
YouTube will add information from Wikipedia to videos about conspiracies - coloneltcb
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/13/17117344/youtube-information-cues-conspiracy-theories-susan-wojcicki-sxsw
======
sametmax
Why just conspiracies ? Why not cults ? Political speeches ? Nutrition ?
Science ?

And who decide what's a conspiracy ?

After all, we were regarded as paranoid lunatics wearing tinfoil hats about
the NSA surveillance, until PRISM came out and it became obvious we weren't.

~~~
mirimir
Before Bamford, there was little in public about the NSA. ECHELON was total
conspiracy theory.

So is the Israeli attack on USS Liberty during the Six-Day War still a
conspiracy theory? I guess not, because there's a Wikipedia page. But it was
denied for many years.

~~~
MichaelGG
Even worse, Israeli false flag bombings in Egypt. They attempted to frame the
Muslim Brotherhood. This was just a couple years after Israel got statehood.
They denied it until 2000. "Lavon Affair" if you want to look it up.

USS Liberty, Israel continues to deny they did it intentionally and that there
was any pressure to cover up.

~~~
mirimir
I used USS Liberty because it's arguably no longer conspiracy theory, but
still more controversial than NSA snooping.

But alleged activities of Israelis during the early years? That remains highly
controversial. I do see a Wikipedia article about Irgun (Zionists) bombing the
King David Hotel, however.

------
flyingfences
I don't like it.

There are some absolute lunatics posting their content out there, but that
will always be the case. I don't think it's a problem that really needs
solving. Even if it was, I don't think that this is a solution. If you are too
quick to counter a statement, people may suspect that you have ulterior
motives. If videos come along with these "corrections" many viewers will see
that as proof that they're right and that the "mainstream" is trying to cover
something up.

A video is a creative production. The creator makes it in a certain way for a
certain reason. When the publisher interjects, tries to mold and reshape the
content, provides their own commentary with it, that restricts the creator's
artistic freedom over their content.

I don't expect that this pseudo-censorship (that's what it is - they're saying
"we don't think your content is right, so we'll be giving your viewers what we
think is right) will be applied neutrally, either. There are nutcases in all
ideological directions, but I have a solid suspicion that these annotations
will only be applied to those that are not in line with the "politically
correct" zeitgeist.

Of course, YouTube is well within their rights to do whatever they want with
their platform. This isn't at all an uncharacteristic development for them,
either. They've consistently demonstrated that their only interest is money;
they don't care for the small creators - or really even the viewers - all that
much. If this is what keeps the advertisers happy then it's only the logical
step for them.

I just don't like it.

~~~
skybrian
This is not censorship. It's another form of "people interested in X might
also be interested in Y". It's something platforms do all the time.

~~~
lactau
More like "people interested in X are wrong".

~~~
wybiral
But they're also in the business of responding to search with facts.

YouTube is a strange platform in that respect, but if someone searching for
the moon landing gets a conspiracy video in the results because it's popular I
don't see anything wrong with YouTube including a snippet of verified
information that relates to the query.

------
bArray
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...](https://www.businessinsider.com.au/twitter-clamps-down-on-verified-
accounts-2017-11?r=US&IR=T)

[2]
[https://www.facebook.com/TaxationIsTheft2/videos/51317619238...](https://www.facebook.com/TaxationIsTheft2/videos/513176192385963/)

~~~
soneil
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."

~~~
jMyles
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?

~~~
soneil
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.

~~~
jMyles
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.

~~~
soneil
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?

~~~
jMyles
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.

------
jMyles
I don't agree with comments which assert that proper, well-sourced, sober
information can't change minds among people seeking videos about fringe
topics.

I also think that Wikipedia is a great resource for exactly this use case,
especially where a small number of easily observable facts can overturn the
thrust of the disinformation (think flat earth or anti-vax).

However, in some cases, it might not be as good a resource for this purpose.
For example, here's the opening sentence in the article about Lee Harvey
Oswald:

> Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American
> former Marine and Marxist who assassinated United States President John F.
> Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

Of course Oswald enjoyed no trial, and the evidence against him is very
flimsy. I (and I think many Americans who've studied the topic) don't think
there's enough evidence against him to make such a brash declaration.

So, in this case (and I suspect, some others), Wikipedia serves to add bias
rather than subtract it. I think that a sober, reasonable article on Oswald
will offer a more nuanced and more factually-driven article.

I think it's especially important in these politically acrimonious times to
investigate the Kennedy assassination, and the obvious conclusion from the
evidence is that actors within our government executed a chief executive.
Let's not misdirect people of a younger generation who try to study this
topic.

~~~
cityofdelusion
Other articles on Wikipedia concerning the assassination go quite heavily into
the conspiracy theory side (and there are dozens of them). I'd find it odd for
someone to only read the Lee Harvey Oswald article lead and make their
conclusions off of that.

Google will clearly be able to influence bias depending on what article they
link to.

~~~
jMyles
Yeah, the point in your first paragraph is part of what I was trying to point
out. Even within Wikipedia, there is odd inconsistency regarding this topic.

> Google will clearly be able to influence bias depending on what article they
> link to.

...and yeah, that's really the thing. How do you decide to which article to
link given a particular topic or meta-topic? It's a tough challenge.

------
UenoHDTV80
Adding a Wikipedia box won't make Alex Jones viewers changr their mind about
gay frogs, and could play into his victim complex. If they want to get
serious, change the algorithm so it won't reward people like jones. That's the
problem. You watch one dumb video, let it autoplay more, and next you know
you're in a rabbithole of crazy. One night i fell asleep watching a vegetarian
cooking show, i wake up and youtubes recommending some raw food nutcase
telling me why cooked food is poison and how vaccines cause autism (true
story)

~~~
whatshisface
Ironically, the Wikipedia link related to "cooked food is poison" might
actually support it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_glycation_end-
product](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_glycation_end-product)

~~~
ipsum2
I don't see that as the case:

> This article may present fringe theories, without giving appropriate weight
> to the mainstream view, and explaining the responses to the fringe theories

> A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with
> its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content
> policies, particularly neutral point of view.

------
narrator
If there is never any reason to not believe the official narrative on every
event then why not just censor any evidence to the contrary? This seems to be
the direction we are going.

There's a bit of doublethink here though. Does propaganda work? Well of course
it doesn't because the truth will always come out because the news wants
viewers and thus the official story is never propaganda! But, wait.. These
conspiracy theory videos made by some random dude in his bedroom are
convincing some people of things that are apparently not true! How did they do
that if propaganda doesn't work? Explanations about Russian troll bots with
magical mystery deception tactics and various handwaving ensues...

So does propaganda work? If not then we don't have to worry about fake news.
If it does, then how do we know the real news isn't propaganda? What empowers
propaganda more than anything? Lack of criticism.

~~~
colordrops
There is a serious blind spot most people have, or at least publicly act like
they have to avoid ostracism, when it comes to challenging the mainstream
narrative. Thank you for pointing it out directly. Everyone else is dancing
around the gorilla in the room.

------
EvangelistBilly
Won't this just take the battleground about what is "fact" or not to
Wikipedia?

If someone was trying to discredit say, Obama, and saw "Barrack Obama was born
in the United States - according to Wikipedia" surely they'd rush there and
try to sneak conspiracy theories past the moderators.

So what happens then, Wiki has to lock down more and more pages, or
effectively only allow approved edits to topics people are trying to shill
over.

That happens, and it's no longer the crowd-sourced/accepted truth, it's
Wikipedia moderators truth.

~~~
cooper12
When pages are locked, they're not limited to only admins (who I'm assuming
you are referring to by "moderators"; otherwise, any user can undo an edit,
and it doesn't require an account). There are several levels of page
protection: [0]

* _Pending changes protection_ : Anyone can edit, but edits must first be reviewed before becoming visible. Autoconfirmed [1] users have their edits go through right away, while other edits have to be approved by a pending changes reviewer. The criteria for reviewing edits basically boils down to "anything that is not vandalism" is reviewed and then it's treated like a normal edit that can be contested by other users. In effect it reduces the incentive to vandalize or make disruptive edits because they won't even be visible.

* _Semi-protection_ : Only autoconfirmed users can edit. See [1]. This is used for pages where a large proportion of the edits are vandalism rather than helpful edits. 99% of vandalism stops here because most vandals are too lazy to get autoconfirmed or don't know how, since their goal isn't really to be productive.

* _Extended confirmed protection_ : This is a fairly new option and requires an account 30 days old and with at least 500 edits. This is mainly used for pages under sanctions (namely the Israeli-Arab conflict), and in certain cases where autoconfirmed users are causing abuse.

* _Full protection_ : Very rarely used. Mainly used in instances where multiples experienced editors are editing disruptively on a page such as by edit warring. The protection is always very short because it otherwise blocks editing from all users. In most cases though, the editors themselves are usually blocked or warned instead of a page necessitating full protection.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy)
[1]: Account must be four days old and have made at least 10 edits, so not
hard at all to obtain

------
wybiral
They can't really win.

If you try to squash conspiracy theories like this there will be those free-
speech hardliners who see it as crossing a line.

If you allow the crazy conspiracy stuff then there will be people who complain
about the platform being a toxic influence and promoting hate speech etc.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with attaching additional information
like this as opposed to outright censorship or something. But my guess is that
plenty of other people will complain.

Side note: I can't help but notice how polarizing issues involving free speech
have become in recent years. Any topics involving perceived censorship by any
host simply ignite.

~~~
zanny
You don't get "free speech" on Youtube. Its not a government censoring you.
Its a private company doing whatever they want on their private website. Same
with Facebook, Twitter, etc. The only public spaces online are decentralized
ones, and even then you are subject to nodes actually accepting your peerage.
If every Mastodon instance deems yours toxic and blocks it you can't cry fowl
of censorship to anyone.

~~~
phy6
I'm not sure how Google qualifies as a private company, but I would like to
play devils advocate. Tell me how I can refuse to bake a cake for someone
because their personal views differ from mine. I dare you.

~~~
pulisse
_I 'm not sure how Google qualifies as a private company_

It qualifies as a private company because it is, as a matter of law, a private
company.

 _Tell me how I can refuse to bake a cake for someone because their personal
views differ from mine. I dare you._

Assuming, based on your choice of example, that you're talking about the US
legal context: You absolutely _can_ refuse someone's business because of their
beliefs. What you can't do is refuse someone's business because of their race,
or their age, or one of small number of other protected characteristics.

------
deepsand
Beyond the other (valid) points here, will YouTube be providing some kind of
funding or support to the Wikimedia Foundation?

------
wyager
This trend of attempting to outsource the faculty of skepticism is
stupendously dangerous.

~~~
harpiaharpyja
Agreed. It would be great if as a society we could start encouraging people to
exercise proper critical thinking instead.

~~~
tehwebguy
Linking to extensive Wikipedia articles with dozens of sources _is_
encouraging people to think critically.

------
harlanji
Now is as good a time as any to mention that I’ve been running a channel that
I am moving from YouTube onto my soverign origin RasPi with some fancy
scripts, and I’ve been doing daily 720p livestreams using it as the origin
with CloudFlare CDN and syndicating out to 1-4 other services (YT, Twitch, FB,
Periscope dep. on message). Github my username, tinydatacenter project.

Filling a void that I saw growing—we need open source systems on the level of
the big guys; this is that. I am a disgruntled American being pushed out of
jobs in SF and feel I am being censored on at least one platform and feel my
service family member rolling in their graves recently.

------
sparkzilla
Google makes billions while the Wikipedia contributors providing their fact
checks and knowledge graph data get nothing.

[https://newslines.org/blog/google-and-wikipedia-best-
friends...](https://newslines.org/blog/google-and-wikipedia-best-friends-
forever/)

~~~
travoc
That’s OK. Google is about to send Wikipedia a bunch of newly informed
editors.

------
tomohawk
If these were Hollywood produced films from Hollywood artists, there would be
talk of defacement, interfering with the integrity of the work, etc...

~~~
notatoad
Yeah, but they aren't Hollywood produced films, they're low-budget, low
barrier to produce conspiracy videos. If Hollywood starts making videos about
how chemtrails are turning your kids gay, then that will be a valid
comparison. But the reason Hollywood gets to talk about artistic integrity is
because they actually have some.

~~~
mirimir
BS about chemtrails regardless, modern chemistry has given us lots of
estrogenic substances in our food and bodies. And maybe not homosexuality,
which may be mostly genetic. But maybe reduced sperm counts?

~~~
asp2insp
The studies mentioned here suggest nicotine, stress, and plastics may be to
blame: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/health/male-sperm-
count-p...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/health/male-sperm-count-
problem.html)

Estrogenic substances such as atrazine have been correlated with lower sperm
count in agricultural workers (e.g.
[https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0427_050427...](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0427_050427_strangedays3.html))
but I don't know of a study showing the effects through the food distribution
chain, only ones on field workers.

~~~
mirimir
> ... and plastics ...

The issue with plastics is mostly about plasticizers. Maybe in some cases,
monomers. And plastics are ubiquitous in food packaging. Even steel cans are
generally coated with plastic, rather than tin.

------
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg
> is an imperfect source of information, one which most college students are
> still forbidden from citing in their papers.

Is that honestly the measure of how perfect a source of information is?

~~~
tehwebguy
No, and the quote from the article is a horrible meme that makes absolutely no
sense.

Of course people can’t source Wikipedia, _they are meant to source the SOURCE
articles!_ That’s like the entire point.

~~~
notatoad
You can't source encyclopedia brittanica either. Wikipedia isn't banned
because it's a wiki, it's banned because it's an encyclopedia.

But apparently the people who write these articles have never actually been to
school, so they think that wikipedia not being allowed as a source for college
papers is somehow a significant indictment.

------
John_KZ
Youtube already takes down anything they dislike. Definitions such as "hate
speech" include literally all possible speech that is critical of anything, at
any degree.

Their preferred weapon though is de-ranking. This is the American model of
censorship, and it really does work. Why bother going after people who speak
up, when instead you can make sure nobody can hear them? You think the video
is up, you can share it with your close friends, but nobody else will discover
it. It's also super convenient for them because they move the majority of
content in coldline storage almost right away. It's not just Youtube either,
it's Google, Facebook, Twitter and all their subsidiaries. We need a massive
change in the way the internet is structured, both technically and legally, if
we want the open web back.

~~~
tehwebguy
> Youtube already takes down anything they dislike.

These are the funniest comments on HN. There seems to be a huge group of
people that are more willing to believe that YouTube will push a narrative vs
believing YouTube just wants to earn more profit.

If you make a video that people want to watch the algorithm will love you. It
determines this by watch time and session time. If you make a video that
people click away from, especially if it ends their watch session, the
algorithm hates you. Remember, you have to compete against over 300 hours of
content being uploaded _every minute._

This is how every social platform works. It’s a function of content volume.

If they took down every video they didn’t like PewDiePie wouldn’t be the top
channel, literally making fun of the platform almost every weekday. But most
people on HN haven’t actually bothered watching him, I’d hazard to guess!

------
dreta
This is just stacking one bias on top of another. Wikipedia is not a credible
source of information, especially when it comes to topics like politics or
conspiracies, and refering to it selectively is a clear statement on its own.

IMHO it would be much more productive to tell people to be extremely sceptical
towards everything they see on the internet. YouTube is very capable of
launching a successful campaign to do that. I'm sure a lot of creators would
jump on board, and, seeing what's most likely to go viral these days, it seems
necessary. This is obviously in direct conflict with the business model of
platforms like YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, since they rely on ad ravenue,
so we're stuck with orwellian solutions like the one presented.

~~~
tzahola
I don’t think that teaching people to be skeptical would align with the
business model of the world’s largest advertisement company.

~~~
singularity2001
it does when it promotes YouTube from the status of "very unreliable source of
information" to "fair source of source of information"

------
stordoff
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Correcting obvious falsehoods seems fine,
but something about a platform moving from being (_vaguely_) neutral to
directly critiquing content feels off. Further, where do you draw the line?
Correcting things that are unequivocally, proven wrong casts a small net, but
adding information to loose speculation, or discuss of events that are denied
but not disproven, risks making a stronger statement than the evidence allows
and risks shutting down legitimate discussion.

~~~
tehwebguy
Pretty sure everything we are talking about is unequivocally proven wrong.
That’s the point.

------
ronilan
A major global platform announces it will link out-of-platform to a community
edited resource. That should be seen as major win to the open web and pretty
much everyone else. But somehow YouTube manages to frame it in a way that no
one feels comfortable about it.

It's all a conspiracy.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_and_the_Internet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_and_the_Internet)

------
tehwebguy
I can safely estimate that my daily life and my work have me deeper in the
YouTube community than the average HN poster, and I say this is GOOD.

YouTube isn’t censoring here, just making sure that the most despicable users
cannot lead astray the most vulnerable minds without at least a warning label.

If you think that warning label is too influential you should consider the
influence of well paid, highly watched liars on YouTube.

------
nitwit005
I've thought about doing something similar before, but wikipedia is oriented
toward summary, not to convince people who are dubious of some "mainstream"
truth.

If you want to, say, convince someone that is watching Holocaust denial videos
that it did happen, I'd actually dig into some past reddit or forum
discussions. Some people have gotten rather experienced at refuting this kind
of thing sussinctly, and you may as well borrow from them.

------
shmapf
I think this is an experiment. And given the current state of the internet in
regards to fact checking, it's commendable that they are trying something to
help address the issue. Maybe it won't work, if so, nothing lost.

I wonder if it will have any noticeable effect on Wikipedia though. By linking
all of the conspiracy theorists to it, they might find that the articles get
more contraversial editing going on.

------
txsh
The audacity of YouTube to go after conspiracy theories while actively engaged
in a conspiracy:

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-hiring-for-some-
positio...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-hiring-for-some-positions-
excluded-white-and-asian-males-lawsuit-says-1519948013)

------
tritium
Much ado about nothing. You could say a waste of time is worth a waste of
time.

I don’t think there’s anything to fix here, when the real problem is adults
with the power to vote, can have their votes swayed by Saturday morning
cartoons, because all they ever look at are Saturday morning cartoons.

------
whoami_nr
Check out [https://play.cash/](https://play.cash/)

There are popups in between song videos giving you trivia about the
album/band/song etc. Lot of fun if you care about such stuff.

------
CodeWriter23
I honestly don’t believe the way to discern the truth is by referencing a site
that is written by volunteers, has no system for identifying and rating
contributors, no way for the other side to express their view or refute what
was said. This guy from Forbes wrote much more eloquently about what I’m
trying to say whe he tried to fact check the fact checkers at Snopes.
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-
dai...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-
snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers)

------
rvo
It's good. Let's make sure the following conspiracy theories and extreme views
are highlighted:

Anything about men's rights, "rape culture", white "oppression", "72 genders",
marxism, neoliberalism, fascism, Antifa, conservatism, libertarianism, white
nationalist, black nationalism, "Irish" nationalism, hindutva, islamophobia,
islamophilia, Catholic church paedophilia, pizza gate, Russia collusion, 9/11
was an inside job, 9/11 was by Al Qaeda, George Soros, Koch brothers, uranium
one, Castro Trudeau, PewDiePie, Alex Jones, Rachel Maddow, Sean hannity,
morning Joe, ... Just to begin with.

It would be nice if the list of conspiracies and extremist views was a open
source list so that we get an honorable and democratic process of deciding it
as a people and community. I am sure we as good human beings will be able to
peacefully maintain such a list. I wouldn't mind the great overlords of
YouTube to maintain such a list either.

