
Amazon Prime video gives amateur how-to’s, conspiracy theories a stage - vo2maxer
https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazons-video-library-has-grown-big-on-amateur-content-11579792605
======
rchaud
Now that everyone and their dog appears to be offering their own streaming
service, we are right back to the "app store" days of competing on the basis
of "total number of apps". Quantity over quality.

BlackberryOS and Windows Phone tried this tactic by offering incentives for
developers to build on their platform. The result? A veritable deluge of Bible
apps, dictionaries, websites wrapped as native apps, you name it. Both BB and
Microsoft were so desperate to get the total app numbers up, they did close to
no quality control, and pretty much every garbage app went through unless they
had blatant copyright violations.

With user reviews eliminated from the big networks (I have Prime and haven't
seen any user-written reviews in the UI), all we have to go on is the all-
knowing algorithm to recommend what to watch next.

~~~
lozaning
When I was still in school Microsoft would show up like once a semester and
throw a "Build an app party". They'd give you like 90% of the code and files
need to make a really simple slot machine app (no real money, if you ran out
you tapped the get more coins button or something). It took like 15 minutes to
finish the app, and if you published your version in the MS app store they'd
give you like $600 in free MS hardware right then and there.

It was great, I did it every semester.

~~~
big_chungus
Here I am wishing they had showed up at my school. Out of curiosity, what
hardware did they give you?

------
SkyBelow
It is far smaller a stage than an open internet has given people, some of whom
use it for far worse things than either Amateur How-To's or Conspiracy
Theories. The solution should be to education society, not lock down
information flow to protect society. For kids it is a bit different, but
that's on the parents to protect their child and no amount of technology is
going to fully counteract neglectful parenting.

~~~
coldpie
> The solution should be to education society, not lock down information flow
> to protect society.

I'm not convinced the experiment we've performed over the past ~15 years is
bearing this out.

~~~
reaperducer
It's hard to say. I think it's more that society has changed and become less
tolerant.

The sorts of G-philes we used to distribute without a care over BBSes in the
80's get people arrested today.

There was an article in the local newspaper a couple of months ago about a guy
being arrested for sending someone bomb-making instructions over the internet.
We did that all the time. Even plans for how to make a floppy disk explode
inside someone's drive.

The Anarchist's Cookbook didn't cause mass terror in the 20th century. I
wonder if it's even available in libraries anymore.

~~~
jedberg
> I wonder if it's even available in libraries anymore.

I just checked my local library, and they currently have a copy on the shelves
that I could check out. It doesn't even seem to be "adults only".

I've never actually seen a physical copy before (only photocopies of some
pages that my friend asked me to "hold onto for him" and PDFs). Now you've
inspired me to check it out next time I'm at the library.

I know for sure that the PDF of the 2000 version by the Jolly Roger is still
available online though.

------
creaghpatr
>After inquiries from The Wall Street Journal, Amazon took down “Endgame” and
two other videos from Mr. Jones—all self-uploaded, according to the
company—citing violations of company policy. The company’s content policy
focuses on issues pertaining to the sexually explicit, violence and copyright
infringement, but it gives Amazon leeway to disallow anything it deems
inappropriate.

Another successful shakedown.

------
lpolovets
Netflix has some similar content, like the recent series about Goop:
[https://collider.com/the-goop-lab-review-netflix-gwyneth-
pal...](https://collider.com/the-goop-lab-review-netflix-gwyneth-paltrow/).
I'm disappointed by both companies. I can't imagine these kinds of moves drive
revenue in a meaningful way, but they have a lot of (social) downside by
legitimizing harmful views.

~~~
crazynick4
Yes, let's have Netflix and Amazon decide what is a legitimate view. If you
don't like it don't watch it. Unless these films are actively calling for
violence (I dont know if they are) I don't see what the problem is.

~~~
Apocryphon
Both private bookstores and public libraries curate their offerings
selectively. This isn't the Internet Archive, the equivalent to the Library of
Congress or another institution that stores everything.

~~~
catalogia
I don't know the details, but I believe the Internet Archive has some minimal
filtering now as well, beyond their normal DMCA compliance. For a while they
seemed to be the host of choice for extremist propaganda, ISIS videos and the
like, but from what I've heard they did something to crack down on that.

------
brenden2
To be fair, Netflix also has a bunch of conspiracy theory shows in the
"documentary" section.

~~~
jandrese
For example, "Behind the Curve" about Flat Earth Proponents.

------
colordrops
How dare someone provide an open forum and allow individuals to investigate
and use their own critical thinking skills? It goes against the principles of
our constitution.

~~~
ineedasername
You say that as though people aren't susceptible to influence form malicious
actors spouting propaganda. It's pretty clear that the current state of
affairs allows a greater degree of emotional and psychological manipulation
than has been possible in the past. That rather undercuts your idea that
rational people can bring their critical thinking skills to bear on it and cut
through it. It's simply not how human psychology works.

All of which is somewhat besides the point and off topic from this particular
issue: When Amazon Video started out, it was not an open forum-- it was not
YouTube. Part of its appeal was that it was a somewhat curated selection of
content. Watering that down with content that takes more time & mental effort
to sift through the crap isn't really a great experience or what drew people
to the platform. Believing Amazon shouldn't do that is hardly a blow against
free speech or something.

I also fail to see how curated content somehow goes against the values of the
constitution. Every news paper, book publisher, TV channel or other media
outlet, ever, has exerted editorial discretion over the content they choose to
make available. Believing that model to be superior to a "fire hose" approach
is not inherently anti-constitutional.

~~~
Supermancho
> You say that as though people aren't susceptible to influence form malicious
> actors spouting propaganda

People are sheep and require benevolent shepherds. A viewpoint that has
successfully been instituted throughout time. Who shall this aristocracy be?
Those with the most potential liability and deepest pockets? Sure. I present
you believe in Plutocracy, even if you profess not to, by your own circumspect
explanations.

Unsurprisingly, this has been par for the US since always (more or less).

~~~
ineedasername
Stop acting like there's only one extreme or the other. It's a simplistic
world view that ignores that most things exist in shades of grey. There can be
reasonable places in between extremes, and defaulting to an extreme just shows
that you lack imagination or willingness to work through hard problems.

~~~
Supermancho
> Stop acting like there's only one extreme or the other.

I have accurately described your views, which is how most of the US votes.

Hand waving in denial, is not uncommon. Good luck with that.

> It's a simplistic world view that ignores that most things exist in shades
> of grey

That's why it takes MULTIPLE steps to get to that point, which I went through.
Take another look at my post.

"Do people need to be protected from other people's speech?" Yes, to some
degree there needs to be watchers. "who gets to decide what is 'acceptable'"
The watchers are those with the most resources to watch the people.

> defaulting to an extreme just shows that you lack imagination

I present that you lack comprehension of your own viewpoint.

My "failure" is that I have not given you a solution that you find acceptable,
which meets your expectations.

------
ogre_codes
Amazon is shooting themselves in the foot here. Prime Video is already
mediocre so adding more crappy content just brings their average down.

~~~
lucasmullens
Do you compare streaming services by their average video? I just like the ones
that have the content I want to watch, extra crappy videos don't really seem
to get in the way since I never notice them.

~~~
ogre_codes
I judge services based on how difficult it is to find something entertaining
to watch. Frequently on Amazon Prime I spend more time sifting through piles
of trash than actually streaming content because aside from a small amount of
decent original content it's a mess. Between that and content which is not
included in the service but presented in search results I've pretty much given
up on the service outside unless I know exactly what I'm looking for.

------
matt_morgan
OMG this complaint is 20 years old. It is true of every new thing on the
Internet since the beginning of the Internet.

------
WheelsAtLarge
The other day I started to watch a pretty crappy documentary about the
founding fathers. I was surprised how it could be part of prime video given
its low-quality writing and filming. Now I understand, I guess Amazon is
positioning the service at just above YouTube when it comes to quality.

~~~
stallmanite
YouTube is very heterogeneous. By far the highest quality content I’ve ever
encountered has been on YouTube. You just have to know what to look for. The
lowest common denominator is always going to suck.

------
neonate
[http://archive.md/1pzuJ](http://archive.md/1pzuJ)

------
rootsudo
How does this compare to Youtube? There's no barriers there.

------
exabrial
Don't forget Netflix, who is hosting Anti-Vax shows and movies and causing
immense harm.

------
aaron695
Wait till the Wall Street Journal hears about the religious channel.

------
parliament32
Paywalled

[https://archive.is/1pzuJ](https://archive.is/1pzuJ)

------
proximitysauce
When the media and establishment are repeatedly caught misleading the public,
the result is the proliferation of conspiracy theories and a culture of
distrust. Alex Jones isn't the answer, but neither is he the main problem. The
problem is corruption in the mainstream media. That's far more pressing than
grassroots videos that while probably incorrect at least challenge people to
question what they're told.

I think there's a general and growing distrust of media that feeds into people
like Alex Jones' popularity. I don't know how many of those people take him
100% seriously vs how many are just happy listening to an outsider that's
taking shots at _known_ corruption.

~~~
yalogin
Can you give me an example of "media and establishment are repeatedly caught
misleading the public"? Are there documented cases outside of Fox news? Its a
genuine question.

I thought the rest of the main stream doesn't lie and if they realize what
they reported is wrong they retract and issue and correction/apology as
needed.

My impression is the whole "media is lying" is a narrative furthered by Fox,
right wing talk radio and more so Trump now to discredit the good institutions
and to bring their trust level down.

~~~
lend000
Remember CNN sharing debate questions to Hillary before a primary debate?

Edit: source for the downvoters [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Brazile#Sharing_debate_q...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Brazile#Sharing_debate_questions_with_Clinton_campaign)

~~~
zimpenfish
From that link, it seems to be "rogue CNN contributor" rather than CNN -
indeed, they forced her out 3 days after her leaking was revealed. Am I
missing something that indicates it was a larger CNN issue above and beyond a
single rogue contributor?

~~~
filoleg
> Am I missing something that indicates it was a larger CNN issue above and
> beyond a single rogue contributor?

No, you aren't missing anything. No one says that CNN as a whole committed a
grand conspiracy to assist Hillary with questions. However, each one of those
"rogue CNN contributors" reflects poorly on the company as a whole, and the
image of the whole media outlet as trustworthy suffers.

------
rowathray
Why not take down books too? What if Alex Jones publishes a book with the
exact same content? Why does the video get zapped, but the book doesn't?

~~~
IfOnlyYouKnew
Because these people don't read.

------
verelo
Any non-paywall link out there?

~~~
ihuman
Open the "web" link in private mode, then click the article.

~~~
verelo
I might be misunderstanding, when i open the link in private mode it behaves
the same as it does in non-private.

~~~
misterprime
On Firefox and Chrome the paywall is in full force in private mode. Not just
you.

I'm not sure if disabling javascript still works. It used to.

Also, pasting the link into archive.is used to work, but I think that hole got
plugged some months ago as well. [checking] Oh wait no, someone got it to
work. Here:

[http://archive.is/1pzuJ](http://archive.is/1pzuJ)

~~~
verelo
Excellent, thank you! I didn't realize this was possible, appreciate you
taking the time to educate me.

------
quindecagon
What is more dangerous, Alex Jones saying there are chemicals that make frogs
gay or all major news sources saying that Iraq had WMD?

~~~
pnako
Jones was not completely wrong. The chemicals don't make the frogs 'gay' but
they definitely severely mess with their sexuality

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049/)

~~~
krapp
Alex Jones didn't just say there are chemicals in the water turning the frogs
gay. Alex Jones said the government was deliberately putting chemicals into
the water as part of a chemical warfare operation to increase the homosexual
population and reduce birthrates, and that the frogs turning gay was the
proof.

It doesn't matter that he was a little bit wrong about the actual effect of
the chemicals on amphibian sexuality, he was _very_ wrong about his actual
claim, that being that gay people are bioweapons in a secret program of mass
human genocide.

~~~
filoleg
While Alex Jones was undoubtedly wrong on that one, I believe the source of
his misinformation didn't come out of nowhere. Which is exactly what the
parent comment was trying to illustrate. Take a few pieces of truth, fill the
gaps with wild imagination and emotionally charged responses, and you get Alex
Jones and his content.

Back in the 90s, US Air Force Research Laboratory was indeed working on a
halitosis bomb that would do exactly that - turn those impacted by it gay.[0]
As far as the wikipedia page goes, it seems like they didn't succeed in
producing an actual halitosis bomb (and I have zero reason to believe
otherwise, but I bet some Alex Jones supporters might disagree with me here),
however it was included on their 3 pages long proposal paper for possible
nonlethal chemical weapons. Which proves that there was some research on it
and that the intended purpose of the hypothetical "gay bomb" was to use it as
a nonlethal chemical weapon.

0\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb)

------
pjkundert
I, for one, welcome our new government overlords. Me and my family feel
completely incapable of judging the truth or falsehood of claims based on
evidence and testing hypotheses.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
I'm not saying the government is always right, but are you saying you are?
Have you tested the hypothesis that the earth is round? That we landed on the
moon? Where does your line between self-evident and requiring testing lay?

~~~
pjkundert
Admitting ignorance until proof is presented isn’t a bad state.

The problem isn’t being ignorant; it’s being certain of things that turn out
not to be true.

Unfortunately, this appears to be most of what people have been led to
believe.

