It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Conspiracy Theorists Love YouTube

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Conspiracy Theorists, YouTube and Anti-Intellectualism



Read the Full ConspiracyScience.com Blog Post By Muertos


If you argue with conspiracy theorists on the Internet for even a short period of time, you’ll notice one thing very quickly: they love YouTube. It’s extremely rare to carry on any sort of “debate” with a conspiracy theorist of any stripe—9/11 Truther, moon hoaxer, global warming denier, what-have-you—and not see the CT post at least one, and usually more, links to videos on YouTube supposedly validating their position. In fact, in terms of sheer volume of the “evidence” posted by conspiracy theorists, YouTube appears to be their primary source of information. Furthermore, most of them simply can’t understand why not everybody is immediately persuaded by something on YouTube, and if you push back against their arguments, you’ll invariably get still more YouTube links. In the paranoid world of conspiracy theories, YouTube is evidently the ultimate oracle of all knowledge. This blog will attempt to examine why conspiracy theorists love YouTube so much, and how their passion for this website relates to a strong and disturbing undercurrent in the conspiracist worldview: anti-intellectualism.

Don’t get me wrong, YouTube is a great communication tool. With the ubiquity of video cameras these days, it’s a fine way to connect with people, get the word out about various things, and also have fun. (ConspiracyScience has a YouTube channel here: www.youtube.com... and I have a personal YouTube channel myself, here: www.youtube.com...) But while most people use YouTube for light entertainment, more often than not involving cats doing funny things (such as this: www.youtube.com...), conspiracy theorists are watching stuff like this (www.youtube.com...—tgw) and this (www.youtube.com...), full of “free fall collapses,” quotes taken out of context, and other so-called “evidence” that they use to “prove” that various events were in fact massive conspiracies. For conspiracy theorists, YouTube isn’t fun at all. It’s deadly serious business. Also, for them, bizarrely, it is the first line of information. Despite the vast information resources that are out there, not just on the Internet, conspiracists usually turn to YouTube before they go anywhere else—almost as if other sources don’t exist. In fact, conspiracy theorists usually credit YouTube videos as more credible than other forms of evidence.

Take, to wit, this recent conversation on the ConspiracyScience forum (in this topic: conspiracyscience.com...) in which this exchange occurs between “Casey,” a conspiracy theorist and 9/11 Truther, and various debunkers including myself:


I don't know if this is the same guy Muertos that was a member on ATS or not. May be the same guy. Whoever this guy is, he is calling all CT'ists, more specifically the ones that use YT vids as their resources ...well as the headline says Anti-Intellectual, which to me attacks our ATS motto of Deny Ignorance. I call utter Disinformation on this blog post. YouTube, and it's members are the eyes for the world's events. For CT'ists this is a very prevalent information source.

In the same light, Debunkers use it just as much to counter CT'ists claims, so this guys argument is moot and is a complete contradiction imo.


[edit on 6/6/2010 by UberL33t]




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Interesting, as soon as I post this the board gets hacked infiltrated again.

Losers!!

[edit on 6/6/2010 by UberL33t]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
The board gets hacked???? Not sure that's the case.... But the point I was going to make:


Any conspiracy theorist that draws upon YouTube as primary (or only) source material is not worthy of the title researcher.

It should be plainly obvious that research should include many sources, so as to help build a solid foundation for any position you might wish to argue/defend/postulate.

I for one, have never used YouTube as primary source material, because it can be so unreliable. It's just like Wikipedia.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
It's a really gutsy statement.

Youtube=Videos which contain information.

It's like saying "If you notice, people that read LOVE libraries."

And personally, anybody trying to say "Don't believe that group" has the soul intention to try to get you to believe their group.

I go the easy way. If it needs verification, do not waste time on it.

ATS is basically a fast, reliable, and quickly updated news source. There is this and that i don't really pay attention to, but overall i can say people that love news will love ATS. (and have tolerance for some far out people)

YouTube is a reliable way to post videos for all to see, and send the link to the places it was intended for. People have the right to their opinion, and other people have the right to prove them wrong, but discrimination and attacking groups is for ignorant.

[edit on 6-6-2010 by gandhi]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by gandhi
I go the easy way. If it needs verification, do not waste time on it.

ATS is basically a fast, reliable, and quickly updated news source. There is this and that i don't really pay attention to, but overall i can say people that love news will love ATS. (and have tolerance for some far out people)


The posts on ATS have been very unreliable in the past. Take the "I am a time traveller" posts for example.

If anything needs verifying, then it's worth doing just that. All information is bad information until it can be backed up with evidence.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by gandhi
 



It's a really gutsy statement.


I concur!



It's like saying "If you notice, people that read LOVE libraries."


Perfect analogy my friend!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Youtube is a great way to provide information and get the word out, but at the same time, a lot of the stuff on its is complete and biased rubbish. For education purposes I think people should look elsewhere rather than look at youtube, and if they are going to post evidence there, they should at least show something to back it up.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Seems like the e.g. Canadian government, financed war online Conspiracies-Politics www.abovetopsecret.com... is moving up a gear. Obviously its not just Canada that wants to influence online politics into becoming more like the traditional garbage (media), the "career brokers" of most, modern, politicians already, totally control.

Guess we'll just have to get used, to dealing with this thing. Not that I mind, -it should only add to my interest!!



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 

I concur, and while I have admittedly used YT vids countless times for posts. In turn I also try to research and provide any and all references I can find. By no means do I think that YT vids should be the sole resource for a CT'ists claim. Although I firmly believe that YT is a valid resource imo and to use it does not thwart Anti-Intellectualism as the Blog Author suggests.

Personally, the fact that this fella considers himself a "debunker" for all intents and purposes, a true "debunker" should be able to "debunk" what ever the source a CT'ist provides with his/her own resources. Which in some cases have been YT vids, not speaking for the Author, but in general.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by dampnickers
 




All information is bad information until it can be backed up with evidence.


Precisely, however YT, has in the past been a viable tool on ATS, it has been used to debunk as well as confirm plenty of topics on ATS.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
If you want a video of an event on the internet, where do you usually turn?

I get what he means but his argument is asinine at best..



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by UberL33t
Precisely, however YT, has in the past been a viable tool on ATS, it has been used to debunk as well as confirm plenty of topics on ATS.
Name one.

Seriously.

Name one single conspiracy theory that has been proven (or debunked) beyond reasonable doubt by a YouTube video posted on ATS.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
i have noticed more than ever on youtube and on forums that there are more shills and disinfo agents running around than ever now, it really confuses the younger ppl that are interested in looking stuff up...

anywyas that was a bit off topic sort of,,, good original post.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
The thing with youtube is that if you have an agenda, you can find films that support that agenda. It's like a lot of the anti muslim threads. people will post the same videos of angry muslim men berating the west and its way of life. After a while you notice every anti muslim thread is using the same youtube clips to support their argument. These videos dont shape a sensible debate, rather they get people emotional and angry, especially when certain posters post the same old videos again and again.



show these type of videos enough and you'll find its enough to get anyone shaking their fist at the "bloody muslims". You would imagine Every muslim in Britain is a screaming lunatic who wants to take over the country, when in reality, this was a protest from years ago, that still gets raked out to support any anti Muslim post.



On a side note, has a video on youtube ever convinced you of aliens visiting earth? I think it's resounding NO on that one.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Where does one suppose you find evidence for anything?

You use the easiest means of communication available to you.

Just because it's written in a book or linked to an article deep in the internet with 1000 certified scientists or engineers cited as credible contributes does not make it any more true.

Unless you know first hand you can never be sure about the truth of anything, this is where logic, reason and research come into play.

Youtube is as good as medium as any for communication, as long as you do your own research and reach your own logical conclusions it doesn't matter if you got your information from a bathroom wall.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Th0r]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Th0r
Just because it's written in a book or linked to an article deep in the internet with 1000 certified scientists or engineers cited as credible contributes does not make it any more true.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what makes it "more true". There's a huge difference between one nut-job writing his own essay without citing any sources, and just reading it verbatim in front of a video camera and someone who publishes their findings in a 500+ page book, including references to their source material so that it's independently verifiable by anyone who might want to challenge him.

There are dozens of CT YouTube videos that included chopped up versions of JFK's speech which famously includes the phrase "The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society…", but all of them with an agenda end up butchering the speech to make it say what the uploader wants it to say, and not what Kennedy actually said. A YouTube visitor who didn't know any better (ie, 99.9% of the audience) would watch that video, listen to Kennedy talking, and get the wrong message from the speech because of the way it had been edited. The YouTube versions cut out whole paragraphs... But the viewer will believe it because the lie has been spoon-fed to them.

Such tactics are disingenuous and intentionally misleading, ultimately causing the viewing audience, if they wake up to such fabrications, to question any and all so-called "scholarship" presented on YouTube. UNLESS THERE ARE VERIFIABLE SOURCES.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
In general, most youtube videos I have seen have been more concerned with persuasion rather than stating hard facts.

But as others have said, youtube is more akin to a library. Unlike wikipedia, videos are linked to specific authors and it their individual credibility which is in question.




top topics



 
4

log in

join