Jump to content


Photo

'skeptic' YouTubers


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 Sakamoto

Sakamoto

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 388 posts
  • LocationI never leave my house

Posted 14 February 2017 - 03:18 PM

There's been a surge in 'skeptic' YouTubers in the past 2 years or so, many of which are 'alt-right', and spread misinformation to a large audience. The videos mostly consist of 'fuck sjws', and blatant lies. What do you think about these channels? Should YouTube regulate them, or should they be allowed to run freely?

 

Some examples: 

  • Naked Ape
  • Sargon of Akkad
  • The Satiratician
  • Infowars?


#2 Vrakos Anthrakir

Vrakos Anthrakir

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 997 posts

Posted 14 February 2017 - 03:24 PM

I ignore them entirely, don't have a problem with them being there though.  for the most part, if you end up on one of those channels/videos, I feel like you should've already known what you're getting into though so at that point it's just each person choosing to view the content they actually want to view



#3 Sakamoto

Sakamoto

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 388 posts
  • LocationI never leave my house

Posted 14 February 2017 - 03:37 PM

I ignore them entirely, don't have a problem with them being there though.  for the most part, if you end up on one of those channels/videos, I feel like you should've already known what you're getting into though so at that point it's just each person choosing to view the content they actually want to view

I feel as just like Breitbart and Infowars did, these channels also brought Trump to the presidency by spreading false information, perhaps not as much though.



#4 Vrakos Anthrakir

Vrakos Anthrakir

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 997 posts

Posted 14 February 2017 - 03:39 PM

I feel as just like Breitbart and Infowars did, these channels also brought Trump to the presidency by spreading false information, perhaps not as much though.

do you have any statistics or something to back that up?


  • LunarDaze and TheWiz like this

#5 AFFIRMATIVE

AFFIRMATIVE

    Newbie

  • Donators
  • 634 posts

Posted 14 February 2017 - 03:41 PM

So basically right leaning propaganda channels?

 

I've heard of Alex Jones, and from what i saw, he's that one guy in the apocalypse that shouts "the end is near" in a megaphone while the population runs amok.


When you realize its not catnip

2cdesf8_th.jpg


#6 The Penguins

The Penguins

    Avid Simpsons and Penguins Fan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 559 posts
  • Website URL:http://Failed Even More
  • Skype:Fail
  • LocationError: Location not found

Posted 14 February 2017 - 03:43 PM

Did Sargon really get that bad over 6 months? I don't watch him that often now 


Posted ImageHow to make a Puddingkip

#7 HarryG

HarryG

    Crocker Free Since '83

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,241 posts
  • LocationBanishment! We could be next!

Posted 14 February 2017 - 04:24 PM

I've not heard of these guys but I've heard of the thing you're describing, and yeah, it's cringy. But CNN is guilty of a lot of extrapolating eing plain mean-spirited(not as crazy as these guys, but there are some messed up things I've seen, like the woman laughing at the Chicago torture video when she thought she was out of the shot) and sometimes straight up lying, and they're a major news network. Media lies, people lies. Nobody's entirely truthful. That's just politics, really.


  • FLAIMBOT_ and ninjakn like this

I Am The Definitive King of Red Text

b679c1ed88392a75e8676e3ca287a7e2.png


#8 Keroro1454

Keroro1454

    The Greatest of Gatsbies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • LocationArgent D'Nur

Posted 14 February 2017 - 04:40 PM

I believe your issue is that you're acting as if these "news" sources are exactly that- news sources. They aren't, and it's very easy to see the videos posted here are opinion pieces. Just a cursory scroll through the videos of your first example, Naked Ape, clearly shows videos with titles that are either disclaiming they are opinions or are worded in such a way any other interpretation would be absurd.

 

If you look to CNN, NYTimes, or Huffington Post you'll see the same polarizing opinions that are present on sources like Fox News. Likewise, in the realm of videos the Young Turks (While occasionally pretending to be a news source) would be a prime example of a opinion-based "news" source.

 

Finally, I do not think it would be appropriate for Youtube to regulate these sites, unless they actively violate freedom of speech stipulations as established in Texas v. Johnson in so much that they would be prosecute-able on a case by case basis of breaking the "fighting words" doctrine. I am well aware Youtube is within its rights as a private enterprise to regulate speech of any kind as it sees fit (And likewise, the market can go elsewhere) I think Youtube should take a high ground and allow these videos to continue as long as they are not in violation of the aformentioned doctrines. On the topic, I find Twitter and Reddit's blatant censorship of these opinions extremely gross and inappropriate, as both sites (And Youtube) should well know that the mediums of these companies has largely been monopolized, and thus their censorship is all the more gross.


  • Soma is Batman, HarryG and ninjakn like this
funny-gif-Mario-game-jump-pet1.gif
 
>tfw Someone steals your proof and gets their suggestion accepted without crediting you
 

#9 Sakamoto

Sakamoto

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 388 posts
  • LocationI never leave my house

Posted 14 February 2017 - 04:43 PM

Did Sargon really get that bad over 6 months? I don't watch him that often now 

Yeah, I used to watch him before 'alt-right' was even a term. He came out in support of Donald Trump and Putinism, and a majority of his fan base is far-right. Yet, he still calls himself a liberal.

 

do you have any statistics or something to back that up?

https://web.stanford...ch/fakenews.pdf(skip to page 26 for the info)

 

It doesn't really discuss Youtubers, but I think of them similar to these news organizations.



#10 Sakamoto

Sakamoto

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 388 posts
  • LocationI never leave my house

Posted 14 February 2017 - 04:45 PM

I believe your issue is that you're acting as if these "news" sources are exactly that- news sources. They aren't, and it's very easy to see the videos posted here are opinion pieces. Just a cursory scroll through the videos of your first example, Naked Ape, clearly shows videos with titles that are either disclaiming they are opinions or are worded in such a way any other interpretation would be absurd.

 

If you look to CNN, NYTimes, or Huffington Post you'll see the same polarizing opinions that are present on sources like Fox News.

 

People do look to them for information, although they do state that the information is their opinion, they back it up with false evidence.

 

Ignoring Huffington Post, CNN and NYTimes have a much higher accuracy to reporting whole stories than Fox News does.



#11 DrDavid52

DrDavid52

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • LocationEarth

Posted 14 February 2017 - 04:45 PM

There's been a surge in 'skeptic' YouTubers in the past 2 years or so, many of which are 'alt-right', and spread misinformation to a large audience. The videos mostly consist of 'fuck sjws', and blatant lies. What do you think about these channels? Should YouTube regulate them, or should they be allowed to run freely?
 
Some examples: 

  • Naked Ape
  • Sargon of Akkad
  • The Satiratician
  • Infowars?
Sargon of Akkad has decent social commentary, he just doesn't know much about politics and economics (which he admits). I don't know of The Satiratician but none of the others listed are alt right. I'll post more commentary tomorrow.
  • ☭SilverSpeed™☭ and Jams like this
Posted Image

#12 Soma is Batman

Soma is Batman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Website URL:http://somaisbatman.neocities.org/
  • Twitter:https://twitter.com/somaisbatman
  • Youtube:https://www.youtube.com/somaisbatman
  • LocationPresent Day, Present Time

Posted 14 February 2017 - 05:26 PM

I largely agree with the other posters that although skeptic channels misinform and delude viewers, they're not illegal and shouldn't be censored just for lying. However, this belief kind of falls apart when the content stops being harmless. The man who held Comet Ping Pong under hostage with a gun had been previously watching and reading all sorts of Pizzagate conspiracy theories, and he decided to take matters into his own hands and created a dangerous situation. After the internet conspiracies turned into legitimate threats, Reddit and Twitter barring Pizzagate discussion seems much more justified.

 

So yeah, that's my biggest worry with these internet conspiracy theories, especially as they get more popular and numerous (maybe coinciding with the rise of the alt-right, who seem to care about emotions over logic and facts). I fear that as they get pushed into the mainstream, these 'skeptics' will create real harm.


ggUOt4e.png


#13 Keroro1454

Keroro1454

    The Greatest of Gatsbies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • LocationArgent D'Nur

Posted 14 February 2017 - 05:35 PM

People do look to them for information, although they do state that the information is their opinion, they back it up with false evidence.

 

Do you have proof that their viewership is indeed comprised of individuals looking for information? Or even a majority of said viewership?

 

And I'll stick with the Naked Ape example for now, since I actually watched a bit of his video on Berkley. Where does he cite false facts? Granted, I didn't watch the entire thing, but his statements were also presented alongside screenshots of articles and whatnot, which frankly I found quite laudable in a culture of misinformation. If I'm to be totally honest, the minute or so of the video I watched was actually quite enjoyable. The editing was of a decently high quality, there were plenty of jokes, and once you ignore the "Sensationalist" attitude in addressing Democrats (Refer to my post in the "Opinions on the Alt-Right and SJWs" for clarification) it's a pretty decent conservative channel.

 

 

Ignoring Huffington Post, CNN and NYTimes have a much higher accuracy to reporting whole stories than Fox News does.

 

I really, really want proof on this statement. And you'll need some impressive statistics from a centrist data center to prove this to me, because this is about as polarized a claim about the media as you can get. CNN and NYTimes have had a host of poor reporting examples just in the past few weeks- Not acknowledging the temporary aspect of the ban being a major one, initially not even discussing where the list of countries came from. Another good example of this poor reporting ethic exhibited in Left-leaning news sources (Note: I'm not saying Fox is perfect, far from it) would be reporting on the protests following the recent raids in the California area that led to the arrests of a number of illegals, in which it was ignored until the police made a statement clarifying concretely that the raids were routine, performed en masse under President Obama, and yes, were preplanned against criminals.


  • FLAIMBOT_ likes this
funny-gif-Mario-game-jump-pet1.gif
 
>tfw Someone steals your proof and gets their suggestion accepted without crediting you
 

#14 Sakamoto

Sakamoto

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 388 posts
  • LocationI never leave my house

Posted 14 February 2017 - 05:51 PM

-snip-

http://www.politifac...ditfact/tv/cnn/

 

http://www.politifac...ditfact/tv/fox/

 

I don't have info for NYTimes, but I will look for it. FYI, I hate CNN, and how they were clearly very biased towards Hillary Clinton, how they lie. I'm just saying that Fox News is complete and utter bullshit.

 

 

Just to be clear, the question of whether these channels should be allowed or not does not reflect my opinion, it was just a question.



#15 Keroro1454

Keroro1454

    The Greatest of Gatsbies

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 968 posts
  • LocationArgent D'Nur

Posted 14 February 2017 - 06:12 PM

http://www.politifac...ditfact/tv/cnn/

 

http://www.politifac...ditfact/tv/fox/

 

I don't have info for NYTimes, but I will look for it. FYI, I hate CNN, and how they were clearly very biased towards Hillary Clinton, how they lie. I'm just saying that Fox News is complete and utter bullshit.

 

Not only is politifact a tad on the biased side in both its collection methods, but to quote the old adage, "You're comparing apples and oranges"

 

While indeed those are both "news" sources, Fox has a much, much higher concentration of opinion segments than CNN. A better comparison would be Fox and MSNBC, which coincidentally shows significantly more equal statistics. The issue of a severe lack of conservative news channels like CNN is a topic for another time.

 

EDIT: I should note I did not make this clarification beforehand, and I apologize for that


funny-gif-Mario-game-jump-pet1.gif
 
>tfw Someone steals your proof and gets their suggestion accepted without crediting you
 

#16 Alberny

Alberny

    Advanced Member

  • Premium
  • 392 posts
  • Twitter:alberny32
  • LocationAustria

Posted 14 February 2017 - 09:46 PM

Sorry no offense to anyone, but using YouTube as a source for eg.
political infos etc seems like a bad idea in the first place.
The bias is even worse than on TV/Newspaper, as there is noone who controlls what they say.
If a YouTuber does not give out reliable sources for his info you can dump him in the trash rightaway.

#17 Erik

Erik

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 563 posts
  • LocationOn your screen, obviously.

Posted 15 February 2017 - 12:45 AM

Youtube does not really seem like a reliable source for political information to be honest. Everybody has speech of freedom but if they spread nonsense, just ignore them. 

 

Also, this is not just youtube. There's a lot of fake news on Facebook as well. This goes for both sides. I see a lot of dumb conspiracy stuff about Clinton but also many useless and out of context articles about Trump, even on bigger media sites.


  • ♠Derpeh♤ likes this

SIGNATURE

 

uh


#18 Sakamoto

Sakamoto

    Advanced Member

  • Donators
  • 388 posts
  • LocationI never leave my house

Posted 15 February 2017 - 11:31 AM

Not only is politifact a tad on the biased side in both its collection methods, but to quote the old adage, "You're comparing apples and oranges"
 
While indeed those are both "news" sources, Fox has a much, much higher concentration of opinion segments than CNN. A better comparison would be Fox and MSNBC, which coincidentally shows significantly more equal statistics. The issue of a severe lack of conservative news channels like CNN is a topic for another time.
 
EDIT: I should note I did not make this clarification beforehand, and I apologize for that


But, you weren't unclear, just incorrect that CNN and NYTimes have polarizing arguments just like Fox. It is true that Fox is mostly opiniated, but people like Donald Trump and his voters take what they say as fact.

#19 Hyperqube

Hyperqube

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 658 posts

Posted 15 February 2017 - 03:08 PM

but people like Donald Trump and his voters take what they say as fact.

 

^ this. Together with

 

Sorry no offense to anyone, but using YouTube as a source for eg.political infos etc seems like a bad idea in the first place.
-- Alberny
 
the big problem that just because it's a bad idea, doesn't mean people aren't doing it ....
 
 
At the OP problem - while pure regulation might be a bit of an issue, maybe the solution would be to create a clasification (if such a thing is feasable). If biased oppinion piece channels don't get the badge "news" - perhaps people will be will be lss confused. Likewise, channels that get the "news" badge would have to watch out not to lose their way, and thus lose the badge.

  • Sakamoto likes this

#20 HarryG

HarryG

    Crocker Free Since '83

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,241 posts
  • LocationBanishment! We could be next!

Posted 15 February 2017 - 06:22 PM

But, you weren't unclear, just incorrect that CNN and NYTimes have polarizing arguments just like Fox. It is true that Fox is mostly opiniated, but people like Donald Trump and his voters take what they say as fact.

Are you implying that people don't listen to CNN and NYTimes? Because I think it's a commonly known fact that the left is largely in control of American media, given there's only one major network that leans right.


I Am The Definitive King of Red Text

b679c1ed88392a75e8676e3ca287a7e2.png





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users