
YouTube Flagged Notre Dame Fire as Misinformation, Attached Article About 9/11 - zodiakzz
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/youtube-notre-dame-fire-livestreams
======
DoctorOetker
By producing an analogy between the Notre Dame Fire and the 9/11 attacks, a
terrorist attack is insinuated?

So the fact check technology became the conspiracy theory generator?

~~~
ErotemeObelus
No. It's just working as intended and drawing the simplest hypotheses based on
patterns.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
> drawing the simplest hypotheses based on patterns

So, you're saying that it is generating conspiracy theories?

------
mcv
Youtube's explanation is basically: "It was done by an algorithm. We don't
know how our algorithms work. Sometimes they do this. We turned them off for
this event."

~~~
DoctorOetker
"... and by the way isn't it time you give our algorithms voting rights and
jail time"

------
chewz
It works exactly as planned. Google can prove to regulators that it makes
sufficient efforts - which is enough to wash it hands. On the other hands
malfunctioning algo allows Google to make some extra advertising dollars.

------
res0nat0r
Likely directly related to this:
[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/notre-
da...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/janelytvynenko/notre-dame-hoaxes)

IE: Tons of online trolls trying to stir up false racist and xenophobic
outrage on social media for this event, thus the YouTube algos picked up on
some of this and linked the associated article.

~~~
mirimir
That did occur to me, as a possibility.

But I can't -- really _can 't_ \-- imagine how any Islamic fundamentalist
group could claim responsibility for this. What would be the point?

So if anyone _does_ claim responsibility, it's ~100% sure that they're just
trying to incite Islamophobia.

Edit: OK, not ~100% sure. But it's either that, or they're crazy. And yes, I
suppose that it's arguable that all terrorists are crazy. I still maintain
that it's an obvious possibility, however. Not at all likely, but still
obvious.

~~~
sisu2019
I am not saying islamists did this thing but are you really saying that it
doesn't make sense for them to destroy places of worship of other relgions? In
Indonesia and other places they sure think differently.

~~~
mirimir
Maybe I'm deluding myself, but Notre Dame just seems so much more than a
"place of worship".

But then, the Taliban did destroy monumental statues of Buddha in Afghanistan.
Which were about twice as old as Notre Dame. So maybe I am deluding myself :(

~~~
muckrakerz
Why would this be shocking given the recent attacks on churches and a
beheading that happened in one a few years ago?

~~~
mirimir
They're all shocking.

And OK, I take it back. Nothing is "too shocking" to be all that unlikely.

But still, wouldn't you think that a terrorist attack on Notre Dame would
involve something more like a hijacked gasoline tanker than a fire that
perhaps started in the attic?

~~~
muckrakerz
No I would expect it to follow local patterns. Like what has now happened at
St. Patricks in NY.

------
whamlastxmas
Anyone else bothered by letting YouTube determine what disinformation is?

------
bastawhiz
I can see what Google tried to do. But it's obvious that the technology failed
miserably, on a problem that likely should not have been "solved" with
automation. What if there had been a terrorist attack? Clearly these messages
would be not just incorrect, but unimaginably inappropriate. It's clearly not
ready to be used now, if it's even possible to teach a machine what 9/11
conspiracy theories are.

The team that built this should be dissolved. This was a bad call on the
engineering side, the product side, and the management side. Nothing about
this was a success.

~~~
dymk
It’s a success except when it’s not. We only see headlines when it fails.
Calling for the dissolving of this particular integrity team is ridiculous.

Mistakes will happen, the team will learn from them, and their product will
improve.

~~~
rectang
Of all the things to get angry at Google about, falling short every once in a
while at solving an incredibly difficult technical challenge is just
ludicrous.

~~~
Fins
Or maybe (because they might have some great programmers, but that's not
necessarily the same as having smart people) they are "solving" something that
isn't a technical problem in the first place with code?

