory drives the viewer directly into the irrational and ad-hominem-driven portions of the available media.

Terms like "nut job" are unhelpful and even destructive. There are plenty of things that are considered common knowledge now that would have got you called a "nut job" 10 years ago except in academic circles. For instance, pointing out the fact that 90% of media is owned by six mega corporations was something that would get you labeled a conspiracy nut before. You couldn't point out the fact that maybe, just maybe desktop applications are phoning home. The response was What corporation would risk their brand for that? If you claimed that there was a trend to outsource jobs to Asia, you were paranoid. Bush and friends were making up the pretense to go to war. I called that out during the run up to the invasion and lost friends over it. And of course, the government is listening to all your phone calls. You were an absolute crackpot for thinking that.

The open internet without censorship is a good thing, and that's why all these things are common knowledge now. But these large corporations that own new media are trying to reel that back in and get you all under control again.

Sociopaths and pyschopaths exist, people. It's not like all conspiracies are of reptilian alien sort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com