Talk:BitChute

Heavily biased article

"BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hate speech."

Bitchute was created as a platform for FREE speech. Even if hate speech etc existed on the platform or if if certain groups of people gravitated towards it (which I would say is a lie), beginning the article with this suggest a heavy bias. This would be the same as if Youtube's wiki page started with:

"Youtube is a video hosting service known for it's heavy censor of free speech and promotion of legacy media"

so... Before this line is uttered, it should say something like:

"Bitchute is a platform created for free speech, denounced by left wing media as a service hosting hate speech, conspiracy theorists and far right individuals."

Because it is not widely known. "Known" would suggest that it us agreed upon by those that have heard these claims. Stating that it is "widely known" when it is just content that has been pushed onto people by left leaning media is a lie.Thronedrei (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done. No reliable sources for the proposed changes were given. Black Kite (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh? but the way the article is written is not based on a reliable source either though. News outlets are not reliable sources in and off by themselves. Anything reported in media is only reliable if they can provide a reliable source for their claims. As such, please provide an actual link to where what is written in this article was proven by a reliable source.Thronedrei (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Plenty of news publications are widely considered to be reliable sources (see WP:RSP), and your suggestion that "Anything reported in media is only reliable if they can provide a reliable source for their claims" is not supported by policy (WP:RS) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The bias of this article is absurd. It diminishes the whole Wikipedia project when this kind of thing is allowed. Do we want Wikipedia to become a joke? If not, then this kind of writing must be eschewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.68.187 (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Changes needed to lead paragraph

Making a slight change to the lead paragraph. BitChute may have more lax policies, but the site has not marketed itself as an 'accommodator' of hate-speech or 'far-right' views, but simply as an alternative to YouTube that only removes criminal content and otherwise allows for free speech. The article is already heavily weighted (well over a majority of it, mostly or all inserted by one user) towards media talk of its far right/extremist/Nazi blah blah user base, with little coverage (of which there is ample) included about its actual technical utility. The minor change makes the article more like an encyclopedia, less like a Southern Poverty Law Center pamphlet.WillieP100 (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@WillieP100: Please gain consensus for your change first. The lead does not suggest that BitChute has "marketed itself as an 'accommodator' of hate-speech or 'far-right' views", but it quite accurately says that that is what it is known for, and we describe subjects in line with how they are reported upon in reliable sources rather than how they market themselves. I'm not sure where you're seeing this "ample" coverage of its technical utility, but if you would like to show that the article ought to be weighted more towards describing that, I would recommend finding some reliable sources to go with it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

WillieP100, breaking out the SPLC is a bit irrelevant here. Also irrelevant is what they say about themselves. What you call "media talk" is in fact the backbone of Wikipedia: reliable secondary sourcing. "Actual technical utility"--I don't know exactly what you mean by that, but if it is verified by secondary sources, I'm sure it has a place in the article. Finally, "Nazi blah blah"--that's actually kind of a big thing. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I ask you this, what would it take for these so called "reliable secondary sources" to lose their status as being reliable? Even if you view them as "reliable" you can't deny that they are competitors with the sites and outlets they label as hateful. Can you really use such secondary sources as a reliable source when there are such huge conflict of interests?Thronedrei (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Thronedrei: I ask you this, what would it take for these so called "reliable secondary sources" to lose their status as being reliable? Community consensus at WP:RSN. Regarding your question about conflicts of interest, a 2020 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability found that disqualification of sources based on alleged conflicts of interest in the way you are suggesting did not have community consensus. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

'Reliable' is highly subjective, we all know that. Technical utility refers to what the site actually is and what it does, which is to provide a platform to upload non-criminal videos. Plenty of sources discuss BitChute's existence (do you really want me to add 100 sources to the first sentence, until I outweigh Gorilla's by raw number?) without riffing endlessly on the far-right/extremist/neo-Nazi presence, which is said to comprise 'scores' of videos, out of how many hundreds of thousands or millions? Neo-Nazism may be a 'big thing,' and I agree it is, but if it's not criminal, it's not criminal. There are supremacists among all races/ethnicities/nations (Mexicans, Chinese, blacks, Jews, others) who believe they are the best and that everyone else should die off or serve them. Where it becomes illegal is in direct incitement to violence, which Bitchute regulates.WillieP100 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is highly subjective, but we still go by our reliable sources policy and, if there is question on a given source, community discussion and consensus. You have so far not provided even one reliable source that focuses on BitChute as a "platform to upload non-criminal videos" rather than a home to far-right content, much less 100, so linking some of those would certainly be a good start. The majority of RS that I've seen cover BitChute in the context of the extremist content on the site, but if I've somehow missed a significant number of RS that take a different view I'm certainly open to adjusting the article to ensure that it is properly following WP:NPOV. However you will need to actually present these sources for discussion rather than simply expecting other editors to take your word that they exist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, "reliable" is not highly subjective, and we have a set of evaluations at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I don't know why you are talking about legality: that is not what is at stake here. And "outweighing" GW's sources, that's not what you would be doing: you would simply be adding references that prove, what, that it's a platform for videos, which is not in dispute. What you should be adding, if your argument is going to work, is that it is not important that they host [fill in the blank] content. Because for now they only riffing here is what you are doing, giving your own opinion on what matters and what doesn't matter. Finally, that stuff about ... well I don't know, "all ethnicities have supremacists"? is neither here nor there, and it only adds to the suggestion that you are editing here strictly from a POV which may end up with a topic ban for this area. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If the published sources are not known for accuracy and when their so called "fact checking" is known and proven to be biased, then by the wikipedia definition itself you should not be able to use them. Of course, as you might have surmised, the problem here is that these "reliable sources" that are known for not being accurate, never get reported on as such by other "reliable sources". In other words, as long as non of the "reliable sources" rock the boat, they can act with impunity and spread any disinformation they want to. This is why Wikipedia should not accept them as reliable sources. Wikipedia has the unfortunate function of being a library of sorts for information. Wikipedia does not accept any articles on itself as a reliable source, but due to it¨s very nature it acts as a "go to" for quick information. Due to this I'd argue that it has a responsibility to not spread disinformation. Which brings us back to the argument at hand. If a "reliable source" can act with impunity and when it can only be fact checked by itself and it's peers, then it can no longer be viewed as a reliable source. As such any and all articles that are based on such sources alone, should be scrubbed or at least sanitized from Wikipedia.Thronedrei (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to a specific source here that you do not think is reliable, despite the publication generally being reliable? You can begin a WP:RSN discussion on that source if so. But if you are suggesting that we should not consider any publications to be generally reliable, that would be a wide-ranging policy change and would probably need to be discussed at WT:RS or WP:VPP, not here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Support for adding POV flag to article

Resolved, hatted by request. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Apologies for the "drive-by" - didn't know about the subject) I am not arguing for or against BitChute - All I am arguing is that the POV flag is appropriate. I have been encountering inappropriate censorship by Google as a whole (censoring alternate viewpoints and labeling anything that isn't left or far left as "hate speech") Allowing abuse of DMCA takedown notices - not at all honoring our right to fair-use. Suppressing videos critical of Google, and banning people for sharing repair videos and detailed chemistry. I have personally observed this in non-racist, non-aggressive, non-hateful communities. "Right to Repair" is my concern in particular. I would like a place to host videos detailing repair of devices wealthy corporations actively try to sue out of existence. As a private company, Google will argue is has no obligation to protect freedom of speech, and legally this is true. So I am in need of a way to host content that is only controversial because of (in my opinion) corruption. After reading through this article I feel confident it is not neutral. While the prevailing viewpoint may disagree with _some_ content on the site, this article (and the sources) are largely opinion-based rather than fact-based. The lack of (and suppression of) any counter-arguments further demonstrates this. The article portrays the "far right" as universally "bad," "conspiracy theories" as universally "bad," sources that disagree with the prevailing viewpoint as universally invalid. Even if 99.9% of the internet shares a viewpoint, that doesn't make the viewpoint "factual." Lack of counter-arguments or viewpoint I realize emotions run high on these topics, and many people on all sides of an issue are intolerant of the opposition. If the majority of people believed the earth was flat, should we censor "sphere-earthers?" A neutral article can include opinions, but they should not be presented as fact An article that only includes a single viewpoint when there are in fact many, cannot be considered "neutral" There are no examples of legitimate uses for the site. Recall how the Chinese Government requires censorship of any content critical of the government? North Korea? Nazi Germany? The prevailing opinion is that such censorship is/was wrong, and violated human rights. What is different in this case? Free speech necessarily involves a level of tolerance to dissenting opinions Lack of actual analysis / statistics regarding the percentage of "true" hate-speech Use of highly-charged "buzzwords / phrases" "...hotbed for violent, conspiratorial and hate-filled video propaganda..." "far-right", "conspiracy theorists", "hate speech" "hate-fueled material" "neo-Nazi groups" "vile and dangerous content" "antisemitic conspiracy theories" Heavily biased and opinionated sources On a quick perusal, I only saw one reference to non-editorialized source material. Titles like "BitChute: A Hotbed of Hate" for example. Source articles regularly label "far-right" as "extremists," and somehow bad. This is opinion; not fact. Source articles express more actual hatred toward people with which they disagree than the content they label "hate speech." Arguably, abusive use of the term "hate speech" within source material Generalizations and stereotyping This article gives the impression BitChute only hosts hate speech, or actively promotes it. A quick visit to the site demonstrates otherwise. Several sources make unfounded claims, like the platform itself promoting hate speech. Without viewing the source code this is supposition. It is more likely that user interactions cause this. The assumption that all conspiracy theories are "bad," "crazy," or false. Conspiracies exist and happen with some frequency. The parties involved tend to go to great lengths to hide it. Consider watergate. Consider price fixing. Consider the reason for anti-trust legislation. Consider the conspiracies unveiled by prominent whistleblowers (Ed Snowden for example). This is not speech that should be censored - it is a matter of opinion. Claiming the platform exists _for_ the "alt-right". This is analogous to claiming Bittorrent is _for_ piracy, Bitcoin is _for_ illicit sales, or TOR is _for_ drugs and pedophiles. None of these arguments are valid. In general, I doubt anyone can disagree that this article has a negative tone toward BitChute, leaving the impression that it is "bad" because it allows people to say bad, incorrect, racist, irrational, hateful things. Whether or not it is bad is a matter of opinion, and such opinion should not be presented as fact on Wikipedia. True freedom of speech means everyone has a right to their opinion - even if it is deplorable. A quote attributed to Voltaire states, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That is free speech. From the Wikipedia page on NPOV: Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. — Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view I believe I have demonstrated this article violates most, if not all, of these conditions. Regarding "relative prominence" - We are not discussing the validity of the opinions shared on BitChute (no doubt there is a lot of fringe and "utter rubbish"); rather the overwhelmingly negative tone, non-factual nature of the references/quotes and lack of actual, empirical research into the platform. JMPZ (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC) You have not demonstrated that this article violates NPOV, you have merely copy-pasted a lot of policies, which most experienced editors would already be very familiar with anyway. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, which are mainly also independent sources. If those reliable, independent sources give "an impression" of Bitchute, Wikipedia articles should pass along that "impression" without editorializing. Nowhere does the article state that Bitchute only hosts hate speech or conspiracy theories. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources mention Bitchute for a very specific reason, and that reason is explained in the article. Headlines are not sources, and all sources must be judged on their own merits. Also importantly, a reliable source is free to come to its own conclusions, and our goal is to summarize those conclusions. Whether sources are flattering or unflattering is irrelevant to its reliability. If you know of a reliable, independent source for any "counter-arguments", feel free to propose them. The supposed buzzwords you mention are either factual descriptors which happen to be unflattering, or they are direct quotes given with attribution. The article, therefore, neutrally reflects reliable, independent sources. If you want to propose specific, actionable changes to the article, do so. If you think specific sources are unreliable for some specific reason, explain that here. Otherwise, the addition of this tag is intended to be a badge of shame in defense of a fringe website. Your statement that you are are not arguing for Bitchute is not consistant with your actions, nor does that matter. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC) @JMPZ: I agree with what Grayfell said, so won't repeat that, but will add: As you acknowledge, the Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing, that provide a viewpoint that you think is going unrepresented here? If you are unsure on whether a sources is reliable, WP:RSP is a good place to check, or you can search past discussions at WP:RSN. Right now you seem to be focused on arguing about whether the {{POV}} tag ought to be added, but the real goal here is to ensure the article is neutral. The POV tag is useful for getting attention on articles that aren't actively edited, but as you can see there are at least two of us already responding to your concerns, so we can just fix any issues with the article (should there actually be any) rather than waste time discussing the tag. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC) @Grayfell: I disagree with your assessment of my request - "you have merely copy-pasted a lot of policies." The only thing copy-pasted was the block from the NPOV page, and example text from the page in question. Everything else was original. "The overwhelming majority of reliable sources" - How is a reliable source defined? Has anyone tried DuckDuckGo rather than Google to find such sources, or determine the overwhelming majority? How is opinion represented as fact, regardless the source, acceptable? Opinion is never fact, Wikipedia is not a platform for judgement. Placing egos aside please, everyone is entitled to their opinion and this page is largely opinion presented as fact. People are going to read it and make conclusions about the truth and nature of BitChute without realizing this article is not fairly presenting all views. Maybe the platform is a hell-hole - I don't know yet. I came here to find information and this page doesn't meet the quality I've come to expect. I'm not out to "defend" BitChute - I'm out to defend objectivity. The tag lets people know the page isn't yet up-to-par - not a judgement of anyone's contributions or opinions. Is it a requirement of the POV flag that I include the changes required to fix it? I was not aware of that - nor does it fit with my experience... I can smell non-neutrality and I expect a person with no opinion would smell it as well. Shouldn't people be made aware of the article's possible bias until it is confirmed to be unbiased? JMPZ (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC) Nothing I said was meant as a personal attack. It was not my intention to mock you. I have tried to explain how the article summarizes reliable sources. You have not proposed any sources at all. My intention was to explain to you that Wikipedia uses reliable sources to decide which articles are "one-sided" and which are not. The policy you copy/pasted specifically mentions that we do not present fringe positions (the example was Holocaust denial) to balance the mainstream position. Therefore, you will need to present reliable, independent sources for this. If sources are "one-sided" then the article will also be one-sided. This isn't automatically a problem, and if it is a problem, the way to solve it is with reliable, independent sources. Your comment that the article is too opinionated is confusing. The reason Wikipedia uses sources is to prevent undue opinions from being added to the article (among other things). Wikipedia:Reliable sources explains what is and is not a reliable source. You may also find Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources helpful. To put it very simply, reliable sources have a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking. I frequently use DDG, and I have not really found any reliable sources defending Bitchute with any search engine I have used. That doesn't mean, of course, that they don't exist, but since you are the one who has a problem with the article, it is up to you to help us find them. My request for reliable sources was sincere. I would especially like to see a reliable source on Bitchute being used for right-to-repair content. Such a source must be about Bitchute being used for this, it cannot be an example. Wikipedia editors are not ourselves reliable sources, because that is another form of original research. We need reliable sources to form conclusions for us, because this is a tertiary source. Of course that doesn't mean we cannot form our own conclusions, but this article doesn't belong to any individual editor, so it must be verifiable and based on outside sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC) @GorillaWarfare: Thanks for your comment, and I agree the ultimate goal is to ensure the neutrality of the article. Shouldn't people reading it be made aware that there may be issues regarding neutrality while we figure it out? JMPZ (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC) @Grayfell: Thanks for the clarification, and I also apologize for getting defensive. If I may, I would like to explain how I arrived here. Some very excellent YouTubers have become victims of YouTube's somewhat arbitrary policies and strike system. I searched google for "What happened to NileRed," and this was the first result I encountered: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/hobby-chemists-fall-foul-of-youtubes-content-purge/3009206.article NurdRage, NileRed, Extractions&Ire / Explosions&Fire are the three examples in the article. These guys create some of the best, most informative, non-controversial (arguably of course) content on YouTube... the censorship doesn't seem right. I recently (legally) acquired a ResMed CPAP machine only to discover it had a worn-out motor. I encountered this YouTube Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9jdc9_WmwM - in the description, the creator shares that ResMed has been sending DMCA takedown requests claiming showing the internals of their machines is a copyright violation (This is not at all true... but who has the money to prove them wrong?) YouTube unfortunately generally takes videos down and issues strikes without proper investigation. You can appeal - but it sounds like these don't often work. 3 strikes and your entire channel - including the content, comments and (sometimes) livelihood is gone. ResMed can flag three videos real quick and pull down your channel. I later discovered that Google was filtering out some web results including repair details, or resale of parts. They were even blocking some search terms entirely returning no results (giving the false impression that the information didn't exist) where Bing and DuckDuckGo had plenty. ResMed also attacks people for sharing the take-down notices - claiming copyright infringement. It became such a problem that the Facebook group had to go private - people were being threatened. So, I plan to start producing contents covering repairing things "they" don't want us to repair, exposing corporate misbehavior, advocating for openness and ethical behavior and trying to remain objective and open minded. I know some of my projects will be attacked (Open source CPAP, Cheap Self-driving add-ons, modifying devices abandoned or under-supported by manufacturers, empowering people to fix things instead of throwing them away, and not accept exorbitant costs for features that should be cheap) One of my projects adds IOT functionality to a portable air conditioner for about $5... rather than paying $500 extra for the feature. Also backyard science of all sorts. Naturally, given what I have seen, I have some... trepidation about using YouTube. Searched Google for "youtube alternative without censorship" - nothing useful - mostly anti-"alt-right" stuff. Searched Gibiru similarly. BitChute was listed on one site as the most "popular" alternative that doesn't censor and values free speech above all. (I'm now concerned _that_ site was manipulative...) As usual I begin my research of BitChute with Wikipedia and the page... well it doesn't feel at all scientific - I hope you can understand my sensitivity to, and frustration with perceived bias. This is just my experience - trying to help support my claims of objectivity. I'm tired of having rights whittled away, and I'm tired of being presented an incomplete, distorted, polarized view on everything. From all sides. I'm tired of double-standards and hypocrisy. I consider Wikipedia to be possibly one of mankind's greatest achievements - making knowledge freely accessible to all without bias. (Apologies - the explanation can be removed if necessary...) With regards this page - I doubt there exists an objective source. I'm sure I can find examples of supporters... but I also don't want to be deceived by the "alt-right." Thanks for your patience guys - I'm retracting my complaints. JMPZ (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC) @JMPZ: The tag could be added while a fix was underway if it had actually been established that there was a problem. NPOV on Wikipedia means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In order to establish that an article is non-neutral, you need to explain either that it is improperly representing the existing reliable sources used in the article, or that it is not fully representing all available reliable sources. Your concerns don't seem to fall into the former camp, but you've also yet to produce a single source here to suggest that a viewpoint is going unrepresented. That's why Grayfell and I both keep asking about sources. Right now it sounds like your complaint is that the article doesn't align with your personal views on the site, which I'm sure you understand is not a legitimate basis for an NPOV complaint. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC) It sounds like this is basically resolved for now, but to briefly mention a few things for future consideration: There are many, many, many problems with YouTube. What happened with NileRed (which is a great channel) back in 2018 is just one example, but it had nothing to do with BitChute. Explaining the problems with BitChute should not be taken as a defense of YouTube! Similarly, the issue with the ResMed takedowns is unfortunate, and unfortunately common. However, the problem isn't entirely with Google, it's also with the DMCA system (this blog post by Cory Doctorow explains some of it, although it is probably not a WP:RS for articles). So one problem is that The DMCA system applies to BitChute just as much as it applies to YouTube. BitChute can and will remove content when it violates their ToS, and BitChute's claims to be against censorship are a lot like a cheap wristwatch's claim to be "water resistant". It's marketing term which indicates something without anybody having to make any promises they cannot keep. It's not a meaningless claim, but it shouldn't be taken at face value, either. Grayfell (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC) It is resolved. After doing further digging I concede I misunderstood a number of things, and I am again grateful for your patience and feedback. Should I delete any of this or what would you recommend? JMPZ (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC) No need to remove it. I can hat it though, if you'd like. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021

Change “ BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hate speech.[a][b]” to read instead “Bitchute is a video hosting service.” 2601:640:4100:D40:ECAF:BFEC:9F39:DD93 (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done No reason given for change. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Lede, once again

I get the point that most sources report on Bitchute because it hosts far-right content banned on other platforms. This isn't about the first sentence for that reason.

However, it doesn't change the fact the lede has clearly a bias towards focusing on a political perspective too heavily. One of the few academic resources looking at BitChute has found that many of the content producers active there still maintain other social media presence, including YouTube. This contradicts the last sentence of the lede (with one non-academic source), and this view is found nowhere, not even in the section using this very article as a reference already.

Furthermore, there is no mention of its claim of being "BitTorrent" based which is how I personally even learned about the platform originally. That's despite the source used for the establishment reasoning of BitChute featuring this fact quite heavily. Randomly mentioning demonetization also seems weird, the sourced article makes no clear claim of that being a rationale for content creators to switch either, but rather a fear of potential bans incoming. This should at least be sourced differently, e.g. with the TorrentFreak article linked above which directly cites alternative monetization schemes as an original motivation for BitChute. YouTube's content policies have been heavily and publicly criticised many times, and it seems strange there has been so little care to incorporate that fact when it was part of the motivation for BitChute, which can and is clearly sourced, regardless of its direct notoriety.

I would suggest

• Reworking "The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube" to "The platform was created in 2017 following criticism of YouTube's content and monetization rules, and claims to use WebTorrent technology for video distribution, though that claim has been disputed" with a citation of the Daily Dot article used later in the article
• removing "and some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetised") have migrated to BitChute" completely from the lede, or reworking it into something like "and some creators who have been banned from Youtube have migrated to BitChute, while others maintain a presence on both platforms and use BitChute primarily for additional content not allowed on YouTube", or at least source the monetization point better e.g. with the TorrentFreak article

--95.91.247.87 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

These are great suggestions, thank you for all of this. I've made some changes to incorporate them, what do you think? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I like it, only thing I would phrase differently is "extreme content". Creators on YouTube have even been censoring common curse words for a few years now in fears of being demonetized otherwise, which I would not consider "extreme". The paper by Trujillo et al. sadly only reads "Many accounts mirror their YouTube content to BitChute, giving them a presence on both a platform with a wider audience and a platform with viewers more aligned with their content." on the exact issue. Maybe something like "...and some mirror their content on both platforms, with BitChute being additionally used for content removed from YouTube or not in line with its monetisation rules" in line with the TorrentFreak article? --95.91.247.87 (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"Extreme" is coming from the Trujillo source: "Some channels maintain extreme content on BitChute and less extreme content on YouTube." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it is mistake to lean too heavily on the TorrentFreak article. As I've said before, this source is useful but narrow. That article was published right when BitChute launched, so it cannot say anything about how the site has actually been used. Obviously TorrentFreak is going to cover the BitTorrent aspect more heavily than other outlets, and is also specifically focused on the kind of censorship BitTorrent supposedly avoids, but this is not representative of broader coverage. Further, Vahey's stated intentions (which were understandably tailored to that niche outlet) do not define the website as a whole over the past four years.

One problem is that Vahey's use of the term "censorship" isn't as descriptive as it appears. In this context Vahey's use of censorship is a buzzword. Some readers might equate "censorship" with bleeping-out curse words to be advertiser friendly, while others might equate it with content so extreme that it violates laws. It's misleading to imply these are the same even if they are both superficially censorship. BitChute does censor content. BitChute is very insistent on this point. The site is willing and able to censor content which violates it's own terms of service (which were recently updated to be more restrictive), even if that that content is technically legal. Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I have avoided using "censorship" in wikivoice/outside of direct quotes for that reason, since Vahey seems to be using it in the colloquial political way rather than the standard definition. Do you have any suggestions as to how we could make the lead more clear? Or are you saying you believe the motivation for founding the site ought to be removed from the lead entirely? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess that's what I'm saying. Sorry for being vague. I think his motivation is significant, but I don't think it's vitally important for understanding the site. Setting politics aside, Vahey's comments read very similar to any other start-up trying to build hype for a video hosting site.

The previous version, "The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube" was incomplete, but it was also mainly about BitcChute. The current wording shifts this towards being about YouTube. Also, it's a subtle thing, but I'm wary of including anything about someone's beliefs. Wikipedia cannot know his beliefs, all we can know is his statements. Vahey's beliefs about Youtube don't really belong in the lead of any article, do they?

Another issue that having Vahey's perspective in this paragraph is indirectly implying that Vahey endorses the content his company hosts. By introducing Vahey's personal perspective, we're indirectly implying something vague about a living person for unclear benefit.

I disagree regarding YouTube not being relevant to the lede. Most if not pretty much all sources referencing the content of the site do so in explicit comparison to YouTube, i.e. being a "YouTube alternative" used by the far-right instead of say a "social media platform" used by the far-right. I don't have time to quantify this, but would also argue that YouTube's content policies have seen much harsher and highly publicised media criticism than other social media platforms, not least due to a very dominant position in the VoD market. I'm fine with the current version, though think the first paragraph could do with less quotes on the initial motivation for the platform when there's even an own article discussing censorship accusations against Google and YouTube. --95.91.247.87 (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, I support and appreciate the other recent changes. Removing or downplaying "extreme" would be a misrepresentation of multiple sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Very reasonable points, I see what you mean. I've removed that portion of the lead (though left the statement in the article body, where I think it does belong). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right, my bad. --95.91.247.87 (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021

instead of this: far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hate speech.

Replace with this: [individuals with views that are not presented by corporate news, with data that is not distributed by mainstream media, and for hosting views that are denigrated by propaganda institutions of the Left.} John Paul Barrie (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)