New Breed of Video Sites Thrives on Misinformation and Hate (reuters.com) 423
BitChute and Odysee serve up conspiracies, racism and graphic violence to millions of viewers. Taking advantage of Big Tech disinformation crackdowns and the rise of Trump, the sites reflect a new media universe -- one where COVID-19 is fake, Russia fights Nazis in Ukraine, and mass shootings are 'false flag' operations. From a report: A day after a mass shooting in Buffalo, New York last May, the video-sharing website BitChute was amplifying a far-right conspiracy theory that the massacre was a so-called false flag operation, meant to discredit gun-loving Americans. Three of the top 15 videos on the site that day blamed U.S. federal agents instead of the true culprit: a white-supremacist teenager who had vowed to "kill as many blacks as possible" before shooting 13 people, killing 10. Other popular videos uploaded by BitChute users falsely claimed COVID-19 vaccines caused cancers that "literally eat you" and spread the debunked claim that Microsoft founder Bill Gates caused a global baby-formula shortage.
BitChute has boomed as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook tighten rules to combat misinformation and hate speech. An upstart BitChute rival, Odysee, has also taken off. Both promote themselves as free-speech havens, and they're at the forefront of a fast-growing alternative media system that delivers once-fringe ideas to millions of people worldwide. Searching the two sites on major news topics plunges viewers into a labyrinth of outlandish conspiracy theories, racist abuse and graphic violence. As their viewership has surged since 2019, they have cultivated a devoted audience of mostly younger men, according to data from digital intelligence firm Similarweb.
BitChute has boomed as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook tighten rules to combat misinformation and hate speech. An upstart BitChute rival, Odysee, has also taken off. Both promote themselves as free-speech havens, and they're at the forefront of a fast-growing alternative media system that delivers once-fringe ideas to millions of people worldwide. Searching the two sites on major news topics plunges viewers into a labyrinth of outlandish conspiracy theories, racist abuse and graphic violence. As their viewership has surged since 2019, they have cultivated a devoted audience of mostly younger men, according to data from digital intelligence firm Similarweb.
old (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm old enough to remember when you could view inappropriate content on the Internet, and its existence wasn't a newsworthy event with subtle-as-a-brick hints that the reader should conclude this content must be banned by someone.
Don't like it? Don't go to it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is this bullshit leads to real world consequences.
https://www.npr.org/sections/t... [npr.org]
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/n... [pbs.org]
I’m old enough to remember when conspiracy theorists were harmless, like you’d hear on Art Bell late at night.
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm old enough to remember when slashdotters used "The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" as a mantra to attack even the very *idea* of censoring speech on the internet.
Re:old (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:old (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TODAY, we absolutely do have a pro-slavery party. That's the Republican Party.
TODAY, we absolutely have a party that, in part, wants to end integration. That's the Republican Party.
TODAY, we absolutely have a party that proudly supports neo-Nazi's and white supremacists. That's the Republican Party.
When one finds themselves calling half the country Nazi's it might be a good moment to stop typing and think deeply about their own prejudices.
Re: old (Score:4, Insightful)
It was Republicans that were tried and prosecuted for plotting to abduct and execute a governor.
Do you really want to open the door that wide? If you class the 'Wolverine Watchment' as Republicans then I can suggest a lot of extremist groups as being Democrats. Let's stick to the facts. The Wolverine Watchmen are extremist nutters who neither align themselves with Republicans not receive apologia from Republicans. Their hit-list included Republicans - even Trump was to be hanged.
What about James Hodgkinson? A man with a history of being anti-Republic to the point of obsession, including a severe dose of Trump derangement syndrome. He even volunteered on the Sanders campaign. Through that door you opened, I could apply the same logic in calling this guy a Democrat. So a Democrat went a shot a bunch of Republican Congressmen?
It was Republicans that stormed the Capitol and tried to overthrow the government on 1/6.
Sure. We'll also agree then that it was Democrats who capture city blocks in Seattle in an attempt to secede? Idiots all round - no party has a monopoly on this. However, one side seems to be more on the supply side and is receiving a more sympathetic press. Do you really think it'd be termed a 'summer of love' if Republican-aligned groups had spent a year burning and looting their way through cities? There was one notable far-right march, with one murder and little to no arson or looting, yet it's treated as if it were the worst thing ever. It was dumb, it was criminal, but it was one incident in a year of far worse rioting by the left.
It was Democrats who spent a year destroying cities? Democrats who attacked a federal courthouse?
Democrats who stormed the Supreme Court, rioting outside and banging on the doors as Kavanagh was being confirmed?
Democrats whose insurrection outside the Whitehouse led to Trump being moved to a secure bunker, which the press then mocked, where he sat safely as the terrorists attempted to burn down the nearby St. John's Church? Did you know at least 50 Secret Service agents were injured in that insurrection? Oh, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris made their appearances during this insurrection.
It was Republicans who wanted to hang the active vice president.
Would you like some examples of threats made against Trump? There are many. How about threats against elected Republicans? We may run into character limits here. The Capitol protest was dumb beyond belief. I'm glad there are prosecutions, and I wish there'd be more when left-wing groups come out to threaten the republic.
Anyway, on racism... Can you show me an example of elected Republicans stating an intention to hire or appoint based on race? Can you show me examples of elected Republicans calling for Americans to be treated differently based on race? How about groups who identify as Republican calling for separate spaces based on race? I can do the same for Democrats, but you first. I'd suggest we confine ourselves to the past decade so we don't get into historical examples that aren't representative of the contemporary mainstream (e.g. Dixiecrats, David Duke).
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
LOL! Have you been drinking? The right absolutely hates free speech!
Book bans, book burnings, and efforts to keep library books checked out so that no one can read them are just for starters. They also want to ban many kinds of speech in public schools, while compelling other speech.
Did you know that there's a Texas law that requires schools to display "In God We Trust" posters [texastribune.org] if they're donated and not paid for with public money?
They also want to force some companies to host or otherwise provide a platform for right-wing viewpoints.
Yeah, they actually want (and have sometimes achieved) compelled speech. Oh, and they want to use the full power of government to do it!
The right absolutely hates free speech. Your claims are ridiculous.
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
Both are against free speech when it goes against their narrative. That's the problem with censorship the people in power get to decide.
Free speech enabled revolutions like women's rights and anti slavery. Sure there should be limits like liable, but that should be decided by the courts not the government or god forbid large multinationals like Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
I know weird how education makes people more liberal. It must be because of brain washing and in no way is related to becoming more educated about the world we live in.
If you honestly belive that there is no brainwashing in school (or that it doesn't have an effect), then why be worried when Christians set curriculums?
Re: old (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
What they want is control over what comes into their homes.
False. They want to control what comes into YOUR home. Just like they want to control a woman's body. If they don't like it, you shouldn't be allowed to like it. If they don't want it, you can't have it either.
And yes, this is exactly what they want. Don't believe me? Look at who wants to ban books at libraries and what those books are about. They don't want their kids to see those books and so your kid shouldn't see it either.
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
Control a woman's body, no that is not what they/we want. Protect a baby's body, yes.
It wasn't about slavery, it was about State's rights.
Also they/we don't want to spend their tax dollars on pervert filth but rather education and entertainment.
I don't want my tax dollars going to any religious institution of any kind because it's a violation of the First Amendment. And yet, here we are [reuters.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Tax dollars to pay for schools? You are really grasping here. The fact is the parents pay tax and then they choose a school for their kids so why would it not get some funding?
Religious schools. It's not reaching. It's literally why James Madison vetoed several bills [millercenter.org]. Public money should in no way be used to fund religious entities of any sort because of the Separation of Church and State outlined in the First Amendment.
Churches and other religious institutions are only concerned with themselves and their adherents. They do not get involved in civil matters such as schooling with is a governmental purview.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd also like to point out that christians dont' want to control what you say do or what art you produce...
What they want is control over what comes into their homes.
https://www.ala.org/news/sites... [ala.org]
That's a broad statement. I wouldn't say the opposite it true, but I don't see how you can say that either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its okay to admit that things we thought were true, turn out to be wrong based on new evidence. There is no shame in that. We all have theories, which once tested often prove flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." --Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1841
Re: (Score:2)
>turn out to be wrong based on new evidence.
There's no "new evidence" that justifies banning hate speech or uncomfortable words. The very idea of free speech absolutism arises because uncomfortable ideas were banned previously (mainly during the Enlightenment when you had an English, American and French revolutions) which led to wars and mayhem in the streets.
Also banning the words doesn't make the ideas go away, all it does is make the speaker seek out new, more violent avenues to express their viewpoin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:old (Score:4, Insightful)
Also remember when the concept of censorship on Reddit was such a joke that they literally made it an April Fool's Joke? https://redditblog.com/2007/04... [redditblog.com]
In 2020 the admins deleted that blog post! https://archive.ph/z3LGv [archive.ph]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm old enough to remember when slashdotters used "The net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" as a mantra to attack even the very *idea* of censoring speech on the internet.
I'm old enough to remember when people on Slashdot would read articles that simply gave information about websites that did not demand that they be banned and not somehow read a demand that the website be banned into the article.
Re:old (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, but if you recall the context people were saying, it was about the government preventing people who owned servers from serving certain information to people with computers -- e.g. trying to prevent information about cryptography from being available *anywhere*.
What people here complaining about "censorship" are talking about is different: owners of particularly *popular* servers choosing not to host views they don't like. It's not that QAnon, Naziism, and COVID trutherism is banned from the *Internet*. If you're interested in that stuff you can still head over to Stormfront.
This isn't any different from what had long been the case with print journalism. Back in the 1970s, any American could subscribe to the Pyonyang Times. I know because I had a friend who did exactly that just for laughs. So it wasn't like the views of Kim Il-Sung were banned, they just that they weren't available in the most popular platforms like the New York Times.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:old (Score:4, Informative)
This isn't any different from what had long been the case with print journalism. Back in the 1970s, any American could subscribe to the Pyonyang Times. I know because I had a friend who did exactly that just for laughs. So it wasn't like the views of Kim Il-Sung were banned, they just that they weren't available in the most popular platforms like the New York Times.
Unfortunately, the equivalent Internet scenario would be impossible for one reason: The number of officially government backed ISPs in most areas is zero. Your friend was able to get his laughs because even if UPS / FedEx / etc. decided to refuse delivery of his subscription, the US Postal Service as a government backed entity could not. Therefore there was always at least one way for your friend to get the content he wanted.
The Internet does not have such a fallback. Indeed this is the reason why ISP level blocking is so frowned upon by users, why ISPs inject ads / redirects / tracking / etc., and why the government targets DNS providers and ISPs alike with their DMCA restrictions. If the private ISP is compromised, there is no public option to for people turn to, and the private ISPs have far less restrictions placed upon their actions. It's the great loophole. Get the private shareholders to collude and de facto censor something that the government cannot de jure censor themselves.
Sadly, this scheme won't just apply to the Internet. Private Schools, can also engage in this behavior. The reason why it hasn't been an issue until now is due to the public school system existing. But as we all know, there are plenty of groups calling for the destruction of the public school system, and / or it's replacement by "school choice" initiatives. The problem if these efforts were to succeed, is that the private schools could de facto censor viewpoints they (their shareholders) disagreed with. Suddenly that ban on books about gay people is perfectly legal, with no alternatives for parents to send their kids to to avoid it. That cheerleader that said cheer was "fucking stupid" on social media? Legally Expelled. Worse, the former cheerleader might get blacklisted from enrollment by every school in their area. No recourse for the parents. Mandatory prayer to the Judeo Christian God every time the bell rings? Yep, Hope you aren't an infidel. Those only scratch the surface, but the damage is clear. This line of thinking, that private corporations should be able to de facto censor whatever they want with impunity is dangerous and in the right conditions, outright harmful to society.
Re: old (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as they stop short of calling for laws banning unpopular viewpoints I see no problem. You have a right to express unpopular viewpoints; you don't have any right to have those viewpoints *respected*.
Re: (Score:3)
a bunch of people "shouting down" other people online is hardly censorship. i regularly express views that contradict the "common wisdom" and i don't give a flying fig when i get shouted down, which is very, very often. i said my piece and no armed men are going to bang my door at night, there's that, and i honestly couldn't care less about thousands or even millions of keyboard warriors having nightmares or panic attacks.
now, can my views, or for the sake of comparison lets say my "memes", compete with the
Re: (Score:2)
The liberal norms I came to know and love meant free speech (even for the ideas we hate ) and democratic representation with equal protection of the laws.
. Now, one side wants to cancel speakers and ban speech, and another side wants to undercut democracy so they get desired election results.
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, one side wants to cancel speakers and ban speech, and another side wants to undercut democracy so they get desired election results.
Except that those are not "sides", but very loud and influential minorities who are amplified out of proportion by both mainstream and alternative media, because of the attention-craving business models that media relies upon.
When you meet real people in real life, the majority is still neither trying to silence opposing opinions nor planning to undercut democracy. As soon as you enter the attention-whoring realm of "social media" it is only the voices of the fanatics on every side that get amplified.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they said "Silence is Violence"...which means you just can't win and we're all fscked.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_march
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golodomor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag
I'm old enough to remember when civic education still taught the importance of free speech.
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutes are useless talking points. There are dangers in dying in Antarctica, but the solution is not for everyone to live in death valley. Cultivating a good society is difficult, and requires constant attention and care.
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to think that.
but then I lived thru the last few years and saw how eager the dumbest among us are happy to gobble down actual, harmful info that ends up coming back to hurt us all.
its not just your own stupid belief; it goes far beyond that. look at abortion debate. the newly empowered american taliban is showing their true colors and banning things they personally find offensive, but 70% of the country does not. they are not representing anyone but a tiny extreme group and its harmful to us all.
fox news tells lie after lie and we ended up with jan-6. amongst other things.
no, we cant just trust people to tell good from bad and fact from nonfact. and because people do ACTIONS based on this misinformation and also elect people in power who will pander to that base, this causes no end of trouble to the rest of us.
telling lies from the pulpit should have consequences. they used to, even if just social. but now that does not work and the racists and dullards out there are emboldened and have no shame to show, and act upon, their ignorance.
fox news should be yanked off the air until they can clean up their act. or be sued out of existence. either way, the continual manipulation of the dumb population has to stop. we are harming ourselves while the rich collect their coins.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, the fact that you can't even think of an alternative to censorship shows that something is wrong with you. Why do you want censorship so much? I don't understand you.
Other options abound, depending on context. The supreme court says the answer to speech you don't like is more speech. There are lawsuits against outright falsehoods (Alex Jones). There are alternative modding formats like Slashdot that mods people don't but doesn't delete them. You can have communication guidelines that address the format
Re: (Score:2)
I'm old enough to remember when "civics" was actually something taught in schools.
Listening to many of the youth today (younger than me at least), it appears they stopped teaching this or taught even LESS than I was....when I hear them talking about govt or complaining about things.
They really have no fucking idea how things in the US are set up or why....sad really.
Great examples! (Score:3, Insightful)
> The problem is this bullshit leads to real world consequences.
And your example "real world consequences" are an idiot who shot a wall and a computer, hurting no one, and a guy who got sued for defamation and now has to pay those people tons of money? Yes, those are clearly worth handing out hegemony over what people are allowed to say online. I'm certain that bad people would never use that power for malicious ends, or lie to start wars, or do anything bad at all.
All I ask is that you give me total p
The Narcissist's Prayer (Score:5, Insightful)
And your example "real world consequences" are an idiot who shot a wall and a computer, hurting no one
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad. }- You are here
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
You made it to the second line.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but you can't stop it. the censorship approaches are just basically sweeping the problem under the hug, hopping for the best and then getting shocked when a 100+ murder spree happens.
The only way to combat this is to actually see the narrative, understand how they're actually convincing people and dismantle it, and you're not doing it if it's happening on heavily encrypted channels.
Re: old (Score:3)
Of course it leads to real world consequences. The question is if banning it from mainstream services will help.
You do not remember correctly, by the way. In the good old days when they only had to be censored from one tube (the cathode ray tube), conspiracy theories still did plenty of damage. Probably even more than today.
Censorship gives conspiracy theories a nutrient they're otherwise constrained by: credibility. "Why would they suppress it if they weren't afraid of the truth?".
They get to hold the beli
Re: (Score:3)
...meanwhile
https://www.rollingstone.com/p... [rollingstone.com]
This trove of documents, separate from the stash of materials seized by the FBI earlier this month, was reviewed by archivists tasked with storing and cataloging materials from the Trump presidency in January. The trove of documents was not made available to federal investigators until after a series of negotiations with Trump’s legal team.
In the letter, written by archivist Debra Wall, the Archives outlined that in their review of the recovered materials
Re: old (Score:2)
The article never suggests anything should be banned, and that wasn't my reaction to it, either.
Like you said, I don't like it, and I won't go to it -- and nothing further. But I didn't know about these sites and their tendency toward misinformation until I read this article, so in that sense it was legitimately helpful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What backwoods shortwave/AM radio were you listening to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to weigh in on what to do with the fact that a state of information warfare does exist, just saying- don't pretend like it's the same as sites that collect "inappropriate" content.
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
You are, then, old enough to remember the Internet was accessible by single-digit percentage of the population, most of which had brains instead of a box full of sawdust.
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm old enough to remember when you could view inappropriate content on the Internet, and its existence wasn't a newsworthy event with subtle-as-a-brick hints that the reader should conclude this content must be banned by someone.
Don't like it? Don't go to it.
I'm old enough to remember when conservatives in the US were about conservative values: family, freedom, liberty and religion. Nowadays that political leaning has been hijacked by a brand of populism that has become a threat for democracy and the rule of law. Right-wing commentators and other influencers openly spread likes and conspiracy theories, under the guise of "freedom of speech". Having learned what works from social media algorithms, they propagate increasingly provocative content intent to emotionalize and agitate their clientele (and sell plenty of T-shirts, caps and coffee mugs in the process). Not letting any crisis go to waste (immigration, refugees, Covid-19, Ukraine war), anything is always converted into some underhanded plot by "the establishment" to "take control of your freedoms". This has fostered the unprecedented mistrust of institutions and democracy itself, resulting in an almost-coup by one of their "great leaders": a business opportunist and conman turned president. This has lead to a number of violent attacks including murders perpetrated by a few gullible fools who were dragged to far into this nonsensical rabbit hole. But the number of gullible fools seems to be ever rising as the few voices of reason are extinguished and branded as "traitors". I don't know where it will all lead up to, but history has shown us that it leads to the darkest places when the populists and agitators take control.
Re:old (Score:5, Insightful)
However, you subtly draw a false equivalence which unfortunately discredits most of your argument. If somebody is protesting the police murdering minorities and we don't like their methods, it is possible to both put an end to the violent protest *and* also put an end to police murdering minorities. Neither of those are desirable.
When the goal of violence is to overthrow our democracy, we *can't* both put an end to the violence and also satisfy the criminals by getting rid of our democratic system of government.
If you don't agree that the grievances of the black live matters protesters are a hundred orders of magnitude more legitimate than the grievances of big lie conspiracy theorists, there isn't much to talk about. Comparing the two is like saying that Mother Theresa was imperfect and therefore she is more culpable than Satan for everything wrong in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how other countries manage without roided up wannabe special forces types who are convinced the public is the enemy and have pretty much license from the supreme court to execute with little recourse.
Clearly America is unique and can have only the most violent of military style responses because America fuck yeah.
The trouble is that until you can accept that America isn't the best at literally everything, it will be impossible to advocate for improvements, because you cannot recognise where America
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll address a couple of those.
>Has anyone attempted to commit acts of crime or terrorism because of something they heard on Coast to Coast AM back in the day?
No idea, but on the other hand you're comparing one outlet in one kind of media with all discussion on one particular topic across all media. A better question would be, "has anyone attempted to commit acts of crime or terrorism because of something they heard on the radio?" or even better "because of something they heard on this
Re: (Score:3)
What is wrong with you nutters? Anthony Fauci is 81 years old. He's retiring.
Re: (Score:3)
That's retirement for an academic. Both of my parents and my mother's husband who are slightly younger than Fauci, are "retired". Doesn't stop them from doing contract work , giving the occasional lecture, stints for doctors without borders, etc.
this is not new (Score:5, Interesting)
Essentially, news outlets are businesses, and the goal of business is to make money. They figured out they could make lots and lots of money by picking a base (conservatives, liberals, whites, whatever, etc) and tailoring stories to get that base really excited and angry. It's an excellent book, worth the read.
Fox was the creator of it, but they soon all jumped on this profitable model. Both Fox News and MSNBC have dodged law suits by claiming they are "opinion" or entertainment and not news. https://factcheck.thedispatch.... [thedispatch.com]
wheeee an entire website of (Score:2)
The federal government can't touch this (Score:2)
Nor should they. That would *actually* be a violation of freedom of speech, not "someone was mean to me on twitter so shut it down".
The private sector though? Don't go, don't host, boycott, pressure advertisers.. all fair game imo. That's called protesting.
Almost everyone protests things they don't like in some way.
Hum (Score:2)
"It's Afraid" (Score:2, Insightful)
"Intolerance, Misinformation, and Hate"
Oh Noes!
Ahh, you revolutionaries. You soldiers of The Woke. Your holy quest to make all One With The Body is failing.
For years, all we heard was "If you don't like it, build your own places". So... they did. THEN you mocked them and said "Pfft, no one will want to use your silly sites". People flooded in, slowly at first, and then in significant numbers. NOW, you're going "Oh no, look at all the people using these sites! We have to DO something!"
You're not going to sil
Re: (Score:2)
Nailed it.
Re:"It's Afraid" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Oh no, look at all the people using these sites! We have to DO something!"
Except that you're projecting "We have to Do something!" onto this. The article didn't say that. Not to mention that doing something does not automatically mean censorship. Educating people so that they don't fall so easily for lies is also doing something. If you're confused and think that's somehow censorship, that's your problem.
Are they truly free, and will they last? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder:
1) How long will these sites stay up, and
2) Are these sites truly free, or are they solely for whackjob conspiracies?
It will be fascinating to see what happens to these sites in the near future. Websites like The Daily Stormer (a white supremist site) found that even the fabric of the internet, such as DNS providers and CDNs, were putting up roadblocks to their content. Will that happen here?
As I understand it, supposed "free speech" sites such as Truth Social will take down anti-trump material, so they are just extremist sites in disguise. Are these sites just like that, or can I post a nice moderate video about masks, vaccines, and the origin of Covid without being taken down?
Re: (Score:2)
Makes perfect sense. (Score:2)
I don't object to people making a profit off of the hatred of others, or to them sowing the seeds of violence and paranoia. Good for them - they tapped into a market, and can reap the rewards. I do object to those that lie to themselves about their motives. They're not protectors of free speech, they're simple garden variety opportunists. I trust that in their inner thoughts they know this.
Re: Makes perfect sense. (Score:2)
It will solve itself (Score:2)
If it is as popular as the hype in TFA says, capitalism will soon move in and bury all the content under ads and paywalls.
They're fighting for a small piece of pie. (Score:2)
These sites are built specifically to host the most controversial of content which means they are really only going to at max capture 10% of the market.
BitChute, Odysee, Cozy can and will capture a loyal audience, maybe enough to be profitable but it will always be political and always be controversial and none of them will come close to a fraction of the views YouTube or TikTok get per day because the "normies" have no reason to put that content on these sites and are even discouraged because who wants the
Monetizing hate... (Score:2)
The truly frightening thing about these sites is that their owners, like Fox News, are completely aware that the misinformation they serve is completely false but it is easier to generate "hate" clicks than "like" clicks so they have chosen the easier route.
Scratch a hate site and your find a failed media property developer. Do you think Fox News has a choice? Do you think that Alex Jones could build an honest media company?
All I hear is ... (Score:2)
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeee they haz their own platforms now?!?! We can't control them!?!?! Reeeeeeeeeeeeee
Never mind that Twitter has been exposed for colluding with the gov't to suppress information, not misinformation. They've violated constitutional rights. [youtube.com]
Fuck them and fuck censorship.
I also have an Odysee account (Score:3)
Basically, on Odysee, you find what you search for. I get there tech and science videos. Veritasium is there for example. But if you type random stuff in the search engine you will get weird stuff indeed. Like lots of vulgarity and esoteric bull.
But type something stupid in the youtube search engine and you will also find pseudoscience and esoteric crap. I ever still see a video of a French naturopath teaching how to wash the labia and clitoris of babies to lower their fever.
Re:There are literally ZDF Nazis in Ukraine (Score:4, Interesting)
But Russia isn't fighting them, nor are they there to fight them. That's just a Russian propaganda excuse.
It's like saying the Taliban was fighting Nazis in Afghanistan because there are Nazi groups in the US (even some members of the military). While technically true, it's at best misrepresenting the situation and at worst just a flat out lie.
Re: (Score:2)
"But Russia isn't fighting them, nor are they there to fight them."
Says you and that is why free speech is so important. Even if you were actually there you wouldn't know the truth and I highly doubt you are. First because perspective changes 'what happened' from one individual to the next, second because memory is faulty and lastly because it mostly depends on motivation.
The news and information sources you trust have no magic wand with which to divine the truth. Historical 'truth' is even worse. What are
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, Putin has given several changing excuses for his invasion, basically none of them are to be trusted. The issue here isn't "free speech" it's propaganda being spread as if it's just free speech. When people are overwhelmed with one point of view, they can't form a subjective opinion as easily and it's less a game of truth telephone, more just someone lying in their ear.
Re: (Score:2)
"When people are overwhelmed with one point of view, they can't form a subjective opinion as easily and it's less a game of truth telephone, more just someone lying in their ear."
Exactly. That is what happens when you censor the other guys claim as 'propaganda', 'misinformation', etc. On an open platform without censorship you have no just two sides presented but MANY sides. It is important to remember also that historically there are no shortage of instances where the current popular notion of the 'truth'
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think is fighting for Ukraine? The cast of Lost?
The Ukranian people. Who else would they be fighting?
In fact primarily the military forces fighting Russia are ZDF.
This is a lie. If you have reputable evidence supporting it, post it.
Re: (Score:2)
"The fact is that in Ukraine active soldiers the Russians are fighting are wearing Nazi imagery fully knowing what that is."
That's a fact, is it?
Re: Yes, yes they are (Score:2)
Maybe not so much neo nazis, but there are plenty of gang affiliated members in the US military. MS-13 and such. I remember the photos of gang tags being spraypainted by gang affiliated US service members in Afghanistan.
Re:There are literally ZDF Nazis in Ukraine (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First... there is no shortage of BS on those sites but then there is still plenty of BS on the platforms censoring as well, they only cancel the misinformation which conflicts with their political leanings. The truth falls somewhere between and gets buried in the nonsense on these free speech platforms and censored on the big tech platforms.
In addition to your point regarding Ukraine the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine programs cells to produce copious amounts of the free spike protein, it has been shown this protein
Re: (Score:3)
The audience of a peer-reviewed journal is, well, peers, and there's an assumed base of knowledge of the readers so many things that are well known in the target academic circles are left out. Otherwis
Re: (Score:2)
Nazis in Ukraine with a jewish president. Sure, makes perfect sense.
Re: There are literally ZDF Nazis in Ukraine (Score:2)
The Russian army also has neo-nazis in it, and Russian society has the highest number of neo-nazis. Basically Putin was pot kettle black with his "nazi" justification for invading the Ukrane.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fixed it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is trial by combat (which is what is happening in Ukraine).
Not really - the alternative is fascism such as what the US Republican party is pushing. What's happening in Ukraine is an invasion, not a political coup
Re: (Score:3)
But if you want to stay alive maybe tell them voting doesn't exist anymore so they don't bother.
You may be onto something, maybe spread a theory that voting booths are carcinogenic irradiation chambers or that ballots are coated in mind control nanobots? We need "too tinfoiled to vote" to balance out "too woke to vote!"
(But more seriously, this is the result of a massive public education failure. We need to teach kinds the concept of adversarial disinformation and how to spot and disprove it)
Re: (Score:2)
(But more seriously, this is the result of a massive public education failure. We need to teach kinds the concept of adversarial disinformation and how to spot and disprove it)
Unfortunately, doing so requires a functional education system, which the American Right has had in the budgetary crosshairs for about 40 years now. They know that the less educated the populace is, the more likely they are to fall for their horseshit. This is then reinforced with denigrating labels like "intellectuals" and "liberal colleges" and such, and ultimately ends in today's war on facts and war on science.
We fix education, and many of these problems go away on their own. So that clearly can't ha
Re: (Score:3)
and citizens united where donations equate to free speech: https://www.brennancenter.org/... [brennancenter.org]
This is the complete disenfranchisement of the citizenry via judicial fiat. Our rights are gone, they likely won’t come back. We now live in what Sheld
Grow up, if you don't like it, find a new platform (Score:5, Insightful)
Outrage over free speech platforms? Really? I remember a time when the best way to combat a bad idea was with... a better idea. Not censorship, name calling (racist! hate!) and the politicization of everything.
Grow up. If you don't like what's on their platform, don't watch.
https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com] Look, if people want to behave like assholes in a bar, that establishment has legal rights to tell them to go somewhere else. And yes, assholes who want to drink in front of an audience will likely go to other bars where their assholery is tolerated or even celebrated.
Is this newsworthy?..eh, not really by my standards, but let's stop pretending this is politics.
Outright lies are not "someone having a differing view" It's false arguments made in bad faith and actually quite dangerous. Maybe you're intelligent enough to think Hillary Clinton isn't part of secret satan worshipping cabal trying to eat babies, but that gunman that went after Comet Ping Pong Pizza wasn't. Maybe you're smart enough to realize Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, but those January 6th criminals weren't and people died. Hopefully you're smart enough to know that Sandy Hook was a real event, but it's quite shitty that families had to lose their children to a deranged gunman and THEN receive death threats because Alex Jones and other fringe figures pushed a narrative about false flags and crisis actors. So misinformation can be deadly and is worth being taken seriously.
Free speech is a gov concept, not a private establishment concept. Facebook and Google have no obligation to provide you a platform, especially if you use it to make clearly and obviously false statements or push hate speech.
If you want to act like a Klansman, that's your legal right, but fuck off with the persecution complex. You're not being bullied when people kick you off their private platforms because you want to say racist and hateful things. You're not a victim. You're just being told by polite society you're an asshole. So, please grow up, sir.
If you don't like being kicked out of digital establishments, either stop whatever behavior is getting you kicked out or GROW UP and find an establishment that suits you. You're not a victim. You're not a rebel fighting for the truth.
Free speech works both ways. You have a legal right to not get arrested for racist shit posts and misinformation. I have the legal right to call out bullshit and tell you that you're an asshole. Neither of us are owed a platform for either activity.
Then by your logic, invite me to your house (Score:3)
Don't mix up rules or amendments to rules with principles. You guys constantly do that shit. Free speech isn't just a law it can be a way of life for a society. The more a society follows it the more free speech thrives. That is outside any law or regulation. It is far more important in my opinion.
Do YOU owe me a platform? If I want to act like a jerk in your place of business, do you not have the right to tell me to leave? What about your home? Can I just insult your family in the name of "free speech?" Would you carefully hear me out until I finished and respond with more speech?...or would you tell me to get the fuck out of your home, if not threaten mild violence or call the cops? I wouldn't tolerate you mouthing off to me in my own home and I seriously doubt you would in yours
The outcom
The truth is always a defense in libel (Score:3)
There's a couple of things to disentangle in your ideas: 1) There's a distinct philosophical conception of freedom of speech as a universal human right separate from the freedom of mere criticism of the government. 2) It's true that the 1st amendment applies to the latter, but it's spirit is represented in the former.
As an example, what would you think of a chemical company suing environmental activists for defamation for publicizing the effects of a chemical spill? They're not being censored by the government, but the company is also being punitive it's lawsuit, and may in fact have the law on their side. But this would obviously violate the spirit of freedom of speech, right? What kind of society would tolerate shutting down speech which warns about the effects of a chemical spill?
That's why this progressive idea of "well the 1st amendment only applies to the government" is ludicrous.
I can't even tell if you're trolling. If a chemical company sued someone for publishing facts about a spill, the law IS NOT ON THEIR SIDE!!!! Where did you even get that example? The burden of proof is very high in libel cases. They'd lose a ton of money if they tried to silence activists for publishing facts. They could threaten to sue, but would know that if it went to court, they'd lose and there would be a huge payout.
Look, what most folks on slashdot say when they champion "Freedom of Speech"
Re:Oh no, it's content we don't agree with! (Score:5, Informative)
I remember a time when the best way to combat a bad idea was with... a better idea.
Actually, that time never existed. We had the same problem about a century ago when it was called yellow journalism and it resulted in the nativist Known-Nothing party who also believe absurd conspiracies. History has repeated itself.
What changed? Regulations were put in place to keep bad actors in line.
Why did they regulations fail? They didn't fail, they were discarded with the help of Regan during his administration, mostly masterminded by Newt Gingrich.
I remember a time when the best way to combat a bad idea was with... a better idea.
Tell me, how do you dissuade someone from believing a conspiracy theory when all evidence to the contrary is merely more evidence of the depth of the imagined conspiracy? You cannot dissuade the illogically driven by using a logical argument.
name calling (racist! hate!)
Stop doing and saying racist and hateful things and you would be surprised that people will stop saying you are those things.
Re: (Score:3)
Tell me, how do you dissuade someone from believing a conspiracy theory when all evidence to the contrary is merely more evidence of the depth of the imagined conspiracy? You cannot dissuade the illogically driven by using a logical argument.
The best way to deprogram true believers is to give them something else to spend their time on.
The opposite of this would be pushing people to sites run exclusively by like minded people which is basically the most destructive thing one could possibly do.
Re: (Score:3)
You think you are smarter than the average bear and that people not as smart as you believe yourself to be
That is a brash interpretation as I wrote, "people prone to believing conspiracy theories," without any mention of intelligence because that's merely one possible factor.
"Some researchers suggest that conspiracist ideation—belief in conspiracy theories—may be psychologically harmful or pathological,[17][18] and that it is correlated with lower analytical thinking, low intelligence, psychological projection, paranoia, and Machiavellianism.[19] " - Wikipedia
There is plenty of room for intelligent
Re: (Score:3)
In my opinion, companies should not be allowed to dabble in politics. They shouldn't be allowed to publicly take political positions or endorse a candidate.Twitter, Fox, Gab or MSNBC should not be allowed to officially take any political position, [...] Politics is for people. Companies are not people
I agree with this. Corporate "political contributions" and lobbying need to be done away with because it's just legalized bribery and veiled coercion. Republicans doing away with the FCC's fairness doctrine is exactly what lead to the current situation.
to deny service based on political ideas or to make employment decision based on political ideas.
I disagree with this part because some political ideologies are absolutely vile. Nobody (employee or otherwise) should be forced to make nice with Neo-Nazis.
Re: (Score:3)
YouTube is universally hated due to partisanship (e.g., banning Steven Crowder, Bongino, etc.)
When people violate the ToS, they get the boot. Follow the rules and you don't get the boot. It's not complicated and yet idiots you admire all got the boot.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, one of the biggest sites on the internet is "Universally hated". Some one needs to take a moment to consider that their views are not as mainstream as they think.
Re: (Score:2)
By "universally hated" he means by people who want to see BitChute type-videos.
For the "I'm old enough to remember . . ." crowd: People on SomethingAwful are complaining that AOL keyword "tubgirl" does not give the results they expect, and so now they know what it is like to be a minority.
Re: (Score:2)
There's quite a lot of circumstantial evidence for Russian collusion. If Trump supports had ten percent as much evidence against any democrat they'd chase it forever. And they are - they're chasing folks with a lot less than that.