YouTube will add information from Wikipedia to videos about conspiracies
I think there are a few problems with this:<p>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 &quot;conspiracies&quot; is a statement within itself. You only have to think about Twitter and it&#x27;s &quot;verified accounts&quot; hot water not so long ago [1].<p>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 &quot;share this before &lt;X&gt; takes it down&quot; (e.g. Facebook videos [2]).<p>3. Videos that debunk theories could also get thrown into this automated mess they&#x27;ll undoubtedly make and will probably incur demonetization. The result of that may be less debunking videos, actually poisoning the well further.<p>4. Generally squashing freedom of speech means that needed discussion on a particular topic can&#x27;t happen.<p>What I think they should do:<p>1. Have this as an opt-out feature which is mostly hidden, or an opt-in feature which is obvious.<p>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.<p>3. Have smart humans go through and carefully select for and against cases - don&#x27;t try to automate this as it <i>will</i> be gamed.<p>4. Don&#x27;t use this information for classifying whether videos should be monetized.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessinsider.com.au&#x2F;twitter-clamps-down-on-verified-accounts-2017-11?r=US&amp;IR=T" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessinsider.com.au&#x2F;twitter-clamps-down-on-ve...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.facebook.com&#x2F;TaxationIsTheft2&#x2F;videos&#x2F;513176192385963&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.facebook.com&#x2F;TaxationIsTheft2&#x2F;videos&#x2F;51317619238...</a>