Crack Down On New Climate Denial! Nonprofit tells YouTube

Summary

The Center for Countering Digital Hate's new report finds 'outright denial' of climate change has declined on YouTube, but 'new denial' minimizing climate change or dismissing climate science has risen to 70% of denial content. They recommend YouTube update policies to forbid content contradicting scientific consensus on climate change's 'causes, impacts, and solutions,' not just its existence. The creator argues this risks censoring reasonable opinions; better to combat misinformation with facts. Though psychological studies suggest this is often ineffective, the decline of outright denial indicates facts do change minds.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Center for Countering Digital Hate released a new report warning that climate misinformation continues to spread on YouTube.
• 😕 Outright climate change denial has declined. Instead, most misinformation now falls under 'new denial' - acknowledging climate change but downplaying it.
• 🤔 New denial makes up 70% of climate denial claims on YouTube now, up from 35% six years ago.
• 😠 YouTube makes over $13 million per year from monetized climate misinformation videos.
• 😡 The Center calls on YouTube to expand its climate misinformation policy to cover 'impacts' and 'solutions' too.
• 😕 The Center's proposed policy risks censoring opinions, not just misinformation.
• 🤨 Bans and demonetization may not effectively curb misinformation due to viewer demand.
• 😌 The best way to combat misinformation is with reliable information, though it's hard to change minds.
• 😕 Misinformation is a difficult problem, and will likely get worse with more advanced AI.
• 🤔 Emoji Comments and advice are welcomed on potential solutions!

Q & A

What is the main finding of the report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate regarding climate misinformation on YouTube?

The report found that outright climate change denial has declined on YouTube, but "new denial" claims have risen sharply, now making up 70% of climate denial content. New denial acknowledges climate change is happening but claims it's not worrying, we can't do anything about it, or dismisses climate science and scientists.

What does the Center for Countering Digital Hate recommend YouTube do about climate misinformation?

They recommend YouTube update its policy to explicitly disallow content that contradicts the scientific consensus on the causes, impacts, and solutions to climate change. They also recommend more demonetization of such content.

What does the creator of the video think about the proposed policy changes by the Center for Countering Digital Hate?

He thinks banning opinions about climate change solutions and impacts, not just facts, goes too far by restricting free speech and debate. He believes the problem is more on the demand side - people wanting misinformation - rather than the supply side.

Why does the creator think old-style outright climate denial has declined on YouTube?

He thinks the evidence for climate change has simply become too strong to ignore now. He doesn't believe monetization policies are the main reason, as a similar shift has happened on Twitter.

What does the creator see as the root cause of demand for climate misinformation?

He believes many people subconsciously want information, however unsound, that confirms beliefs and conclusions they hold dear. Bans and demonetization won't fix this underlying demand.

What solution does the creator propose to combat climate misinformation?

He believes the best solution is to meet misinformation with factual information and education. Though he is skeptical bans and monetization changes will help much.

Why does the creator doubt psychological studies showing people rarely change views when presented with new information?

He is somewhat skeptical about the reliability of such psychological studies in general. Also, the very fact old climate denial is declining shows people can and do update views when confronted with facts.

Why does the creator predict the misinformation problem will likely get worse?

Because more advanced AI tools are becoming available that can spread customized misinformation more easily and convincingly.

What does the creator see as the main advantage of ads for misinforming content creators rather than viewers?

Ads target the viewer's interests and preferences, not the actual content, so brands don't have to worry about association with disliked content - viewers have already self-selected by clicking.

Does the creator see any solutions to the climate misinformation problem that he thinks would be effective?

No, he openly states that he does not have a good solution himself to this difficult issue, and hopes that someone else knows an effective approach.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 New report shows growth of ‘new denial’ climate misinformation on YouTube

The Center for Countering Digital Hate released a report showing 'new denial' climate misinformation, which acknowledges climate change but downplays the risks, has grown to 70% of denial claims on YouTube. They call on YouTube to update its policy to restrict content contradicting scientific consensus on climate change impacts and solutions. While limiting scientific misinformation is good, restricting opinions could cross into censorship of valid concerns like energy shortages.

05:05

😕 The root of misinformation is public demand, not supply

Banning misinformation content and demonetization may be ineffective because people seek out information that confirms their beliefs. The best solution may be countering misinformation with facts, although some studies suggest people rarely change minds when presented with new information. More thought is needed on addressing the complex issue of misinformation spread.

Keywords

💡climate misinformation

The main theme of the video is the spread of climate misinformation on YouTube. Climate misinformation refers to false or misleading claims about climate change, its causes, impacts, and potential solutions. The video discusses how outright denial of climate change has declined, but 'new denial' misinformation continues to spread and make money for content creators.

💡new denial

'New denial' refers to a shift in climate misinformation away from outright denial of climate change and towards claims that downplay its severity, dismiss climate science/scientists, or argue that climate change is natural or beneficial. The report found this type of misinformation dominates climate-related content on YouTube now.

💡YouTube

YouTube is called out in the video as a major platform where climate misinformation and 'new denial' content thrives. This is the main focus of the report discussed in the video, which analyzed YouTube specifically.

💡Center for Countering Digital Hate

This non-profit organization produced the report on YouTube and climate misinformation highlighted in the video. They used AI to analyze YouTube and are calling for policy changes by YouTube to combat climate misinformation.

💡monetization

The video discusses how YouTube's monetization policies may influence content creators to shift towards 'new denial' from outright denial, since 'new denial' can still be monetized.

💡policy change

The Center recommended YouTube update its policy to restrict content contradicting scientific consensus on climate solutions, not just causes/impacts. The video creator disagrees with this policy change recommendation.

💡demand for misinformation

The video argues bans and demonetization won't curb misinformation much since the core problem is public demand for content that confirms existing biases, not just supply of misleading content.

💡combatting misinformation

The creator argues information itself is the best way to combat misinformation, though acknowledges the difficulty of changing minds. He is skeptical of content restrictions as solutions.

💡scientific facts

The video distinguishes between scientific facts, which can be countered with information, and opinions about climate change solutions, which are not necessarily 'misinformation'.

💡psychological studies

The video mentions studies finding people rarely change minds when given new information, but argues the creator is skeptical of such studies based on the decline in outright denial.

Highlights

The Center for Countering Digital Hate put out a new report warning that climate misinformation continues to flourish on YouTube.

Outright climate change denial has strongly declined. The majority of climate misinformation is now "new denial" - claims acknowledging climate change but saying it's not worrying or we can't do anything about it.

"New denial" makes up 70% of all climate denial claims on YouTube now, up from 35% six years ago.

The main reason for the shift to "new denial" is that it has become futile to ignore the evidence for climate change.

YouTube makes over $13 million per year in ad revenue from climate denial videos.

The Center recommends updating YouTube's policy to disallow content contradicting the scientific consensus on climate change impacts and solutions, not just on its existence.

Banning climate denial risks crossing over from limiting misinformation to attempting to control opinions about climate change severity and solutions.

The problem isn't people creating misinformation but the many who want to watch it to justify their beliefs.

Bans and demonetization may not help much because if there is demand for misinformation, supply will meet it.

The best way to combat misinformation is with information, though some studies suggest people rarely change minds when given new info.

The decrease in old climate denial suggests people do change minds with facts.

Scientific misinformation will likely get much worse as more AI tools become available.

Ads don't associate brands with disliked content because people click on content they like - so market forces won't fix this.

The speaker is skeptical about the reliability of psychological studies saying people rarely change minds.

The speaker doesn't have a solution for combatting the spread of scientific misinformation.

Transcripts

The Center for Countering Digital Hate  put out a new report a few days ago,  

in which they warn that climate  misinformation continuous to  

flourish on YouTube. They want YouTube  to take more action. Let’s have a look

The Center for Countering Digital Hate is an  American-British non-governmental non-profit  

organization. For their new report, they  used artificial intelligence to crawl  

YouTube videos and to classify all types of  climate misinformation that it came across. 

They found that outright climate change denial,  that is claims that the climate isn’t changing  

or that humans are not responsible for  it, have strongly declined. Instead,  

the majority of climate misinformation  is now what they call the “new denial”. 

This encompasses claims that acknowledge the  climate is changing and we are causing it,  

but it’s nothing to worry about, or it’s actually  good for us, or if it’s not good then we can’t do  

anything about it anyway. To the “New denial”  they also add a general dismissal of climate  

science or climate scientists as unreliable.  Their analysis found that this “New Denial” now  

makes up 70% of all climate denial claims made  on YouTube, up from 35 percent six years ago.

This shift has been going on for some years,  and you will probably see the “new deniers”  

in the comment section below because they like to  follow me around. It’s the type that claims carbon  

dioxide is good for plants therefore all is well,  and all climate scientists are frauds and so on.

The main reason for this shift is probably that  it’s simply become futile to ignore the evidence  

for climate change. A secondary reason may  be that YouTube doesn’t allow monetization  

of videos of the old denial type, whereas the  new denial type can be monetized. Personally,  

I think that’s only a small part  of the reason because we’ve seen  

the same shift on twitter which until  recently couldn’t be monetized all.

The report contains quite a few  examples of videos that use the  

new denial. Most of them have few views,  but some of them go into the millions,  

featuring people such as Jordan Peterson  or being produced by Prager University.  

The center estimate that YouTube makes more  than 13 million dollars in revenue each year  

from the new climate denial. Which doesn’t sound  like much unless it’s in your own bank account.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate then  calls on YouTube to update its policy. The  

current policy is: “We do not allow content  that contradicts authoritative scientific  

consensus on climate change.” And the policy  they recommended policy: “We do not allow content  

that contradicts the authoritative scientific  consensus on the causes, impacts, and solutions  

to climate change.” They also recommend more  demonetization on YouTube and other social media.

I see a big problem with that recommended  change in policy. It’s that it’s crossing  

over from limiting the spread of scientific  misinformation which I think is a good idea,  

to attempting to streamline people’s  opinions about how bad the situation is  

and what a good solution would be. It’s  crossing over from facts to opinions.

If someone claims that plants will benefit from  the sudden change of climate zones, then that’s  

scientific misinformation alright. If someone says  that they’re not worried about climate change and  

more worried about energy shortages, then that’s  their opinion. And depending on where they live  

that opinion might not be all that crazy. Indeed, you could also argue that I myself  

count as a “new denier” according to  this center, because I’ve made a video  

explaining why I think all current plans to  reach net zero are almost certain to fail.

So let me say it bluntly, I am not in favour of  a policy change of this type. I am not happy of  

course that some people are making money peddling  nonsense. But the problem isn’t the few people  

who produce this content, it’s the many who watch  it. The problem is that a big part of them *want  

misinformation. They want misinformation  -- consciously or subconsciously -- to  

justify conclusions that they hold dear,  whether or not their reasoning is sound. 

This is why I doubt that bans or demonetization  are going to make much of a difference for the  

spread of misinformation: If there’s  demand, there’ll be supply. Market  

forces alone won’t going to fix this  issue because ads target the viewer,  

not the video creator. This means brands don’t  really need to worry that they will be associated  

with content that the viewer dislikes because the  vast majority of people click on a certain type  

of content because they like stuff that like. Personally I think that the best way to combat  

misinformation is with information. I know  that that’s very old school and that some  

studies seem to have found that people rarely  change their mind when given new information.  

But I am somewhat, hmm, sceptical about  the reliability of psychological studies.

Also, the very fact that the old climate  denial is on the decrease speaks against  

it. People do evidently change their  mind when confronted with facts. But yes,  

scientific misinformation is a really  difficult problem and it’s bound to get  

much worse as more AI tools become available.  I hope that someone, somewhere knows a good  

solution because I don’t have one. Though,  maybe you do? Let me know in the comments.

Thanks for watching, see you tomorrow.