Due to prior commitments this week, some of my blog posts are going to be a bit on the short side. Today I want to discuss a recent presentation discussing the results of interviews with Flat Earth believers at two conferences in 2017 and 2018. Speaking Sunday at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, researchers who spoke with more thirty attendees placed the blame squarely on YouTube for creating a community of Flat Earth believers and providing the means for Flat Earth leaders to propagandize a credulous audience. An article in the Guardian summarized their findings: Of the 30, all but one said they had not considered the Earth to be flat two years ago but changed their minds after watching videos promoting conspiracy theories on YouTube. “The only person who didn’t say this was there with his daughter and his son-in-law and they had seen it on YouTube and told him about it,” said Asheley Landrum, who led the research at Texas Tech University. I would be interested to see the degree to which believers in other conspiracy theories and fringe history themes also found reinforcement of their ideas through YouTube videos. Frankly, these videos don’t receive half the attention and rebuttal that they deserve, though it is difficult to even begin to do so since they multiply faster than bacteria and audience flit from one to the next indiscriminately.
The findings, while not exactly conclusive due to the small sample size, are highly suggestive and reinforce earlier conclusions from other studies that YouTube is a major vector in delivering conspiracy content and creating believers in extremist material. The Flat Earth is hardly the only example of this. Reports last year that viewers can be seduced into ultra-right-wing politics through YouTube’s algorithms serving up increasingly extreme rightist videos to viewers of conservative content, ultimately leading to white nationalist and Nazi content, led the video service to curb its conspiracy content recently, with mixed results. Landrum, a psychologist who specializes in science communication, takes a surprisingly upbeat view of YouTube and told her audience that the company was doing nothing wrong but might consider tweaks to its algorithm. This is a shockingly blasé attitude toward a major corporation that has knowingly created algorithms that prioritize extremist content in pursuit of increased viewership and therefore advertising revenue. Many people express concern that YouTube shouldn’t “censor” anti-science videos, and that argument is fair to an extent. But YouTube is not required to promote videos its users post, and it is arguably unethical to promote harmful content. And let’s not pretend that the “Recommend Videos” section of YouTube is some magic list that appears out of nowhere. Those videos aren’t selected because they are good or noble or moral; they are selected to get you to watch more and to watch more ads. To do so, the algorithm selects more extreme content to appeal to viewers’ basest instincts. This is a choice, and it can be unchosen. YouTube has done some good by attempting to limit the worst of conspiracy videos from appearing on the recommendation list. But we can’t naively pretend that media companies’ choices don’t affect the people who consume their content. Even if we assume YouTube’s algorithms only accidentally created a propaganda machine for right wing extremists and science deniers, it is still a moral obligation to dismantle that pipeline with the same fervor with which they viciously eliminate every boob and butt cheek in service of puritanical moral purity. Speaking of puritanical purification, earlier this month Google ordered Ancient Origins to remove hundreds of images of ancient art and historical artifacts for violating its blanket prohibition on images depicting nudity, violence, or human waste on any page participating in the Google Ad Sense program. The utter ridiculousness of the suppression of images of famous paintings and statues, as well as historical images of mummies and archaeological digs, was entirely the result of the effort by Google to avoid even a hint of upset from those easily offended by the human body. However, the result was the opposite of what Google intended, since it just made conservatives angry and crying out about censorship. The conservative Times of London and the radical right-wing Breitbart both ran articles this week decrying what they and Ancient Origins called the censorship of Ancient Origins, a site that has carried right-wing interpretations of history in its mix of fringe claims and recycled content. As much as I would like to take pleasure in Ancient Origins losing a major revenue stream and being de-listed from Google News, where its stories have frequently appeared, it is upsetting that this positive outcome is the result not of recognizing that Ancient Origins is third-rate fringe crap but rather because of the blind application of puritanical rules about boobs. In both cases, though, Alphabet, the parent of Google and YouTube, is simply following the money. It pays to appease the extremists, since those who aren’t on the extreme aren’t loud enough to cause problems and will simply accept whatever the company does anyway. Occasionally, someone gets upset, but, for the most part, content creators either conform or go bust. “There is no negotiating with Google,” Joanna Gillan wrote. And that is not really a good thing.
33 Comments
Brian
2/20/2019 10:24:34 am
"...it is still a moral obligation to dismantle that pipeline with the same fervor with which they viciously eliminate every boob and butt cheek in service of puritanical moral purity."
Reply
Joe Scales
2/20/2019 12:05:44 pm
Classic bait and switch going on here. You take an issue embraced by certain far-left ignoramuses and turn it into yet another "far-right" screed. Kudos to you man. Well done.
Reply
Rational Man
2/20/2019 12:07:57 pm
Good job the Founding Fathers were sceptics who believed in the rights of man, that's what I say.
Reply
An Anonymous Nerd
2/20/2019 07:54:27 pm
Lots to unpack here in just a couple of lines.
Reply
Joe Scales
2/21/2019 11:27:20 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkQhK8O9Jik
To Google's credit, it did yank two of Kerry Cassidy's interminable vids promoting the daft idea that all modern tragedies are false flag exercises designed to make drastic official action acceptable.
Reply
Kent
2/20/2019 03:00:39 pm
KAL is correct. Youtube simply gives you more of what have asked for in the past.
Reply
An Anonymous Nerd
2/20/2019 08:13:40 pm
[The case against the Sandy Hook shootings is pretty convincing]
Kent
2/20/2019 09:13:20 pm
First, and with due respect, Snopes.com is itself not a reliable source. It's literally "a guy on the internet."
An Anonymous Nerd
2/20/2019 11:18:15 pm
[First, and with due respect, Snopes.com is itself not a reliable source. It's literally "a guy on the internet."]
Kent
2/20/2019 11:34:47 pm
As the kids at the kiddie table would say, shaking my head.
An Anonymous Nerd
2/21/2019 07:11:43 am
[You keep saying "cite cite cite" and I'm more than willing to wait for you to do that.]
Kal
2/20/2019 02:14:34 pm
Google and YouTube are related since their merger around 2011. The algorithms in question do not directly "cause" the promotion of conspiracy theories, but contrary to that, if you "search for them" you will "find more of them tomorrow". The ads cater to your searches.
Reply
Kal
2/20/2019 02:16:58 pm
"Flat Earth" is lame. All you have to do is 'sail around the pond" to another country on another continent to tell it's clearly curved, round that is.
Reply
Alan
2/20/2019 02:50:21 pm
I don't exist. Many Flat Earthers contend that Australia is a fake continent put about by the conspiracy to confuse the credulous. They even produce an elaborate scenario where the British did not colonise Australia, but merely drowned all the convicts destined for Australia before returning secretly to Britain.
Reply
2/20/2019 03:57:35 pm
It all amounts to pointing fingers. If academia spend so much time combing though this stuff they surely can devote more time educating and debunking every claim, one by one. How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science for starters? They've failed miserably.
Reply
Alan
2/20/2019 04:17:14 pm
Unfortunately that is not true. Point-by-point debunkings have been produced but they are ignored. Flat Earthers simply rewrite the laws of physics to explain 'illusions' like ships disappearing below the horizon or accuse debunkers of lying.
Reply
Terry Melanson
2/20/2019 04:38:06 pm
Invite the top nutcases to a debate. Let them prepare as long as they like. Tape it during a live audience and broadcast it over and over again until everyone sees how deluded and pathetic they are.
Terry Melanson
2/20/2019 04:26:42 pm
And another thing: a proactive response toward the fake moon landing conspiracies should be pursued. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has indeed taken pics of the Apollo landings but they are not clear enough and NASA won't be believed by them anyway.
Reply
Doc Rock
2/20/2019 05:08:21 pm
Point by point debunking will not convince the component of the population that is dead set on believing even the most outlandish claims. It can really even have the effect of instilling a persecution complex. The more evidence you provide the more convinced they are that it is just a well organized conspiracy. If someone like Jim Jones can persuade 900 Americans to move to a jungle hellhole and then commit mass suicide is it any wonder that even the most crackpot fringe theories can attract sizable followings in a nation of 330 million people?
Reply
Terry Melanson
2/20/2019 05:22:20 pm
Complaining does nothing either. Censorship is worse.
Rational Man
2/20/2019 07:33:55 pm
[Skepticism does] not affect the collective dreamers. Any critical contribution is immediately rejected because every demystifying statement closes at least one of the possible extensions of the game, thus threatening its very purpose which is to continue indefinitely” Veronique Campion-Vincent (Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, April 2018)
Doc Rock
2/20/2019 08:09:12 pm
I'm not saying that debunking efforts can't be worthwhile. But when you are dealing with the "base" supporters of most fringe theories dealing with them can reach a point of diminishing return. An academic with a heavy teaching load, research agenda, and a lot of professional service obligations probably has better things to do than argue with people who think that the world is flat or that Templars were humping the interior of North America in the 1300s.
Rational Man
2/20/2019 08:36:37 pm
The myth that all scholars are "rational"
Deodand
2/20/2019 08:09:28 pm
The problems with Google/YouTube 'algorithms' is not just confined to the promotions of political extremes (Either Right or Left, YouTube is currently forcing the pro-Marijuana channels to switch to being only viewable by people over 18+ or face deletion after having completed a similar purge of the Smoking Fetish channels.) It also affects children's viewing habits as this TEDx talk (Rather ironically hosted on YouTube) shows. The speaker also points to the wider issue of automated databasing without human curation.
Reply
William Fitzgerald
2/21/2019 05:23:46 am
I recently read an article about the Youtube "star" phenomenon. Essentially, the claim is that Youtube personalities are mostly merely mediocre talent, otherwise they would have moved on and become actual celebrities; a few have, but the point is that most are simply mediocre otherwise the true talent would rise out of this medium. Of course there are huge celebrities out there are are even less than mediocre talent, but have somehow made it big. (And some Youtubers simply enjoy the medium with little ambition of becoming actual celebrities, but these people don't tend to become Youtube "stars")
Reply
Poodleshooter
2/21/2019 02:11:20 pm
I yearn to return to the days of Chautauquas and pessaries. And homemade soap. Homemade soup is another good thing.
Reply
Kirby Puckett
2/22/2019 04:24:04 pm
I like to eat homemade soup while watching youtube videos about making soap.
A C
2/22/2019 03:51:26 am
There's plenty of celebrities with mediocre talent, the difference is that in the mass media to be a mediocre celebrity you need nepotism or a marketing team that cares more about marketing then product quality while on youtube you have to work your way up with hard work.
Reply
William Fitzgerald
2/22/2019 05:42:07 am
Justin Bieber.
A C
2/22/2019 04:01:25 am
Flat earth is big on line because there's no geographical constraints on attracting attention to the ideas and building a community around them. The appeal is that you can be part of a group with secret knowledge, if there wasn't a community to back the members up they'd all feel stupid after a while but the support of fellow travelers is enough to discount any opposing opinion which necessarily comes from outsiders.
Reply
2/24/2019 09:34:34 am
Could you please cover the YouTube conspiracy theory called “the Mandela Effect”? Or have you done so, and I missed it?
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
February 2025
|