The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20240907074529/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BitChute
Jump to content

Talk:BitChute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bias?

[edit]

"The platform also hosts misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conspiracy theory video Plandemic has been viewed on BitChute millions of times after having been removed from other platforms for spreading medically harmful misinformation."

My quotes and my bold above. Wouldn't it be better to include any original sentences that contain those words as quotes directly from the articles to make it clear that those word choices are the opinion of the original writer rather than that of the Wikipedia editor of the article? The way this section is written now clearly shows personal bias in my view. "Conspiracy theory" has the tinge of bias about it as well, though I guess one could make the argument that the producers of Plandemic did indeed propose a theory (actually a hypothesis) dealing with what they maintain is a conspiracy. Pretty obvious that term was included as a means of attacking not only the video's content, but the Bitchute platform itself. RRskaReb talk 08:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find that Plandemic is described as a conspiracy theory on it's own article because we have plenty of reliable sources that describe it as such. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No the entire section is up for removal. The site has taken neutrality as their stance, so we need to include Verizon and AT&T for having users that were on other sites also sign up on this site . Has zero relevancy. Objective Reason (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear what you are proposing to change. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Association with the 'Nazis' was a long time ago

[edit]

Please check out Ofcom recent articles, it is a UK government agency, the platform is now fully compliant and this article is basically slandering it. I removed that it hosts neo Nazis. โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyron1987 (talk โ€ข contribs) 03:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to provide reliable, independent sources that support your assertions that the public perception of the platform has changed. However, the Ofcom article is not such an article โ€” it merely notes some changes that BitChute promised to make, while also noting "While we welcome these improvements, we are aware of reports alleging that content likely to incite violence and hatred continues to be uploaded to BitChute, can be accessed easily, and may pose significant risks to users." GorillaWarfare (she/her โ€ข talk) 15:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but do you see how this isn't fair? Even YouTube had Nazi content in the beginning, which was eventually blocked and the users banned. I'm not asking to remove the entire statement, just the part about hosting neo-Nazis. Twitter X and Rumble have a lot of nazi content, yet there's no mention of neo-Nazis in their opening paragraph of a Wikipedia article that millions read. BitChute is a small operation, and descriptions like this can be damaging.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/bitchute-03-10-2023/ Xyron1987 (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NPOV: "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." Independent, reliable sources have overwhelmingly discussed Bitchute as home to neo-Nazis and other such content, and so the Wikipedia page reflects that. If Bitchute has indeed changed their platform moderation strategy then perhaps they will eventually become known for something else. However, there has been little in the way of coverage of the site since the Ofcom press release, so it would be premature to suggest that that has indeed happened. We follow the reliable sources, not the other way around. GorillaWarfare (she/her โ€ข talk) 14:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have at least an introductory paragraph like this one? "Rumble is an online video platform, web hosting, and cloud services business headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, with its U.S. headquarters in Longboat Key, Florida. It was founded in 2013 by Chris Pavlovski, a Macedonian Canadian technology entrepreneur. Rumble's cloud services business hosts Truth Social, and the video platform is popular among American conservative and far-right users. Rumble has been described as "alt-tech"."
Then the part about Nazis, hate speech, and other concerns can be included in a "Controversies" section of the article. Placing it right at the beginning feels a bit excessive, in my opinion. Also, keep in mind that Ofcom is a UK government agencyโ€”I wouldnโ€™t underestimate their influence. Xyron1987 (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has one: โ€œBitChute is an alt-tech video hosting service launched by Ray Vahey in January 2017.โ€ I have no doubts about Ofcomโ€™s influence, but that does not change that Wikipedia reflects what is written in secondary, reliable sources, and reflects what has happened rather than trying to predict what may happen. GorillaWarfare (she/her โ€ข talk) 13:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about 'publishing far right content' instead of hosting neo nazis since there's no proof of this? Xyron1987 (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iโ€™m not sure what you mean by no proof, the citations (for example, [1]) are adequate. GorillaWarfare (she/her โ€ข talk) 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]