Talk:BitChute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Please Rename

The site rebranded into Spkout, without changing anything else really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMacG4pedia (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It was recently rebranded back to BitChute, due to popular demand. --Sumafi (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Celebrities and YouTube

It doesn't strike me as particularly relevant to the site to put such an emphrasis on which celebrities are using the site ("Southern automatically mirrors her YouTube channel on BitChute", "including popular creators such as Computing Forever"). It perhaps would be better to have a section called "Notable people using BitChute" or so.
Further, the "Reception" section lists how people reacted to what YouTube is doing. I'd expect the section to look more similar to Facebook#Reception. Dänenleo (talk) 02:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Until there's more information here about BitChute I'd say it should stay, it does have some relevance. If someone, perhaps yourself, wants to fill in the article more then I'd agree with you about undue relevance, otherwise it's just removing info on an already very scant article.Tapirium (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User numbers

In the articles on Gab.ai and Minds.com user numbers, and links to articles that state them, are featured. As it's of interest not only in how popular they currently are but also to chart their rise, or decline, I feel that BitChute ought to have the same. Is there any way of finding active user numbers, or at least registered user figures? My brief searches haven't come up with anything definite. Tapirium (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed feature: Show number of seeders and peers and transfer speeds.

Didn't BitChute once (2017) allow the user to see in real-time how many seeders and peers the video has while watching the video? --Chanc20190325 (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2019

X " Alex Jones, the Proud Boys, Tommy Robinson, and several anti-fascists wre also banned at the same time." Y " Alex Jones, the Proud Boys, Tommy Robinson, and several anti-fascists were also banned at the same time." 82.75.198.81 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)  Done. wre->were. Thanks. Any problems get back to me here.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Article neutrality

I confess to having some concerns, rightly or wrongly, and I cannot be sure which, about the neutrality of the article. My concerns seem to centre around the use of the word characterize which somehow feels non-neutral to me. Also the way that is backed in the lede by a group of 4/5 sources as one raises my eyebrows a little. I also have not seen evidence that all BitChute content is right wing.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC) I have attempted some slightly alternative wording which I hope eases difficulties. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Do you have a suggestion for a different word than "characterize"? I'm not married to that term, but I also don't see it as non-neutral. What about the sourcing raises your eyebrows? I'm not sure if I'm misreading your comment, but is your concern that it is too well-supported? As for not seeing evidence that all BitChute content is right wing, that's no problem, since this article does not claim that is the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I've just seen you made a change to try to address it, which I've just undone. "The platform has become associated as a home for..." is not grammatically correct, and rephrasing it to "The platform has been associated with the far right" is not accurate to the sourcing. Your second change in that edit (the sentence "BitChute has become one home for far-right content banned from platforms such as YouTube") is also not great, because it implies that the far-right content on BitChute is only content banned from YouTube—something that is directly contradicted in this article by the mention of far-right people who cross-post their YouTube content to BitChute. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

OK. Given my lack of grammar skills and given the reversions to what I regard as a non-neutral state I have tagged the article for neutrality with a discussion here which seems reasonable. I regard the last sentence in the lede as non-neutral and use of the word characterized as having issues. The use of 5 citations to justify that is also a concern, its a bit like a book cite without the page numbers. In fact the more I look at this the more the whole article seems slanted towards a specific depiction of the subject dominating every section. No reference is made to its guidelines or how well they are being enforced or whether Credible threats or incitement to violence will not be tolerated vs say freedom of expression allows hate-fueled content. I can't recall I've watched a BitChute video ever ... I have little doubt it is hosting far-right/alt-right content ... indeed scrolling down the homepage (not logged in) seems like that is the case. I have applied a WP:POV notice as that seems reasonable.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: I'm still not clear on how you find "characterized" to be non-neutral. I would argue that "associated with" is actually more condemnatory, as it implies that BitChute has actively done something to align itself with the far-right, whereas "characterized" describes how it has been described by outside sources.

I'm also not sure what the five citations concern is, or what your comment about "like a book cite without the page numbers" means. The citations are all clearly available in the references section. Are you saying you'd prefer the citation not to be grouped, but rather for [3][4][5][6][7][8] to be placed directly in the lead? I'm fine with that, if that's what you're asking for.

The article is representative of what is said about BitChute in reliable, independent sources, as WP:NPOV instructs: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.. Articles do not achieve "neutrality" by inserting content from sources that are not independent (e.g., BitChute's own policy page). Can you please link to the reliable, independent sources that go into detail about BitChute's guidelines and enforcement? Happy to add some information about them, but only if they're being discussed in that context. As for your own observations of BitChute's content, that's original research which can't be used in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually its not representing the defence views of the platform as in the Washington Post. And content can be selectively chosen and given sufficient weight to show things in a particular way. And I believe that is what is happening here. Andrew Blake of the Washington Times took care to ensure Ray Wahey's viewpoint was represented ... “BitChute is politically neutral and we have a diverse community in interests and backgrounds,” Mr. Vahey said Wednesday. “We require that users only upload legal content that complies with our terms and community guidelines. We carry out moderation to remove all content that breaches our terms and community guidelines, including but not limited to videos from terrorists, child abuse or pirated video.” this article is not putting in place that balance. And it is not structured in such a way to give that balance. For example the distributing child sexual abuse material while a technically correct extraction from the source gives a higher prominence in the article on BitChute than it ever was in the source. So I have grave concerns about a one sided argument. While I am convinced the article as stands does not maintain a WP:POV I am not denying a very right wing and very problematic content. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of sources. From The Daily Dot:

According to BitChute’s community guidelines, it is not about “oppression or incitement,” or “platform bias.” It also stresses equality for users: “Viewers should decide through objective criteria such as views, likes, and subscriptions which creators are featured most prominently across BitChute, with the expectation that the more widely accepted and supported content will rise to the top.”
[...] Despite the widely accepted and supported content that often rises to the top, which, according to the popular and trending pages, is heavy on right-leaning politics, BitChute founder Ray Vahey tells the Daily Dot the site welcomes “content from diverse categories and from people of all backgrounds” and adds that it has “become very popular in politics and news, and that is in part because we are one of the few neutral places where independent news can publish and be treated fairly in 2018.” Last month they reportedly saw more than half a million active videos.
[...] In the Cuisine category, one of the month’s trending videos features a thumbnail of a topless woman passed out on a picnic table, with the caption “Christine Blasey (Ford) at a pool party” below it, alongside beer and wine reviews and a vintage cereal commercial. In Music, one trending video from jewtube69 called “Black Lives Will Never Matter” features a character named “Moonman” in front of a Nazi flag. Other song titles make liberal use of the N-word. Vahey says they remove “any videos that are found to violate our terms and community guidelines,” and that includes “pornography, pirated movies, doxing, illegal material such as terrorist content or content that incites violence.”

From The Verge:

[...] But other sites have more openly admitted that they’re compromising principles to stay online. YouTube alternative BitChute justified taking down another Daily Stormer writer’s “satirical” call for race war by saying it could make domain registrars deny service. (BitChute disputes this characterization, telling The Verge that the decision was following the letter of its terms of service.) GoyFundMe explicitly reserves the right to remove any project that might threaten the site’s relationship with payment processors. wumbolo ^^^ 15:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• I have raised concerns at WP:NPOVN about an hour but was called to deal with a RL issue in the interim before riased that notification here. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks for notifying. I also have to deal with some real-life stuff (and an issue elsewhere on the wiki) but I'll try to come back to this this evening. Hopefully we'll get some outside opinions from NPOVN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

lede

I'd note Wumbolo has made some good faith attempts at article improvement but I think I spot some grammar errors, other bits may look helpful. The history section has/had issues because it failed to follow timeline and possibly due to the weight given to criticism section but I've been looking at the lede.

1. I've become concerned with the 'and' in second sentence as it immediately pulls in the far-right and banned content before the platform has had a chance to describe itself.
2. I'm concerned the The Southern Poverty Law Center has an overly prominent place in the lede.
3. I want to see some statement on the plaform's view on how it claims not support/tolerate/have takedowns for child abuse/pornogrphy and incitement to violence. (I don't have good words). This from the Washington times probably should be in the article body “BitChute is politically neutral and we have a diverse community in interests and backgrounds,” Mr. Vahey said Wednesday. “We require that users only upload legal content that complies with our terms and community guidelines. We carry out moderation to remove all content that breaches our terms and community guidelines, including but not limited to videos from terrorists, child abuse or pirated video.” and some summary of it the lede. In both cases it needs to be indicated this is what the service claims ... which may or may not be different from the practice, and I'm not sure attempting to squeeze that into the lede gives more problems that simply leaving it out. I do wish independent reviews were available on compliance and timely enforcement of their guidelines.

I feel neutrality and proper weighting can be helped by devoting the first paragraph of the lede to the Technology, the stated purpose, and ideally the claimed platform rules. The second paragraph can be devoted to describing the predominant far right attracted content. Something like the following lines (this is really a starter for ten):

BitChute is a video hosting service that uses peer-to-peer WebTorrent technology. It was founded as a way to avoid content rules that are enforced on platforms like YouTube. The service has attracted some creators who have been banned or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetized") on YouTube. The platform has become noted for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists and has received criticism for hosting "hate-fueled material"

Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd personally keep the lead short like that of 8chan, since this article is quite short. @Djm-leighpark: are you concerned with mentioning "SPLC" or "hate-fueled material" in the lead? Because the SPLC needs to be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:RSP. I disagree with your 1st point because the vast majority of sources connect BitChute's policies to the exile of non-TOS-compliant YouTubers. wumbolo ^^^ 12:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Wumbolo: (sorry we just edit conflicted). (1) I'd like the and removed. (2) I'm not happy with SPLC being mentioned in the lead. (3) I'm not necessarily concerned about having hate-fueled etc in the lead ... I'm probably more concerned about overall article weight and balance at the article level and lede level than the individual attributions (though that's important). I'll exapand later ... which could be 10mins, 10 hours or 2 days.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

(More considered answer): To a degree if looking at the 8chan article as a model I personally see the first paragraph is descriptive of the service and the second contains criticisms and adoptions giving a balance, and the body split into History and Controversies and that is the direction I would like to see this article taking to achieve WP:NPOV. It terms of SPLC that is a non-neutral organisation though I have little doubt as the the accuracy of its information and full attribution can be made in the body. But in a small lede it is open to promotion and undue weight. If similar content is available from the Guardian I'd probably be happier with that also as its more generic. Increasing the article content in terms of technical, service aims guidelines and compliance/enforcement would be helpful, unfortantely no review so far directly analyses this.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to mention the banning of other individuals in the same line as Bitchute. It implies a guilt by association where two statements are placed next to each other to suggest them going hand in hand. This is one of the many issues plaguing the lack of NPOV of the page. The whole article reads as if someone with a grudge against the far-right wishes to write a smear piece. The article is less about the service provided by bitchute and more about political assertions. The CEO has given multiple interviews where he ID's himself as libertarian with an emphasis on the platform being open and universal to all. 86.158.84.131 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

@86.158.84.131: I tweaked the content mentioned with [1] and an unintended side effect may be to make those sentences more prominent. That was really meant as an interim stepping stone edit. I may or may not choose to attempt suggest or make further changes later in whatever timescale I choose. I have tried to have the article with Template:POV but it has been removed; I have also raised at WP:NPOVN. I'll probably also add a workpage as it is an alternative that sometimes may work for prototyping changes ... I have some ideas ... but no consistent updates currently. You (or other IP's) are welcome to use Template:Requestedit per WP:EDITREQ to suggest an edit but I myself probably wont touch anything much other than a spelling correction. Should you have WP:COI please declare it. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

History Section refactor

I've made a bold move to split that into a technology and content section. I've slight moved some phrases in the technology section to focus on BitChute first and related background second and teaked the Epik regristration slightly but the content and references are essentially the same and lossless. With the refactor I can see a couple of gaps ... How was no Paypal dealt with ? A little also about the founding aims also, being part of the new wave alt social media. The intro to the content section is a little abupt. I've also notice this reference from the guardian which is normally regarded as reliable but can be considered to have a left mainstream bias/opinion/audience and may have some use. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I've renamed "Technology" to "History" since only one paragraph was about the site's technology; the other two were just about the Paypal ban and the shift to Epik. I thought about splitting it, but that would make for three very short sections. I haven't seen any RSes talk about how the ban from PayPal was dealt with; I suspect they did the same things other sites have done and moved to some more lenient payment processors, but that's just speculation. What part of the Guardian source are you suggesting be used? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

As the Technology hasn't developed the reversion to History is reasonable. I think the section split is helpful going on. I still have grave concerns about the POV ... as does the IP above. I have some 1/2 thoughts on way forward; but no consistent way forward yet. Though I have actually done some reading (in fact I can't currently much remember what was where but I got an improved re-read of Wumbulo's source suggestion. Re-reading the Guardian I'm not sure it gives anything much useful. The monetization is one area that is useful. There is creator monetization and site monetization. I think the former can be cited the plaform allows the video creator to set that up and puts the onus on them to do so. Site monetization is less clear and not apparently mentioned reliably ... I suppose it may be part of advertizing (allowed for non NSFW/NSFL content) or it may be donations. The site guidelines allow target censorship-free (there are certain limits on extreme content). One question can it be reliably sourced that the site policy chosen simply to be censorship-free to be a home for displaced You-tube content; or was it set that way simply specifically so there would be a home for right-wing/conspiracy-theory/.... content and the site guidelines set up to suit with the rules generic enough so it can be said to be non-biased? This is likely to be unclear. I believe one of the sources (but check) indicates Vahey was aware he was leveraging content that right wing to grow the platform. So there's fair opportunities for article expansion but a lot of neutrality, balancing and sourcing pitfalls and a few gaps. And technology-wise the platform may be notable for (successfully) leveraging the WebTorrent technology to scale at low cost .... that claim needs to be from a reasonable source. Lots of ideas .... not quite fitting together yet. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Both myself and WBG (and perhaps others, I just am mentioning them because they removed the POV tag) are comfortable that this article is not POV. Neither you nor the IP has specified exactly what viewpoint is stated in reliable sources that is not given proper weight in this article, so it is appropriate to leave the POV tag off. I am happy to try to work with you if there is some reliably sourced coverage that is missing in this article, but I can't if I don't know what it is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The concern does not relate to any individual sourced edit. However I have concerns, perhaps justified, perhaps not, of conscious or unconscious WP:tendentious editing. Vahey's/site guidelines arguments of site neutrality have not been presented, for example .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality is not achieved by presenting the opinion of one person with a vested interest in the site's success alongside independent descriptors of the website. Vahey's opinion on the neutrality of the site is not particularly useful, as Winged Blades of Godric has pointed out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The fact the guidelines claim site political neutrality is not really contentious or disputable and is hard primary evidenced by the site itself and archived pages. However whether the guidelines are being enforced are a different matter; it also possible the crafting of the guidelines may having intentional/unintentional biasing; but Vahey certainly cannot be used to firmly evidence guidelines are being enforced. So we both agree and disagree on bits here ... and my concerns of POV remain. And I am wondering why I am spending my RL being feeling tendentiously badgered on this talk page... ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I read your first two lines, quite many times yet it makes precisely zero sense to me. I am not at all certain that your continued participation is helpful and have thus made you aware of a special set of rulings that govern this particular area. Please be careful from now onward and as a starter, don't make random accusations of NPOV et al w/o providing detailed description/explanation of relevant issues, coupled with strong sourcing. And, if you wish to change any relevant policy, please propose such changes over Village Pump. Best, ∯WBG^converse 12:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric I read this as aa threat to stay off my page. In is inappropriate to do that. The suggestion to use Village Pump is helpful but of course likely to be intended to be insulting ... we do of course have history. Drag me to WP:ANI if you wish ... I will likely accept the censorship of my POV concerns. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Asking you for specifics regarding why you continue to claim this article is in violation of NPOV, and attempting to explain policy in regards to your claims, is not tendentious badgering. GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Not that this is really the section to bring it up, but since you're active and at least somewhat familiar with BitChute—any idea why the pageviews seem to have spiked over the past week or two? Happened to notice it in the header template on this page when scrolling by. Usually that happens if the subject of an article is mentioned in the news a lot or something, but I'm not seeing any huge spike in coverage or notable controversy when I look for news articles... GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Dunno. Nothing immediately obvious on the Bitchute trending pages. The first spike was around D-Day when the US President was in Pompey. Could be a BitChute video got linked from Twitter or something; could even be this page was mentioned in a Video. A UK comedian made a politically incorrect statement. There are some page trackers (37) and some editors of this page have been mildly controversial recently but not enough for that spike. But simply dunno.... Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first spike this month must have been because of the high-profile Steven Crowder stuff (whose coverage died off on June 10, like the pageviews), and I think the most recent one has to do with the back-and-forth bans of Black Pigeon Speaks and Soph. wumbolo ^^^ 19:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Alexa rank in infobox

I've reverted several updates to the Alexa (rank) in the infobox. These have all failed to update the associated source (and archive) either correctly not at all failing leaving an inconsistency between the source and the content. The Alexa rank is an interesting metric however it is recalculated daily; a Wiki is not a suitable place for keeping it up to date on a daily basis; and a bot would be a better choice if it was. I suggest a monthly update is at best required unless there is an order of magnitude change .... whether it is 5400, 4000 or 6000 really has little difference for our consideration (5,000 to say under 1,000 or over 10,000 might). A web archive of figure is to be expected, and there may be a case for using dead-url=no to force use of the archive. In fact I think I will do that.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violations

@Daivox: please do not restore WP:COPYVIOEL such as unauthorized copies of femfreq videos. wumbolo ^^^ 20:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV, weasel-words, passive voice

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article makes rather extensive use of weasel-wording and passive voice constructions like "has been characterized as..."

This comes off as a vague smear. Any criticisms we report should be specific, and preferably written in active voice, i.e. who specifically said what, and what exactly did they say.

We should also strive for balance by seeing what sorts of responses have been made to such criticisms - whether by BitChute themselves, or by supporters of BitChute.

Unfortunately, with a lot of journalism these days, the pretense of objectivity has been eroded, and the lines between opinion/editorial pieces and news coverage are often blurred. So it can be tricky to find mainstream coverage of the site beyond hit-pieces. I was though able to find this article from the Associated Press, which has a reasonable semblance of balance: https://www.apnews.com/8b442b41f94b39668369d6271719a6e5

In it, we find such statements from BitChute's founder:

“BitChute is politically neutral and we have a diverse community in interests and backgrounds,” Mr. Vahey said Wednesday. “We require that users only upload legal content that complies with our terms and community guidelines. We carry out moderation to remove all content that breaches our terms and community guidelines, including but not limited to videos from terrorists, child abuse or pirated video.”

“BitChute is pro-free expression which is a universal human right,” he added. “Furthermore, censorship and deplatforming are poor ways to tackle societal problems as they merely create echo chambers that can lead to bigger problems in the long run. It’s important to platform all idea’s as this exposes them to immediate opposition and allows for a public deconstruction of any flaws they may contain. If you are against bigotry or racism or hateful ideologies, you should be pro-free expression.”

So I'm adding an NPOV tag, which should remain until these issues are addressed. -2003:CA:8734:94E:C0F:5823:D09F:43B8 (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the AP piece later when I get a little more free time. But I did want to note that "neutrality" does not mean we have to "balance" critical outside reporting with what a company/founder has to say about themself. Most companies describe themselves quite glowingly, but they are hardly objective. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

A few points: 1. Obviously one's statement about themselves (or their own company) are hardly gonna be unbiased, but neither are the statements by those who have been criticizing BitChute certainly not groups like the SPLC, which is why it makes sense to let readers hear both sides and reach their own conclusions. (And also to avoid passive-voice and other such weasel-language and say specifically who said what and what the response, if any, to such criticism was.) 2. As noted above, the ideal of objectivity in journalism, which most outlets until fairly recently at least strove to maintain a veneer of, has been steadily eroding with the lines between "objective journalism" and hit piece editorials becoming increasingly blurred. There's no one silver bullet solution to this, but certainly it would be a deep perversion of NPOV to consider hit-pieces worthy of inclusion because they're "outside reporting," but the responses to such attacks as not being inclusion-worthy. 3. The AP, while not perfect, is (for the most part) one of the better remaining vestiges of more straight-forward, non-editorializing NEWS COVERAGE. And if the AP considered it appropriate to include such in depth reporting on statements by BitChute's founder then I hardly see why Wikipedia should consider them not worthy of inclusion. -2003:CA:8734:92C:B114:91D0:407C:1476 (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, SPLC has had a number of controversies of their own and should not be treated as some kind of independent arbiter. Yes maybe they characterized BitChute as such, but is this relevant? Must we list every random person or group on the internet who has issued some kind of characterization? I would suggest that if the founders of BitChute consider it non-political, that is enough. As far as I know, BitChute is not banning leftist content, so it is not fair to call it some kind of right wing platform just because some (but not all) of the content creators are right wing. If they were banning leftist content, then that would be a different story. 2605:6000:568D:CC00:E536:F813:4DD1:32D9 (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The AP/WaTimes article is already cited, see ref 8. wumbolo ^^^ 18:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen that there was already a citation to the same article, just published by a different platform. Thanks for pointing that out. Obviously it wouldn't make sense to include a duplicate citation, but I do think it'd make sense to include more detailed quotations from BitChute such that readers can see their responses to the smears which have been leveled against them. -2003:CA:8734:92C:B114:91D0:407C:1476 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Responding here to both of your replies, just to avoid making a tangled thread. No worries, that happens a lot with the Associated Press. If you want to add statements from other reliable, independent sources about BitChute, please be my guest—I've done my best to find what's out there, but I'm sure there are sources I've missed. But it's not appropriate seek "balance" by countering negative claims about BitChute with statements from BitChute-affiliated people. Please see WP:IS, which discusses avoiding "undue attention to the subject's own views". GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So I'm starting an RFC because the user GorillaWarfare seems to be at least skirting the line of WP:OWN here, and seems determined to maintain this article as a smear piece against BitChute rather than one which gives the site neutral coverage. So more input from a diverse group of Wikipedia editors is certainly needed here.

In her comment above, she talks about WP:IS, and argues that we shouldn't give "undue attention to the subject's own views," but including a response to criticisms is hardly "undue!"

Furthermore, this guideline is specifically about "using independent sources" - i.e. Wikipedia editors shouldn't simply make extensive use of the subjects' own press-releases or other independently published works like tweets or blog posts. But the quotes which I included came from an independent source!

Also, in GW's edit summary, she writes that she "thought about changing the sentence to "has been characterized by BuzzFeed News, The Daily Dot, Business Insider, Quartz, Politico, and The Verge," but online media outlets like BuzzFeed, Daily Dot, Quartz, and Verge, are explicitly ideological, with a strong left-wing (or at least what's called left-wing) bias. And arguably Business Insider and Politico as well, though generally not as explicitly. The others are unabashedly ideological.

Of course one could also include conservative ideologically biased coverage, for example from Breitbart: breitbart (dot) com/tech/2019/02/25/paypal-ceo-admits-partnership-with-far-left-splc-to-blacklist-conservatives/

It's not a favorite media outlet of mine, but it does include a statement from the Electronic Frontier Foundation about the dangers of censorship by corporations and financial institutions. I'd be happy though for now to simply allow the inclusion of the site's own response to the attacks, which was included in the AP/WashTimes article, which was already one of this article's sources.

In any case, what's happened here with BitChute is that, following a push towards censorship and demonitization on YouTube, a website emerged which was committed to allowing free speech (at least speech that's lawful under US law and within basic guidelines). This is what's traditionally been a left/liberal position, and indeed one which many liberal groups like the EFF still adhere to. But because censorship on YouTube has been targeted primarily at conservatives (though not exclusively - media sympathetic to Venezuela, for example, has also been targeted), right-leaning content creators have disproportionately started using alternatives like BitChute, and in turn a number of ideological media outlets have been smearing BitChute, even though BitChute hasn't (as far as I'm aware) expressed any ideological position of their own, other than supporting free expression, and in fact they've specifically stated that they're a non-ideological free speech platform.

So it certainly goes against the spirit of NPOV to then have a smear-driven article based on hit pieces from sites like BuzzFeed and The Verge, without even allowing a response from the site's founder which was published in a reliable third party source that the article was already citing! -2003:CA:8734:99D:59C1:F5C4:6A73:61BE (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be your RfC, you've missed some steps. I'll respond in greater length once I'm back from a vet appointment, but just wanted to give you a heads up so you could begin fixing it if that's the route you intend to take. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that you had the {{rfc}} template, but Wumbolo removed it, citing WP:BEFORE. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Back from the vet, so I can respond at more length. I am not skirting the guideline of WP:OWN—people are welcome to modify this article as long as their modifications follow Wikipedia policy, and adding a bunch of fluff from BitChute's own founder seems to be a misunderstanding of how balance is achieved on Wikipedia. If you want to briefly state that BitChute has objected to the claims made about them, that's fine with me—in fact, I'll add that now to save you the time. But quoting the founder waxing poetic about how BitChute is "pro-free expression", is nobly upholding it as a "universal human right", is fighting "censorship", etc. etc. when no reliable source I've seen describes them as such (independently of mentioning how they describe themselves), is not acceptable. The fact that the quote was published in an independent source doesn't change the fact that it's a quote from the founder of the company.

As far as I'm aware, none of the sources here are considered to be unreliable on Wikipedia. There are plenty of opinion pieces out there that discuss BitChute, which you'll see I've been careful to avoid using. If you disagree with the reliability of using any article from one (or several) of these outlets, feel free to bring it to WP:RSN, which is the proper place to discuss the reliability of an entire publication.

That you're suggesting using Breitbart as a source concerns me, given the reason you couldn't even link to the article you wanted to quote is that Breitbart has so regularly and unapologetically published false claims that the Wikipedia community decided it cannot be used as a source at all. It joins a fairly short list of other deprecated sources—sources which "fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances".

Your comments about BitChute not having expressed any ideological position of their own seem to me to be a straw man—this article does not claim that BitChute (or Vahey, or anyone else who runs the site) is right-wing. It describes the BitChute userbase, which as you acknowledge, is quite right-wing.

This is not a smear piece, and the sources being cited here are reliable. If you would like to provide some reliable, independent sources that characterize the site in a different light, please do—I'd love to add more sourcing to this article. Otherwise, the NPOV tag can be removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I've updated the article, but stricken my comment above about "briefly stat[ing] that BitChute has objected to the claims made about them": the AP/Washington Times piece does not make any claims that Vahey's comment is a direct objection to any particular statement about BitChute, as you've framed it. I have instead added Vahey describes BitChute as "politically neutral". which is factual. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: You might be interested in this conversation, if you haven't already seen it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, yeah, I saw this.

Discounting some aspersions of ownership and the usual story of branding a plethora of RSs to be left-liberal (and hence biased); I see a straw-man argument. Not sure, what to defend.

Vahey's perception was introduced in a poor manner and portrayed a false-equivalency between his views and SPLC et al. What is deemed of it, by third party reliable sources has a far greater encyclopedic value than what is deemed by it's founder. ∯WBG^converse 04:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks—it's helpful to hear a third opinion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Ultimately the issue is confusion over what constitutes a WP:RS in WP, and in particular being familiar with the list of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (which clarifies the status of Breitbart, and of the SPLC's in WP). Unless the OP has more to add or has specific RS that they would like to challenge or introduce, I suggest closing. Britishfinance (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, thanks for pointing out that WP:RSP includes the SPLC! I'd never even thought to look for it, that is useful to know for discussions like this. That certainly seems to answer this concern. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2019

Update alexa rank Yerachmiel Coinblatt (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done. This was updated two weeks ago. See the above section—this really doesn't need to be updated more than monthly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Article protection level

If one or more anon IPs continue to use the edit summary to voice opinion then this article will have its protection level requested to be increased from WP:PCPP to WP:SEMI to prevent that. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Categories

"British entertainment websites" is a category that only has two pages in it, so I'm not sure why this page is in it. Is someone trying to expand that category? Vecr (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about its history, but I have just now WP:DIFFUSEd more pages into the category. If you are interested in cleaning up categories, Wikipedia:HotCat makes it a lot easier. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

UK Based?

It was the change of UK to United Kingdom made me realise that has now become central in the opening sentence of the lede. I note [2] confirms a contact point of Newbury, [3] and associated tabs confirm it and match the correspondence address and the later also confirm the man (Dailydot-Brennan 2019) says is CEO is resident in Thailand). The contact address is a office which can also be used as a accommodation address or virtual office. Now which we can say the registered office is in the UK and the main contact address is in the UK I am not certain we can say in the infobox the Headquarters are in the UK and I am not even totalsure we can safely say based in the UK. (We can probably say UK-registered and the Infobox corporate HQ may have to have a note saying main contact address. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Good points, and good to know about the virtual office. Listing the country is the convention for articles on businesses, which is why I added it. The site's terms of service specifically refer to "English law" as the jurisdiction, which is obviously important for businesses. Perhaps we could mention that Vahey is British and lives in Thailand, but I don't know if this is important or not. We would generally need a reliable source to indicate some specific reason this is significant to the company as a whole. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The is no certainty BitChute uses these offices as an accommodation address or as a virtual office, they could also rent rooms here, so e.g. virtual office is only probable and mention in the article would be WP:ORIGINAL and/or WP:SYNTHESIZE. The main issue is note to perhaps give the impression of a fully functioning real office where this is not the case. (And I'm sure I'm come across this previously myself for some other organization and not twigged to handle it different). And because of the potential lack of operation in the UK having "United Kingdom-based" at the start of the article may give the wrong picture of the operation to the reader. We have (Dailydot-Brennan 2019) as a WP:RS for Thailand backed up by the companies house entry. Probably this would be WP:UNDUE to introduce at the moment, though perhaps could be slid into history if done neatly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 02:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not object to removing this from the lead. As with everything, what we need are reliable, independent sources.

My experience has been that location is basic and important to an encyclopedic overview of a business, and also usually non-controversial. For these reasons, weaker primary sources are typically accepted for things like this. The house source mentions two people with the same UK contact address, and mentions one of them living elsewhere. There are plenty of legitimate reasons a company would use an office like this, and plenty of non-legitimate reasons also. It would not surprise me at all if this company is not doing any real business in the UK, but putting that in the article, even indirectly, seems like WP:OR. Unless, of course, reliable sources dig into it. As a legal entity, the company is still UK-based, at least on the surface. There are a lot of unanswered questions about the who-what-where of this company, so perhaps it would be better to err on the side of caution. Grayfell (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I've gone a bit bold and removed UK-based from the lede. No objection to say history saying: "The company was launched in the United Kingdom in 2017 by Vahey ..." but the companies house reference might have to be used. I have toyed with using a Template:efn note on the Infobox headquarters to say "Registered office and main contact point" (cited to above sources if required) which subtly handles a lot of birds with one stone without trying to shoehorn some prose into the article which might look out of place. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"hate" propaganda doesn't belong in lead

i tried to remove the SPLC's hate propaganda from the lead but was told to take it to talk page so here goes...i think most people have noticed that over the years the SPLC has tagged an ever-widening array of sources as hateful, so much that the very meaning of the word is becoming diluted. the organization has also lost its top people to various scandals, to say nothing of the hefty settlement it had to pay out to a Muslim group for condemning it as hateful without any legitimate basis. this increasingly discredited group's opinion does not belong in the lead, especially when it's repeated under the "content" heading. a "hate-watching" organization whose own executives have been accused of bigotry is not an RS. Gnarly charlie ate some barley (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gnarly charlie ate some barley: If you want to make the argument that SPLC is not a reliable source, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard. However, note that it was decided there earlier this year that it is usable (see the conversation for more detail), so you will want to demonstrate what has changed since then that makes it now unreliable (or what was missed in that discussion). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

There may be a case the naming of the organisation Southern Poverty Law Center (SPML) has too prominent a role in the lede, albeit it is far enough down it does not appear (for me) anywhere on a google search for Bitchute (the top two sentences of the lede are made very prominent in such a search). It is specifically the naming of SPLC in the lede which is a problem, changing it the SPML to say a legal advocacy organization in the lede (not the body) might solve that issue,Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding the name SPLC seems like it would be a bit euphemistic. Several reliable sources have cited or commented on the SPLC's commentary about BitChute. For example, Voice of America uses SPLC to explain that "Experts warn that far-right extremists in the West are turning to fringe sites such as Gab, BitChute, 4chan, 8chan and others to propagate their conspiracies." Vice News uses the SPLC for context on a violent neo-Nazi movement which moved its videos to BitChute. Sometimes these far-right users specifically blame the SPLC for forcing them off Youtube and on to BitChute, such as Red Ice Media, via The Daily Dot. There are many sources mentioning that BitChute is most notable for it's hate content, and is non-notable for any other reason. Since this is a defining trait according to sources, this should be summarize in the first part of the lead. Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that we shouldn't avoid the name—in fact, WP:RSN specifically recommends in-text attribution for the SPLC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely no issues of SPLC's name in the body, but lede is more of a generalization per MOS:LEADREL. SPLC has good winning position at the last sentence in the lede and blue linked highlighted (defective vision sees that). As for claims BitChute's only claim to notability being content may we also not its successful use of peer-to-peer WebTorrent technology but that is not to say it was content that caused its growth, the technology merely enabling it to scale. SPLC's $136 claimed revenue is substantial though it is USA area only on an article that has worldwide coverage. Now a tad euphemistic versus a promotion is perhaps a safer side fail and the jumping on of the suggestion with some wild claims immediately indicates it has traction does it not ? Yes WP:RSP#Southern Poverty Law Center (not WP:RSN though there are bits of discussions there and more specifically on say archive 260) does say should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION but also says Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article... ... and it may therefore be its use in lede is WP:UNDUE. So if you are a partisan organisation you get the honour of being promoted in the lede but if are aren;t partisan you dont have to be. Marvellous. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Promoted? What? Clear attribution is not automatically promotion, and it's not necessarily an honor. What non-"partisan" organization are you talking about? What does being partisan have to do with anything?

Further, what does the SPLC's revenue have to do with anything in this article? Why are you bringing that up?

Reliable, independent sources discuss the SPLC's comments on many topics, including BitChute, so this indicates due weight. It's reasonable to mention this in the lead based on reliable sources.

What reliable sources discuss this site's use of peer-to-peer technology? Are those sources proportionate to the many sources which discuss it's popularity among hate groups? The only source in the article which currently emphasizes this was released by the niche outlet TorrentFreak in January 2017, the same month the site launched. It's painfully obvious that the site's reputation has developed since then. Grayfell (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: painfully is an emotive word. And good quality independent journalism seems in remarkably short supply that we need to resort to promoting SPLC in the lede.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

In-text attribution is not "promotion". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: if SPLC was deemed a reliable source earlier this year i suppose we'll have to wait til it loses a few more lawsuits & has its credibility further ground into the dirt, but do you recall what month that was? Heidi Beirich was fired just a few months ago IIRC. Gnarly charlie ate some barley (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

February–March. This is the link again, if you missed it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gnarly charlie ate some barley: Hasn't the SPLC been going through a lot of issues recently? I believe a few executives have even stepped down/fired, I don't think they should be quoted in the header. This article does seem to have been written with a bias though, possibly violating Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view standard, although I'm open to hearing other opinions. It just seems that bitchute is primarily a new piece of technology built off the idea of webtorrents, and while I agree the site certainly has a political leaning I don't think the SPLC's description is accurate, nor does it represent the site properly. I think a more impartial description would be to describe the most popular channels on the site (such as Tim Pool), and then describe the platforms policy (leaning towards what they call "free speech"), and then describe the criticism. What this article appears to do is it skips over the first two steps and just describes the criticism, but even then it's not taking into account the site policy it's just the opinion of the SPLC, which obviously people have disagreed with. 2600:6C44:637F:F299:B5AE:6CF7:3F3E:69DE (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. If you know of reliable sources which discuss BitChute, present them here for discussion. If those sources mention Tim Pool or other prominent users, or they mention the site's technology, so be it, but we have to start from sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@2600:6C44:637F:F299:B5AE:6CF7:3F3E:69DE: it has, & this is what i am referring to. founder Morris Dees got the boot over allegations of sexual misconduct and (irony alert) racism, & two weeks later Richard Cohen, the director, left as well. Heidi Beirich, who maintained the "Hate List" which has been accused of spuriously adding people who are guilty of nothing more than having non-mainstream political views, also departed shortly after. i believe they are being audited right now, though by a friendly face (Obama White House official Tina Tchen, who was involved in that whole Jussie Smollett mess) so unlikely to turn up anything of significance. i have no problem with mentioning the SPLC's opinion in the article, i just don't think it belongs in the lead, mostly for the reasons you mention. Gnarly charlie ate some barley (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

adding a link to a good overview of the recent moves at SPLC. of note: founder Morris Dees' firing "was reportedly the result of the second misconduct investigation against him. The second group of employees alleged the problems went further than Dees and penned a letter after his firing accusing SPLC leadership of being “complicit in decades of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and sexual harassment and/or assault.” that carries quite a bit of weight - these are people who joined this organization to fight bias & instead found bias rampant inside it. one investigation could be written off as "disgruntled employees," but two is confirmation there's a problem. anyone know when SPLC was last discussed at RS/N? Gnarly charlie ate some barley (talk) 07:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not a forum for complaints about anything, especially not some other organization. This talk page is the place to discuss this article. The SPLC has decades of history and decades of sources, some good, some bad, an an overwhelming number which simply mention there findings without comment. Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, summarizes reliable sources. These recent events, which do not appear to have anything to do with BitChute at all, do not invalidate the SPLC on this article. The appropriate place to discuss the SPLC's general reliability has already been explained. To repeat, this isn't the place to spread information about scandals, nor gossip. Grayfell (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

While it may be obvious I have concerns about possible WP:UNDUE of SPLC in the lede that others may disagree with I would like to endorse the This is not a forum statement by Grayfell. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

It's understood that Wikipedia is not a forum, however, I have yet to find a reliable source that accurately and objectively describes how BitChute really is. If I do come across such a source, I'll be sure to include it in the article, though. 2601:8C:4581:1150:4935:8190:EC90:8DEB (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

New reference(s)

• I would suggest the source [4] and may use language such as free speech that can be incorporated into the article and pass WP:V. Unfortunately the amount on information on Bitchute is quite limited. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Good find. Sibel Adalı has an article, with the other two being PhD students. It appears this is a preprint submitted to a conference. Published sources are better, so it might be worth waiting.

Since free speech is presented in the introduction with scare quotes, context is needed. Here is the paragraph about BitChute which provides that context, for convenience:

Third, filtering out, blocking, or demoting bad information can be perceived as loss of agency or suppression of free speech, which may increase polarization, particularly for those consumers with conspiratorial views. One very prominent example of this is the rise of alternative media platforms such as Gab, Bitchute, and Voat [10], which harbor conspiracy theorist and hyper-partisan information producers. These platforms self-proclaim that they have been created to promote free speech rights that have been taken away from them through the demonetization and removal from contemporary platforms like Twitter and YouTube. While the movement of partisan and conspiracy media from mainstream platforms to alternative platforms may stagnate misinformation flow to the wider public (which is still up for debate), it also creates even more extreme echo chambers, which can lead to radicalization [30].[5]

[10] is S. Zannettou, et. al. “What is gab: A bastion of free speech or an alt-right echo chamber,” in Companion Proceedings of the The Web Conference 2018, 2018, pp. 1007–1014

[30] is arXiv:1908.08313, which is also a preprint.

Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Is BitChute centralised?

I just modified a lede claim by a person associated (rival) 8chan about BitChute technology due to possible COI, albeit some detailed technical evidence is presented (hopefully not cherry picked). Some of this details needs to move down to body first and away from lede but I am not doing that currently. I am minded more on a best guess basis that is it likely Bitchute has some single points of centralised failure and the Peer2Peer may not be working to the extent claimed with a higher proportion of content actually served from remote satellite servers. that BitChute might care to admit. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: It is in my view wholly inappropriate to identify Fredrick Brennan as a rival to BitChute as he has no ownership stake in 8chan, has dissociated himself from 8chan and has actively tried to take 8chan offline. (Our article about 8chan gives multiple reliable sources for that.) Even if Brennan were a rival, Daily Dot has editors so this isn't just Brennan's opinion on his personal blog, but it's in a source we've considered to be reliable in other articles. As such I've undone your edit. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 08:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Technology claims in lede

@Djm-Psiĥedelisto: I accept the undo of the the rival as inaccurate and was in retrospect poorly put. I do have a really genuine concern about the wording of the the lede ... as the in reality is a claim that requires justification. On a further review I observe the following:

• The article in question is a [6]. The headline is "Bitchute claims to be a decentralized platform—that’s not true". The subheading is "Bitchute is making big claims. They may not be true." .... We should note this may be the the "Daily Dot" editorial viewpoint and not the article viewpoint. Not the term "may" here.
• The Daily Dot is considered a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but that does not everything in it may be reliable and RS:CONTEXT needs to be considered. The daily Dot may not has asked Bitchute to comment on the article before it was published.
• We see from the current last paragraph Fredrick Brennan#8chan claims are made Brennan has said "a lot of these sites cause more misery than anything else" and to "Shut the site down". Now while that is directed towards 8chan (Albeit a view possible in concordance with Contract for the Web), it would also likely transfer to a probable bias against BitChute, which we may need to be aware of in the context of this article.
• Probably unrelated but a timing issue 8Chan seem to have just relaunched as 8kun.
• The article is source of a goldmine of things that can be useful incorporated into this article, though a watch be be needed for WP:OPINION.
• Technically I am concerned of the extrapolation of the claim Peer to Peer is not being used and centralization claims. I read definitely they have has a high availability (HA) failure and while the management part of their system is likely centralized remote content may well be spread. While the articles has some good content on how the fallback to centralized (or cached) serving of content works unqualified extrapolation of the experimental result of failure to peer to peer to serve content at particular times may be invalid. The experiments are not rigorous, article language sometimes get emotive.: perhaps there are firewall problems, perhaps peer to peer only kicks in at times of high demand? But Bitchute does perhaps have questions to answer. But there are rightfully questions to ask.

Given the above the I remain minded the in reality claim is too strong and I have re-attempted a lede change. A more detailed embodiment in the body is probably called for when someone has time. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The current wording seems fine for now, pending further discussion. There is a lot of stuff here, and not all of it seems specifically relevant.

8Chan and BitChute are different companies. The article currently doesn't mention 8chan at all, and it's not clear why it would, other then perhaps a "see also" link. It is far, far too simplistic to think that bias can be avoided, or that it means a source is inherently less reliable. Just as firefighters are a reliable source for info on preventing fires, reliable sources are often reliable because they have a specific bias and then do the accompanying work to back it up.

Daily Dot is significantly more reliable than BitChute itself, and it is at Daily Dot's discretion whether or not they seek or publish BitChute's responses to Brennan's commentary via their site. This one example, alone, has very little to do with whether or not the outlet is reliable.

Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, Wikipedia is also not obligated to include BitChute's promotional claims about its commercial services.

So, based on sources, I'm not sure that "peer-to-peer" belongs in the first sentence at all. Since the source used for this this is both relatively old and relatively niche, I don't think this is a defining trait. As I said before, it is painfully obvious that the site's reputation has changed since the first month it launched (I don't care if calling something painfully obvious makes it "emotive" or not). Torrentfreak is an active site which covers peer-to-peer in detail, multiple posts a day, and this one source from January 2017 is the only mention of BitChute I found on the site.

I think It would be better to bump this down to the second paragraph and remove the claim wording. Fredrick Brennan's commentary could be contextualized as his commentary. BitChute's promotional claims could be mentioned as being unproven. There do not, yet, appear to be any sources challenging Brennan's claims or supporting the site's supposed use of peer-to-peer technology in any depth.

I don't know why no reliable sources looked into this aspect of the company before, but that's not really a problem Wikipedia can solve. Still, strong claims demand strong evidence, and BitChute's claims do not hold up to scrutiny by Brennan or anyone else. "Peer-to-peer" appears to be little more than a buzzword here. We should probably not accept their own promotional position until we have sources for it. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

(A very quick reply): It needs a complex walkthrough ... and I think a WP:RS mentions it and I don't think anyone can reasonably disputes the capability isn't there but I notice for example the text and comment (no need to play the video) [[7]] seeming to indicate peer seeding is not on by default. Peer to peer for videos is a technology albeit some have struggled to implement it. Its reasonably to note BitChute is claiming the technology and its reasonable to note concerns far less use of end user peer-to-peer is happening in practice. We have some middling fair claim balance in the article currently. The article notes: Fredrick Brennan is the founder and former owner of 8chan.. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

As Brennan notes, there is no reason to "switch off" file sharing if it was set-up properly in the first place. In this case, Brennan's commentary is a reliable source, 4chan-founder or not. Striking a balance between reliable sources and promotional material making an extraordinary claim is not balance, it's false balance. If Brennan spent a couple of weeks looking for a demonstration of peer-to-peer sharing on the site, and couldn't find it, that's a strong indicator that this is an extraordinary claim. We do not pass-on extraordinary claims made for promotional purposes by companies without a good reason. So far, I haven't seen a good source which supports this claim. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to spend very limited time on WP presently and I am not drilling this as far as it deserves. Schroeder/Daily dot was at least WP:RS for the Peer-to-peer. While I am agreeing article can't stay as is I haven't got sensible bandwidth between RL + other WP stuff and this to do right justice at the moment. It possibly needs Centralization section changed to a more general Technology section first and that might be good way to go. Technically I have a model in my head about what's going on and why and some non-RS but credible sources are supporting it. A lot revolves around Seed Peers and semi-centralization. Apologies I cannot work quicker that this. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I sympathize, and there is no rush. While I am very curious about what is going on (and how it is funded) all of this will need reliable sources, as we both agree. BitChute is, right now, advertising itself as decentralized. It seems plausible it was less centralized in the past and had to roll-back due to technical problems, and it seems plausible that it is working on being less centralized in the future... but that's not really the problem Brennan is talking about. The site says it is decentralized now. While not as prominent as the threat of censorship from its competitor, this is still a significant part of its promotional material. It appears, at least based on this source, that this could be a false claim, or is at least grossly overstated. If you find any reliable sources, let me know, but again, no rush. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary for the peer-to-peer technology (or lack thereof) to be mentioned in the first sentence. While it is accurate that BitChute claims to use this, and that others question it, it's not what the bulk of the coverage of BitChute is about. I think mentioning it in the first sentence gives it unusually high prominence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I've rephrased the lead, and trimmed the subsection for brevity. There just aren't that many sources about this website at all, so a proportionate article will also be pretty short. Grayfell (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Thankyou ... yes ... I been heavily minded the lede sentence has been awkward and have had a couple of failed attempts at a re-work myself before deciding on rework myself. While I'm not 100% happy with the result I'd take about 1/2 a page to explain badly why and I'm well currently incapable to coming up with a lede change better than Grayfell's current modification which is a distinct improvement on what was there previously. I've changed the Centralization section title to Technology which gives a slightly broader and more neutral scope and covers the scaling etc. without specifically focusing in Centralization. Thankyou.00:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks much better! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Magnetic links

I would also like to point out that the Daily Dot reporting is not correct. The magnetic links do work. I have personally used them frequently and they have worked for me every time. The Daily Dot authors fail to realize that WebTorrent and BitTorrent are similar but are not the same. You have to paste the magnetic link into specific clients like WebTorrent-Desktop in order to get the WebRTC peering protocols to work correctly. With that client, the video will download from peers instead of directly from BitChute, and I have also used WebTorrent-Desktop to seed videos in return. I can't personally testify as to why the .mp4 videos appear to come from domains registered with BitChute, but the peer-to-peer nature is self-evident when you visit BitChute livestreams. The only person who can livestream on BitChute at the moment is Alex Jones. When you open that stream, I can open Wireshark and see myself seeding the stream in return. The peer-to-peer nature is there. I'd could write this all out and provide screenshots on a blog post, but I'm not sure that blog posts are acceptable references on Wikipedia at the moment. Please correct me if I'm wrong there.

My main takeaway here is that outlets like Daily Dot are a disgrace - Americans have a constitutional right to free speech, which includes opinions that I strongly disagree with, but the free flow of information is critical to decision-making and a productive society. Daily Dot seems more interested in smearing the site rather than reporting carefully and neutrally. Calls for violence and such are not accepted, which is evident by reading the very simple ToS and community guidelines. I care more about the small channels doing art, chemistry experiments, or independent journalism, which are no longer suppressed once they escape YouTube. 63.157.13.130 (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I can confirm the Magnet links do work with the master branch of webtorrent-desktop at the time of writing. The link does include multiples sections of the format "https://seed*.bitchute.com/*", so it may not be fully decentralized either, and this is WP:OR anyway. Vecr (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, all of this is WP:OR. The Daily Dot article is cited with context and a specific time frame, so readers can evaluate it themselves. If something has changed, cite a new reliable source.

As the Daily Dot article's author has pointed out, a website which can "not accept" certain content based on its terms of service is the authority on what does and what does not violate their ToS. In this case, being "not accepted" is functionally the same as being "suppressed", its just that one sounds a lot nicer than the other.

Also, BitChute is a privately owned British company, so the American Constitutional right to free speech is a distraction, at best. Grayfell (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Bias - undue emphasis on right-wing use of platform

The article puts undue emphasis on the use of the site by right wing channels, misrepresenting some sources in the process. Examples include:

1) The source states to offer an alternative not avoid. torrentfreak source

It was created to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforced on other platforms, such as YouTube.

Suggested rewrite:

It was created to offer content creators an alternative after YouTube demonetised some controversial channels.

2) Using guilt by association. The article is about BitChute not Alex Jones et al:

In November 2018 BitChute was banned from PayPal.[12][13] Alex Jones, the Proud Boys, Tommy Robinson, and several anti-fascists were also banned at the same time.[12]

Suggested rewrite:

In November 2018, BitChute was banned from PayPal. The Verge and Washington Post speculated that it was because of prominent placement Alex Jones's and other conspiratorial videos.[12][13] see below

3) Zero mention of stated purpose to promote freedom of expression and being open to content across political spectrum.

Jonpatterns (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, and the article is about whatever reliable sources say it is about. So yes, in a way, this article is about Alex Jones et al, because that's what most sources talk about when they explain what BitChute is. Reliable sources overwhelmingly emphasis the site's popularity with far-right users, and with conspiracy theory promoters, and rarely mention any other content as significant. The article will naturally and appropriately reflect these sources. "Controversial" is far, far too euphemistic to be helpful. We are trying to explain things to readers, not help BitChute with it's PR problems. The TorrentFreak source for "alternative", as discussed several times above, is a relatively weak one which mainly repeats the promotional talking points from the site's founders coinciding with the launch of the site in 2017. Grayfell (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you miss understand my intention. I not suggesting removing the content of popularity with far-right users and Alex Jones, but improving the weight and stating opinion when it is opinion. Alex Jones, the Proud Boys, Tommy Robinson, and several anti-fascists were also banned at the same time. Does not explain what the sources are saying and leads the reader confused as to why this is relevant.

The Sibel Adalı reference about mentions the site claims to be promoting freedom of expression, this could be used to improve the article's balance. EDIT Daily Dot source also notes Bitchute's self claimed neutrality and promotion of freedom of expression.

In the lede. The word 'avoid' is wrong and does not reflect the source, they are not avoid YouTube rules but using an alternative.

Jonpatterns (talk) 08:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The site's claims of "freedom of expression" are, as the quote I included above indicates, not taken by sources at face value. As the Adalı source indicates, "These platforms self-proclaim that they have been created to promote free speech rights that have been taken away from them through the demonetization and removal from contemporary platforms like Twitter and YouTube." So per this and several other sources, BitChute's users are using it as an alternative because of YouTube's rules. These are not two separate items, and it would be subtly misleading to imply that they are separate. Even when discussing "free speech" or similar, this is the main thrust of all reliable, recent sources I have seen.

As for the "speculate" change, to be blunt, it appears you are summarizing sources which you have not actually read. The Washington Times (not the Washington Post) doesn't really speculate on why they were banned. It merely repeats the site's founders claims of censorship. The Verge article is a brief paragraph which says nothing about Alex Jones at all, and specifically says "It’s unclear what the final straw was." We cannot add this line, since it is not supported by either source. Since it is not really up to us, as editors, to speculate on why Jones, the Proud Boys, etc. were banned, or on why that is relevant, we can simply present the facts in simple terms and let readers figure it out for themselves. Considering the flimsiness of these sources, we could remove the line completely, but I think it is useful to indicate that this wasn't an isolated event where PayPal singled-out BitChute. That's not speculation, although I admit it is subjective. Grayfell (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The Wastington Times (thanks for the correction) only allegedly claims BitChute was banned. In fact, both sources rely only on BitChute's own claim to be banned.

The Washington Times states:

Among the top videos trending on BitChute the day of its apparent removal from PayPal included Tuesday’s footage from Mr. Jones‘ syndicated radio program, the Alex Jones Show, as well as a clip called “It’s Okay to be a Nationalist” and conspiratorial videos concerning both the 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school shooting and last week’s mass-shooting at a bar in Thousand Oaks, California.

Mentioning content inferring it is relevant.

You are right the Verge does not mention Alex Jones, but it does mention content.

PayPal moved to block BitChute, a YouTube clone popular with right-wing vloggers and conspiracy theorists. When Julia Alexander wrote about it in March, the front page was littered with videos about Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Pizzagate. It’s unclear what the final straw was.

Again mentioning content inferring it is relevant. So overall this would better reflect the sources:-

In November 2018, it was reported that BitChute had been banned from PayPal, the reports also commented that the front page had featured right-wing and conspiratorial videos. The Washington Times noted that Alex Jones, The Proud Boys, Tommy Robinson and anti-fascist groups had been banned at a similar time.

Jonpatterns (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

---

That at least two reliable sources note that the site self-proclaims to be promoting freedom of expression means to that fact is notable. Without it some context is lost. It should therefore be included in the article, obviously not unqualified and not in the voice of Wikipedia. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, by breaking this up into separate chunks, and responding out of chronological order, you are making this needlessly difficult to address.

"It was reported" is empty filler at best, and WP:WEASEL at worst. As far as I know, no reliable sources are disputing that BitChute was banned from PayPal, so why would we phrase it in such an awkward and distracting way? The Verge source presents this in simple terms without hedging their bets, as does the later Daily Dot source. The Washington Times (which is a borderline RS at best anyway) is simply using cautious language, since it is a breaking news story. This Wikipedia article is not a breaking news story. So is there some reason to dispute this fact? If not, we should not cast doubt through word games.

Likewise, many reliable sources have documented that the front page is usually populated with far-right and/or conspiratorial videos, and this has been a common thread of sources since the site's founding. Jones, the Proud Boys, etc. were banned at the same time. This is a plain fact which should be presented as a plain fact. We do not need to attribute a plain fact which is not disputed by any reliable source. If your goal is to rebalance this for due weight, you cannot distort those source in this way, as this is contrary to your stated intentions. As I said, I think this is useful context for readers, in part because it shows that this ban was not exclusive to BitChute. Do you disagree that this is helpful?

Several sources mention "freedom of expression" or similar, in some context. There is no hard threshold for inclusion. All sources are judged in context. That two sources mention something is meaningless, by itself. Sources will often mention a company's own claims for context. We are not a platform for promotion, so we are not obligated to ignore the context of sources. If "some context is lost", explain what that context is, and then, perhaps, we can include that in the article accordingly. My assessment of sources is that this is seen as a tactical distraction. As many sources have pointed out, YouTube is not generally attempting to stop these creators from moving to other platforms, and in this respect at least, YouTube is not censoring anyone. BitChute has also already shown that they will enforce their terms of service, and this is a similarity BitChute has conspicuously avoided explaining. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussing one point at a time makes them easier to address, as everything for that point and be read without interruption or omission. I never argued there was a hard threshold for inclusion. Just that the what is in the sources should be properly reflected. I never said Wikipedia should be for promotion. The source have noted the significance of the site's claim to promote 'freedom of expression' or 'free speech'. For example https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.05825.pdf

A deeper problem that is left unaddressed in the technical research threads is what to do when information corrections, whether done by an algorithm or journalist, do not work. Even if information is correctly discredited, consumers may choose to ignore the correct information, due to distrust in the platform, algorithm, or organization providing the corrected information. This behavior is particularly prevalent among consumers with extreme or conspiratorial views [9]. If low veracity information is filtered out or demoted, consumers may become more extreme and distrust the contemporary media platforms. The rise of alternative “free speech” platforms such as Gab and Bitchute are examples of this [10].

Third, filtering out, blocking, or demoting bad information can be perceived as loss of agency or suppression of free speech, which may increase polarization, particularly for those consumers with conspiratorial views. One very prominent example of this is the rise of alternative media platforms such as Gab, Bitchute, and Voat [10], which harbor conspiracy theorist and hyper-partisan information producers. These platforms self-proclaim that they have been created to promote free speech rights that have been taken away from them through the demonetization and removal from contemporary platforms like Twitter and YouTube. While the movement of partisan and conspiracy media from mainstream platforms to alternative platforms may stagnate misinformation flow to the wider public (which is still up for debate), it also creates even more extreme echo chambers, which can lead to radicalization [30].

Jonpatterns (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I also read that source. Notice that the first usage is in scare quotes, and the second relevant usage qualifies this as something these platforms "self-proclaim". The source doesn't take this at face value, so neither can we. The article also mentions several platforms in broad terms. BitChute is just one example, and is not highlighted as specifically dedicated to "free speech" any more or less than the others. This suggests that this is not a specifically defining trait for BitChute.

The source very specifically explains that claims of "free speech" have prompted a rise in false/discredited/bad information. "Free speech" leads to "extreme or conspiratorial views". Evaluating the whole source, it is saying that "free speech" has become a safe harbor for misinformation.

To mention "free speech" without all this context would be misrepresenting the source. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the "free speech" should be mentioned in the context of the sources. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Lede too long

The lede should summarise the content of the article. At the moment it unnecessarily covers some topics in the same detail as the sections. A more succinct version would be:

:BitChute is a video hosting service founded in 2017. It was created to offer content creators an alternative after YouTube demonetised some controversial channels. The platform accommodates far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists. Some creators who have been banned from YouTube have migrated to BitChute.

:At launch, the site described itself as using peer-to-peer technology. The Daily Dot has questioned how much peer-to-peer sharing was actually in use.

Jonpatterns (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Creating multiple sections to advocate what is functionally the same change is more confusing than helpful. Grayfell (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not the same change. Although I did use the example of how I think the shorted lede should be. To use wording more similar to the current lede, a better shortened version would be:

BitChute is a video hosting service founded in 2017. It was created to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforced on other platforms, such as YouTube. The platform accommodates far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists. Some creators who have been banned from YouTube have migrated to BitChute.

At launch, the site described itself as using peer-to-peer technology. The Daily Dot has questioned how much peer-to-peer sharing was actually in use.

Jonpatterns (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

So the main change you are advocating is removing the SPLC quote.

You will need to explain why this is unnecessary. As has been said countless times before on Wikipedia, nobody is obligated to agree with the SPLC, and the article clearly attributes this quote to the SPLC. Agree or disagree, nobody can deny that the SPLC is frequently cited by reliable sources as an authority on hate speech. This is true both in general, and specifically regarding BitChute. Many sources, both already cited and not, explain what BitChute is and then quote someone from the SPLC for further context.

The sentence about demonetization is clumsy, I agree. Demonetization is different from being banned, although obviously related. Sources specifically discuss this aspect as significant, or even necessary, to the site's popularity. Simply slicing the issue in half and only mentioning banning seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Grayfell (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The lede should summarise. With more similar wording to the current version (notice the word 'demonetization' isn't used:

BitChute is a video hosting service founded in 2017. It was created to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforced on other platforms, such as YouTube. The platform accommodates far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists. Some creators who have been banned from YouTube have migrated to BitChute.

Jonpatterns (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The lead does summarize. The type of material that is present on BitChute is central to the article, and so it should be mentioned in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It is almost as verbose as the article though, that is my objection. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The lead is ~96 words and the body text is ~374 (using approximate marks because I just pasted the text into a word counter, but it's at least close). That seems like a completely reasonable ratio to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Technology and content sections

The last line of the technology section is crossing into content territory.

According to Brennan, magnet links on the site don't work, and BitChute sometimes "delists" odious users by removing all their videos. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/bitchute-decentralization-claims/

This delisting is a content issue, not a technological one. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll move it. Actually, upon revisiting the Daily Dot piece, it looks like Brennan is discussing it in a technological sense—that context just didn't make it over to the Wikipedia article. I'll add some more info, which I think will make the mention appropriate for that section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it should go in both sections. From the source:

BitChute is also willing to “delist” some odious users, the term BitChute uses when it deplatforms a user and deletes their videos.

As the article stands it gives the impression that BitChute accommodates any and all content. But according to the source some moderation takes place.

(Sidenote. That said, overall I find the DailyDot suspect. BitChute uses WebTorrent, videos can't be deleted if someone is willing to host them. BitChute can only remove a video 'holding page' from its site.)

Jonpatterns (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit WP:SYNTH to use the Daily Dot source to write about how much moderation BitChute does (or doesn't do). They only mention delisting in the context of its technical implications. As an aside, I'd object to describing users as "odious" in Wikipedia's voice and without in-text attribution -- it's quite a strong word to use about people. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source for BitChute using WebTorrent https://pctechmag.com/2019/02/facebook-twitter-youtube-options/ WebTorrent can be turned on/off in user account settings, this could have been overlooked in DailyDot analysis. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns: In order to actually refute the Daily Dot piece I think we'll need a source that acknowledges that BitChute's claim to use WebTorrent has been challenged, and then proves that they do use it. I don't see anything in the PC Tech Mag piece that indicates they actually investigated whether WebTorrent was being used; they may just be repeating what BitChute claimed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Technology and content sections

The last line of the technology section is crossing into content territory.

According to Brennan, magnet links on the site don't work, and BitChute sometimes "delists" odious users by removing all their videos. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/bitchute-decentralization-claims/

This delisting is a content issue, not a technological one. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll move it. Actually, upon revisiting the Daily Dot piece, it looks like Brennan is discussing it in a technological sense—that context just didn't make it over to the Wikipedia article. I'll add some more info, which I think will make the mention appropriate for that section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it should go in both sections. From the source:

BitChute is also willing to “delist” some odious users, the term BitChute uses when it deplatforms a user and deletes their videos.

As the article stands it gives the impression that BitChute accommodates any and all content. But according to the source some moderation takes place.

(Sidenote. That said, overall I find the DailyDot suspect. BitChute uses WebTorrent, videos can't be deleted if someone is willing to host them. BitChute can only remove a video 'holding page' from its site.)

Jonpatterns (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit WP:SYNTH to use the Daily Dot source to write about how much moderation BitChute does (or doesn't do). They only mention delisting in the context of its technical implications. As an aside, I'd object to describing users as "odious" in Wikipedia's voice and without in-text attribution -- it's quite a strong word to use about people. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source for BitChute using WebTorrent https://pctechmag.com/2019/02/facebook-twitter-youtube-options/ WebTorrent can be turned on/off in user account settings, this could have been overlooked in DailyDot analysis. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns: In order to actually refute the Daily Dot piece I think we'll need a source that acknowledges that BitChute's claim to use WebTorrent has been challenged, and then proves that they do use it. I don't see anything in the PC Tech Mag piece that indicates they actually investigated whether WebTorrent was being used; they may just be repeating what BitChute claimed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Technical website details

I suggest noting that the website of BitChute uses responsive web design and client-sided pagination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.201.133 (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable, independent sources to indicate that this is noteworthy? An enormous number of websites use responsive design, and that fact, as well as how a website implements pagination, are generally not particularly germane to the Wikipedia articles about the sites. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed edit by anon IP 47.55.68.244

Please can you show me where in the sources it states that SPLC is "far-left" and where it states that Youtube has increased censorship of conservatives?TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Not the OP but it is common knowledge that the SPLC has a Strong Left Bias, here is an IFCN approved fact checking website on it: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/southern-poverty-law-center/ Please correct the article to say "according to Left Leaning organization Southern Poverty Law Center" as I cannot edit it without an account 24.101.153.79 (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Besides the fact that would have to be in the SPLC article first, we don't use mediabasfactcheck.com, as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources states "There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings." I can't find where IFCN has approved it. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You American Marxists need to realize that by citing $PLC everywhere you can, you look ridiculous to the rest of the English-speaking world. $PLC is an AMERICAN Marxist group, and this article is about a service which is used (like Youtube) all over the world. Opinions of American marxists may be of great interest to Americans, but not to the rest of the world's Wikipedia readers. So when say a Pole or a Kazakh or a Norwegian reads this article and you cite $PLC several times, his first thought is: What the heck is this $PLC and why should I care what some loony tunes American leftists think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.131.187 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to take up the reliability of the SPLC at RSN, since you appear to be objecting to its usage in general rather than specifically in this article. But I'd recommend not calling everyone "you American Marxists" and going on about the "$PLC" when you do, it makes you look ridiculous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Second sentence in lede

The start of the second sentence at Old revision of BitChute: The platform accommodates ... is true but perhaps a little WP:POINTy and can be read by some as the prime/only reason the platform exists (which may or may not be true, I am not going to judge on that). However it does also "accomodate other content. The revision forced at [8] by Hevernon without recourse to invited discussion: "Some creators who have been banned or had their channels barred..." simply is an incorrect second sentence to a lede. I might propose The platform is noted for accommodating... as a compromise, but that may have its own issues and someone might come along and same that means the same thing as The platform accommodates ... which it is but it perhaps alludes better to the existance of other content. "The platform will accommodate most content and is particularly noted for attracting ..." would be another form that might work, or could be worse. I am currently minded Hevernon's amendment to the second sentence should be reversed unless it can be improved. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

It used to say "The platform has been accused of accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists", though this was changed by Grayfell in November 2019. I agree with Grayfell that "has been accused of" isn't a good option, as it introduces doubt and also suggests it's a minority view. I'm often a fan of "is known for", but I've been criticized for that by those who feel like if someone/something is "known for" being something we should just describe them as being that thing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I quite like is known for in this case, actually. It's much more to the point than the current revision, and is clear language. Clearly passes WP:Think of the reader. So, strike People accommodated on the platform include far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists. and replace with The platform is primarily known for its accommodating attitude towards far-right activists and conspiracy theorists. Done and dusted if you ask me. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd comment the primarily here leads to a claim that needs far harder to justify than leaving primarily out which is a much less controversial claim to justify. WWell in my opinion anyway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Please find a single source about BitChute's thriving community of anarchists, or democratic socialists, or Maoists (no, "anarcho-capitalists" do not count, they are far-right activists). Without such a source, how can we rightly leave primarily out? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Why don't anarcho-capitalists count? Yes, they are in general right wing on some axis, but on the state axis, they are as left wing as other anarchists. Vecr (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

That's a narrow minded viewppoint, but that's your opinion. I'm more interested in the technical claims myself. But I'll have to go with consensus on this analysis and I have no real dsire to get into the nitty gritty.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Well, funny enough, I wrote the article that includes most of those technical claims, so feel free to ask me. Yes, I did thoroughly check BitChute's user account settings, because of course. I didn't mention that in my article because it felt so...duh! to me at the time. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 16:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on this change? I've left out "primarily" per Djm-leighpark's objections, though I do think it is supported. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I mean, it's certainly an improvement, but of course I still think primarily belongs there. If there are so many sources focusing on different users of BitChute, they shouldn't be hard to find. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the lead sentence of a controversial article. I would expect primarily to be positively proven. Putting that amount of emphasis also leads to possibly increased concerns of non-neutrality, bias, synthesis and opinion. It may be a little WP:POINTy and I am far from convinced it is absolutely neccessary. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

As now rewritten with opening sentence in lede "BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists.[7]" having been created then promoted up to this prominent position during July 2020, this reads as severely non-neutral and not a good look for Wikipedia as it could easily be seen to be agenda-pushing on a contentious subject. "Known for" and "accommodating" are both clearly weasel words as they say NOTHING about the MAJORITY intended use and actual use of the site in question.
The previous wording during May "The platform is politically neutral and tolerates far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists" was closer to neutral and a simple rewording to "The platform (declares itself to be[**]) politically neutral (but) tolerates far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists" would have been a better clarification if required. [**] is easily sourced from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/14/bitchute-youtube-alternative-cries-foul-over-appar/ or elsewhere. Just my 02c as ever! Harami2000 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that "tolerates" is an improvement to "accommodates". I would be fine with changing the sentence to "BitChute is a video hosting service that accommodates far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists.[7]" if you don't like "known for", though I think it's fine personally. I disagree with adding the platform's self-description to the first sentence—while it's proper to include elsewhere in the article, it's undue weight to add it to the lead when the majority of independent sources don't describe it as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

To stick to the standards and need to maintain NPOV, the first sentence "should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is" (MOS:FIRST), not what other people think the subject is, especially when there is controversy and potential bias (e.g. underlying left wing sources are more likely to focus on right wing content being "objectionable", etc.). Those weasel words ("known for", "accommodating") are still weasel words and nebulous without any concrete evidence of degree. YouTube is also "known for accommodating" much "objectionable" content but I don't see that on the first line of its Wikipedia description or, indeed, anywhere in the lede until the very last sentence. Can you cite a GOOD reason why the lede format for Bitchute should be radically different to that for YouTube in order to justify opening with the first sentence "BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists.[7]"?

(aside) Off-hand, I can't find a source providing a reliable breakdown of content on Bitchute across the WHOLE site, only opinions from people with opinions. Where numbers are cited those appear to focus on a small group of well-known (generally right wing) individuals or, for example, after having declared the site to be a "far right YouTube" (often passing on opinions from generally left-wing advocacy groups, rarely independent reporting) for example in https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bitchute-far-right-youtube-neo-nazi-terrorism-videos-a9632981.html where that mentions just over 200 terrorist or terror supporting videos. This is NOT enough to define the whole site and certainly not in the very first sentence of the article, nor attempting to be NPOV by explaining that the exclusion of any groups from a much larger platform will inevitably create a distorted effect in a smaller platform to which they might be displaced. Harami2000 (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

It is up to reliable sources to define the site, not editors. Reliable sources have defined the site by the obvious and overwhelming prevalence of extremist and fringe content. Unless the purpose is to muddy the waters and present this as just another video site, it doesn't matter that there is some other content mixed in there. These reliable sources are not merely opinions, nor are they exclusively from left-wing advocacy groups (nor would that be disqualifying if it were true). The site's "intended use" depends on perspective. Who is intending this, the company itself? In that case, this is just public relations, and should be treated as such. By their actions, most of the very few people who are watching and uploading videos to Bitchute intend to use it as a safe-harbor for extremist and fringe content, otherwise they would be using a better site. Grayfell (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

No, that's a false argument. Why do people choose to write stories for publication in local newspapers rather than The New York Times? "Better" is POV. Harami2000 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

While it may be true that YouTube accommodates objectionable content, YouTube is not known for that in the same way that BitChute is. When sourcing describes BitChute they almost always describe the site as a home to extremist content, which is not the case with YouTube—some sources describe extremist content on YouTube, sure, but not nearly in the proportion as with BitChute. So to answer your question, that is why the articles have different leads. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Please could you reply to the question that was asked - "Can you cite a GOOD reason why the lede format for Bitchute should be radically different to that for YouTube in order to justify opening with the (current) first sentence..." vs. MOS:FIRST in which it is stated that that "should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is" - nothing about expression of opinions from other sources.

If you believe that "Bitchute a British online video-sharing platform headquartered in Newbury, England." is NOT an acceptable opening sentence, why not? Harami2000 (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I just did: BitChute is basically exclusively described in the context of its far-right userbase in reliable sources, and so the opening sentence reflects that. The same is not true for YouTube—certainly some sources describe the makeup of its userbase, but nowhere near the proportion as BitChute. This lead sentence in no way contradicts MOS:LEAD as you are claiming it does. I can't imagine any reason you think BitChute's headquarters location is somehow the most relevant thing for readers to know, other than that it is something to argue for putting in the lead sentence to take the place of "far-right". From what I can tell there are no sources that even support it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

We, as editors, do not get to decide how reliable sources cover a topic. Youtube and Bitchute are very different websites, with very different histories, different sizes, different user-bases, and different funding models. Bitchute offers services to users which are superficially similar to some of Youtube's services. Bitchute's public relations efforts have so far been ineffective at changing how sources cover them, and the reasons for this failure are plain to see. Hopefully nobody is seriously claiming that sources treat them the same or even similarly... right? We go by sources, so the articles will not be similar either. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Headquarters

Per Talk:BitChute/Archive 1/UK Based? describing the headquarters as Berkshire England with bare url references to its own website and companies house is a little misleading as that is a registered office and contact address, which is actually not necessarily the same thing. Investigation of the address will yield an accommodation address/virtual office. The setup may have a purpose to obfuscate the true presence of the company: it might need good investigative journalism to determine this. In the meanwhile I am uncertain that this should be presented as a "headquarters". Good investigative journalism on the analysis funding trail might be interesting rather than the apparent donations model that again might obfuscate one or two major monetary backers. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: I don't think it's that misleading; we use official registrations for headquarters all the time. Companies House is a reliable source. The information perhaps shouldn't be called Headquarters in the article, but it shouldn't be removed altogether. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I've retracted the claim that it is headquarter - merely stating it is based in England in the article. Perhaps better wording could give a more precise location. Jonpatterns (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there doubt that they're actually headquartered where they say they are? I haven't heard much talk at all about a physical location, either being in England or elsewhere. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I have some doubts personally. We know for example that the founder spends most of the year in Thailand. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare The registered office address given at [9] matches [10]. While a physically permanent office could be rented at this address it is alo possible to use it simply as a "virtual office" accomodation address. The companies house registered office could often be placed at solicitors etc for a nominal charge, my basic understanding is the key point is the address is able to served notices and mail where it will be deemed as having been served to the company (my definition). The registered office is certainly not (necessarily) a "headquarters". Equally the address on that was sourced from the companies own website [11] is (by implication) the registered office. My view is we have WP:V this is registerd office of the Bitchute company; to suggest it is the headquarters from though sources is an unverifiable extrapolation. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"Founded in 2017" in the first sentence

@Jonpatterns: Why do you keep adding "Founded in 2017" to the first sentence of the page? The vast majority of pages on Wikipedia start with "[subject] is [descriptors...]", and I don't see a good reason to deviate from that here. The founding year was mentioned immediately after the first sentence, and I don't see why it's such an important fact that the lead sentence needs to be written unusually. For ease of comparison (citations removed for brevity):

Current construction:

Founded in 2017, BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists.

The version you had implemented shortly earlier, before I mentioned there had just been a discussion on this talk page about removing "far-right" from the first sentence, where consensus was against such a change:

Found in 2017, BitChute is a video hosting service.

Original construction (prior to your edits):

BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists. The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforced on YouTube, and some creators who have been banned or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetized") on YouTube have migrated to BitChute.

Option 3, the original construction, seems the best option to me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Agreed, that read very wrong to me too. I restored the original construction. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 04:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

As sometimes occurs with other organisation Bitchute can be viewed as a website, a service/product, an organisation and a brand; with the infobox here says website. The article probably freely and non-rigorously switches between these usages and this cna lead to anomalies. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC) (Just noticed Psiĥedelisto may have addressed or at least semi-addressed this point in the article before I posted this). Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Disingenuous Wording of the Article

The article places a massive emphasis on how Bitchute is used by "far-right" individuals, despite the fact that anyone can sign up and use the site for any (legal) reason, including to publish left-wing content or content that isn't even related to politics, hence the site's numerous categories like gaming, anime, music, etc.

Twitter for example platforms many "far-left" and Antifa accounts, yet Twitter isn't branded as "far-left" and understandably so, because the site can also be used for entirely different purposes.

Why is there a double standard when it comes to social media sites and politics? It gives the impression that there is some kind of agenda regarding the editors' choice of framing on the political aspect of a video hosting site that isn't only used for political reasons.

86.21.89.187 (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read the sections directly above this one, some of which discuss the same thing (see the one directly above, and the one titled #Lies, for example). The short answer is that BitChute is primarily described by reliable sources in the context of its far-right userbase and content, and so this article reflects that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" including the SPLC, Wired, and Buzzfeed, all of which are extremely far-left politically. There's not even an attempt to hide the bias in this brief article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.12.237 (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You're quite right that the SPLC is a biased source; per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. The source is properly attributed in-text as that policy suggests. Wired and BuzzFeed News are reliable sources that generally aren't attributed in-text as the SPLC is.

If you have center or right-wing reliable sources that you think should be added, feel free to present them here. If you're not sure if a source is generally considered reliable on Wikipedia, WP:RSP is a good resource, or you can do a search at WP:RSN. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

@187 Somewhat agree, the problem the only sources that seem to be available give a fairly shallow analysis, repeating concerns about far-right activity on the site. Even with the sources the treatment could and should be less biased. I only found one possible source that didn't focus on right-wing users, but it would probably be dismissed as a superficial crypto site. https://blockonomi.com/youtube-alternative/ Jonpatterns (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

It only looks like SPLC, Wired, and Buzzfeed are "extremely far-left" if seen from an insulated bubble.

By users and revenue, Bitchute is still very small, so it makes sense that sources offer only a shallow analysis. Crypto or not, that Blockonomi source is also shallow. It should be dismissed for failing to meet WP:RS more than any other reason. As far as I know, Bitchute doesn't use blockchain (other than accepting donations in crypto) so there doesn't appear to be any particular technical connection. It's just a trashy listicle, in other words. Grayfell (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Even with the sources the treatment could and should be less biased. I only found one possible source that didn't focus on right-wing users, but it would probably be dismissed as a superficial crypto site. Based on your recent edits, I think by making the treatment less "biased" you are talking about softening the wording around BitChute's far-right userbase. But what you've said right here completely contradicts WP:NPOV–if the only source you could find that didn't focus on BitChute's right-wing userbase was a superficial crypto site, then the article is properly reflecting the mainstream view that BitChute is primarily known for its far-right userbase. Even if it was a usable source, the crypto site doesn't contradict the other sources—it just skirts the topic of BitChute's userbase completely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent sources

I have noticed since may there have been new sources appearing that might be leverages in this article, possibly buy adding new content. Some suggestions here may be invalid, and all should be used with care. As I've based in UK Good will likely give be UK-based stuff. New sources need to be regarded with care to ensure they are not simply re-generating the Wikipedia lede but have evidence of further investigation (The description of Bitchute [12] might have almost been lifted from Wikipedia). Some of below attribute some of their findings to campaigns which may be non-neutral and it is unclear if they have cross checked themselves.

• CBC.CA: [13]

• this discusses hosting of a COVID related video by Bitchute

• The Guardian: [14]

• Guardian often is regarded WP:RS ...

• An analysis paper: [15]

• Not (as yet anyway) peer reviewed but might have an interesting perspective.

• The Times [16]

• Looks goodbut behind a paywall.

• Independent: [17]

• The source could easily be cited for "On Wednesday, trending videos included". The article contains some content attributed to "Hope not hate" which may not have been cross-checked by the Independent and would require use with care.

I've got better things in life & WP that to try to improve (without citebombing) this article from one of more of the above sources, Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the first link, Forbes' "contributor" content is not reliable and should almost never be cited in Wikipedia, per WP:FORBESCON.

I do not understand what you mean by "cross check". Editors do not, as a general rule, have the ability to check whether articles from reliable outlets cross check specific claims, and this would be WP:OR anyway. If there is some specific reason to doubt these claims, such as the authenticity of Hope Not Hate's comments, it would have to be judged on its own merits. If you mean these comments should be clearly attributed, that's a different issue. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell "the First source" (which I hadn't bullet pointed and I'd have call zeroth) published on Forbes we both agree are unusable. I believe you are implying the remainder have some possibility of consideration. If I was going to spend more time on this I've started by embellishing those bare URLs to full cites. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I did not say "the first source", I said the first link. We agree it's basically useless, so that's that.

For all sources, including non-peer reviewed conference proceedings, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS.

The Independent source was posted earlier, and I think it's useful. This source documents a Hope Not Hate report on, which could then be used with clear attribution. ("According to a 2020 report by Hope not Hate...") This would fall comfortably within WP:BIASED. The Guardian one could perhaps be used similarly for Community Security Trust's report.

It's also worth watching closely for public relations issues. Vahey and BitChute are not presented consistently across outlets. In the CBC source Bitchute boasts of having 20 million visitors, and Vahey is confident in saying Google and Facebook are "misguided", while in the Independent source Vahey meekly says they are "a small platform" with "limited resources" and in the Guardian one he is quoted as saying that Google faces similar moderation problems. This could be different outlets crafting different narratives, or it's just Vahey throwing arguments against the wall to see what sticks, but for our purposes we should be cautious not to let PR slip past without context. Grayfell (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Change of top level section from Content to Extremist Content

This reads as extremely non-neutral point of view and I've reverted it pending discussion. It also reflects some judicious selection from the current sources. I would see the following as more balanced:

• Content

• Extremist (or far right)
• Fake news
• Other

I'm not caring the precise exacting of the headings but there needs to be I feel some balance as reflected in some of the sources previously mentioned. I note they said for example a an Icke video and a Coid-19 "fake news" were amoung the top trending. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I don't like the subsections. It's not a very long section at all, why does it need subsections? I think it should remain with just the top level header (no subsections), with the name "Content". While it's accurate that the section is primarily about extremist content on the site, naming it "extremist content" suggests that the article is only discussing the extremist content and that there is some other content on the site that ought to be written about. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Te key problem I have is with highlight "Extremist Content". And I'm concerned about instrinsic systemic bias by anyone making that particular change. Reverting back to "Content" allows for a more balanced form of content. I'd probably like to see the Icke/Covid-19 stuff top trending. As you are on ArbCom, and as I have not detailed examined the balance of the section I'm okay for you to put that back under the section named "Content" if you feel that is appropriate as I've no bandwidth to consider in depth, though I do remain concerned, rightly or wrongly, about selectivlty source and content selection for this section.. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Calling this "extremely non-neutral" poisons the well for real discussion. Djm-leighpark, even if you have "better things to do" as you said above, I assume you have read the sources you are proposing. If you know of reliable sources discussing non-extremist content, propose actual changes. I know you say you don't care about the precise wording, but you should discuss content if you intend to revert. We summarize the substance of sources. The Independent source is about extremist content, even when discussing Covid and Icke. It describes the Covid conspiracy content as "dangerous". Further, David Icke is an extremist who's promoted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and is associated with neo-Nazi groups. The HnH source contextualizes him in this way:

All twenty of the most popular videos on 24 June were from channels devoted either to explicitly racist material or the promotion of harmful misinformation, and in many cases both. Prominent antisemitic conspiracy theorists David Icke and Max Igan were on the list with videos denying the existence of the Coronavirus and calling the pandemic “the biggest scam ever”[18]

I do not accept that it is non-neutral to call this extremist content.

If reliable sources discuss other content, such as the site's use of "NSFL", propose changes based on those sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's already been changed back to "Content". Based on my knowledge of the sourcing, this article is well-representing what's available. Basically every reliable source that describes BitChute describes the extremist content on the site—mostly far right, though you're correct that there are other conspiracy theories on there that aren't themselves explicitly far right (though many of them, like the COVID conspiracy theories, are quite popular among the far right). As for source and content selection, if you know of sources that are presenting opposing viewpoints, or really any sourcing that isn't included here, please feel free to provide it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I went looking for sources to add info on Plandemic, since this seems like specific, useful information. I fell down this stupid rabbit hole, though: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Plagiarism spam source. I think this source might be useful, (it was good enough to be plagiarized at least) but I'm going to take a break before tackling this content. Grayfell (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I continue to regard the use of "Extremist content" as opposed to "Content" as a top level section header as problematic, an indicator of possible systemic bias (possibly unconcious) and to a degree sensationalist. The better approach in my view is to start out with the neutral heading of content. Next describe the site approach to the content it claims it will accept (and not accept) ideally using a secondary but a primary if absolutely necessary but ensuring that is properly attributed as a primary claim and not an independent claim. I then note that some are using analysis of the sites "top-trending" videos to see the use people are primarily using the platform for. The reference for the independent above follows this approach, and there it is saying that the top trending videos are mostly and perhaps typically extremist; with the Covid-19 stuff perhaps a relatively recent ut pominent "fake news" (I'm being judgemental here) trend. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

We all have biases, including you. Vaguely calling something systemic bias isn't a carte blanche. You will need to be more specific if you want to continue this point.

Encyclopedic significance is mostly determined by reliable sources. If most sources emphasize something, so will the article. The site's claims of what it will accept or not accept are not automatically significant. It's tempting to include an overview of the site before diving into this, but Wikipedia's goal isn't to promote the site. We need to summarize what sources are actually explaining, not what we think they should be explaining. The site is only notable for fringe content, so there isn't going to be a way to reflect sources which doesn't mention extremism. Calling this sensationalist doesn't change anything. The goal is to explain to readers, in a neutral way, that this website is filled with sensationalist content. It is sensationalist because it's so extreme, so the simplest way I can think of to do this is to say in direct language that it is "extremist content".

You have mentioned the Independent's discussion of trending videos. Keeping in mind that this was a single paragraph used for context in an article about the site's extremism, feel free to propose a specific change. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be putting so much weight on how the site describes itself, particularly if we need to rely on primary sourcing to do so. In my experience with working on articles like this one, Gab (social network), and Parler, how the sites describe themselves is often quite different from how they are widely described by others, and a lot of it is to try to make the sites look good. Wikipedia should describe what the sites are, not what they say they are. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree the differential, as with almost product or service, can be the interesting bit, and I can be incredibly sceptical about these claims at times but idea is point the contrast is it not rather than a single viewpoint? Ah well. I think there was a secondary reference for that elsewhere ... but I'm not going back over that for the moment. On a good day I my try a specific proposal. but not at the moment. The "top trending" could possibly be faked by the website software, but it is likely an interesting insight about what viewers are using the site for and one of the campaigns seem to be monitoring that. But I'll mainly be doing other things than this article at present. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

whitewashing against consensus

@GorillaWarfare: I see you reverted at [19], which included my change of [20] which was a compromise over [21] but I hadn'd actually gone back to the start point of all todays changes which might have been wiser (I'm half asleep). I must confess however I am concerned Southern Poverty Law Center may have an over-prominent position in the lede (doesn't look so bad to me in the current version, oldid=975251986). OK ... I think I realise why you did that. And It's taken a lot of consideration to get to this point. thanks... Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying about the SPLC, but given that they are not the only ones who've said the site hosts hateful material I think the gist of it is worth including in some way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

SPLC "stood out" more in the version I edited, it seems a little less in my face in the current version. Thats only a perception any may be flawed. I think it would be good long term if SPLC was out of the lede as it possibly gives SPLC undue prominence but agree "hate-fuelled material" or equivalent can stay, and I'd almost add "fake news" to that also. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

My concern with taking out the SPLC portion but leaving the "hate-fuelled material" (or similar) is that both the SPLC and Hope not Hate are advocacy groups, and generally ought to be attributed in-text. However I can poke around a little bit to see if I can find other commentary on it this evening. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, thanks for looking, but their must be better ways of spending the evening. The attribution does occur in the body. Does hate-fueled material have to attributed or even attributed or is there alternative wording for the same thing. Is it possible to link to Online hate speech? (I'm really thowing up stupid ideas). Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

"As of November 2019, The Daily Dot questioned ..."

Shouldn't the sentence begin with "In November 2019"? "As of" suggests that the questioning has been ongoing since then, rather than having taken place specifically in November. I cannot edit the page. 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:9C5E:ACC8:3F53:B3AD (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I see your point, though I'm not sure the best way to address it. The questioning happened in November 2019, but there has been no clarification since (that I can find, at least) that a) Daily Dot was incorrect and P2P sharing was in use, b) BitChute started actually using P2P sharing as they claim they are, or c) BitChute is continuing to falsely represent their technology. So, the Daily Dot questioned it in November 2019, and as of November 2019 it is unclear what their technology is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Lies

Everyone can sign up to Bitchute and post videos. Also Left Wing people. You're welcome. --89.10.230.40 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@89.10.230.40: We're aware. Where does the article say they can't? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is very misleading. Anyone can post on bitchute. The Southern Poverty Law Center is biased, and should not be listed as a primary source. The first paragraph should be replaced with:

BitChute is a video hosting service known for being free of "big tech" censorship.[7] The platform was created in 2017 to allow video up-loaders to avoid content censorship on YouTube,[8] and some creators who have been banned or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetized") on YouTube have migrated to BitChute. [2] BitChute is available for up-loaders regardless of their political believes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgold81 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nickgold81: Does this article say anywhere that there are restrictions on who can post to BitChute? As for the comment about the SPLC, please see WP:BIASEDSOURCE: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. The SPLC comment is properly attributed in-text, as appropriate for groups like the SPLC: WP:SPLC. Regarding your proposed change, there is ample sourcing to support that BitChute is known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists—nearly every reliable source there is that discusses the site discusses it in that context. To my knowledge that is not the case for "being free of 'big tech' censorship", though if you have such reliable sources please feel free to produce them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I glanced at Bitchute to make sure nothing has changed recently, and the first video on the site's popular videos tab was: "Judaism: The Religion Behind the Protocols". So no, nothing has changed. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is both far-right and a debunked conspiracy theory. Reliable sources have noticed the prominence of this kind content, and Bitchute makes it easy to verify.

Another thing which hasn't changed is that Bitchute is tiny. Only three videos on its trending tab cracked 10,000 views. Very, very few people of any ideology are using the site. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Grayfell: By these standards YouTube could be classified as children content website, although anybody can upload content there. That note about content has no factual basis and cites biased news sources with insufficient research. I propose ditching the "far-right" part of the first sentence entirely.Msloboda (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Msloboda: Reliable sourcing overwhelmingly describes BitChute as far-right, whereas the same is not case for the descriptor of YouTube you're proposing. However, if you seriously want to discuss how the lead paragraph of YouTube describes the site, Talk:YouTube is the place to go, not here. Unless you can find reliable sources that contradict the "far-right" claim, it will remain. While it may be your opinion that sites like BuzzFeed News, The Guardian, The Independent, etc. are unreliable, the Wikipedia community has reached a different consensus (WP:RSP#BuzzFeed News, WP:RSP#The Guardian, WP:RSP#The Independent, etc). GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I would site videos such as this: https://www.bitchute.com/video/P5WzVO6uJbRU/ "Dr Stella Immanuel tells the truth: "America: Nobody needs to die" COVID-19 CURE" Doctors sharing how they successfully save lives is neither far right, nor hate speech. It was banned on youtube, and has over 19,000 views on bitchute. The writing of this article should be changed to reflect the reality that bitchute is a free speech outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgold81 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nickgold81: Although Grayfell pointed to a video hosted on BitChute to support his point here on the talk page, I don't believe he meant to imply that kind of analysis is acceptable for actually changing article content. Wikipedia policy requires that any interpretation (for example, looking at the videos hosted on the site to draw conclusions about what kind of content is hosted on BitChute) to be done by third-party reliable sources, not by Wikipedia editors (see WP:Original research). Furthermore, there is nothing in this article that states that BitChute exclusively hosts far-right content–just that the far-right content is what the site is known for. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. My observation was just a 'sanity check' to make sure something hadn't gone completely wrong with sources, or that the site hadn't drastically changed recently. Stella Immanuel's pseudoscientific views fall under the conspiracy theory category which is also mentioned in the article's lead. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS we should not misrepresent Immanuel's views as legitimate, but we would need a reliable, independent source to bother mentioning this video at all. As I said, the site is tiny, and I mention that because it means that few sources discuss these issues in depth. Grayfell (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

lede

The lede is not for diminishing the site. Virtually every sentence in the lede serves to detract from the site. Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: The lead is for representing the subject as it is described in reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The lede consists of a relentless sequence detracting comments and complaints:

• "known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists"

• "some creators who have been banned from YouTube"

• "Southern Poverty Law Center has said the site hosts "hate-fueled material"

• "Daily Dot questioned whether end-user peer-to-peer sharing was actually in use." Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Which, again, is what reliable sources have to say about the site. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Selectively. And not necessary for inclusion in the lede. Please see WP:BIAS. And please see WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Have you read the sources? I don't ask because I'm trying to be condescending; there are a decent number of them to get through so it'd be understandable if you hadn't. I ask because this is not by any means a selective representation of what they say.

If we trim out the sentences you're objecting to, the lead will read "BitChute is a video hosting website" and nothing more. Per MOS:LEAD, we need to identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies, and just the single sentence would only accomplish incompletely "identifying the topic".

I am quite familiar with WP:NPOV, thank you; I'm not sure you linked to what you were intending to link when you told me to see WP:BIAS. You might find Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content informative, namely the points about introducing false balance. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The lede is not sacrosanct. This is a short article. It is not as if a reader has a long article to wade through. The lede of "BitChute" is merely duplicating the article to a considerable extent. An article on "BitChute" requires little more in the lede than identification of the subject. I can imagine picking one of those detracting points for inclusion in the lede. But it makes Wikipedia look partisan to pile on sentence after detracting sentence in the lede alone. This is distinctly political carping: "accommodating far-right individuals", "Southern Poverty Law Center has said the site hosts "hate-fueled material". Placement of a multitude of comments like that in the lede is merely gratuitous. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Just so we're on the same page, can you clarify what you're suggesting the lead should include? Even for short articles, the lead should summarize the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

We are on the same page. I would identify the technology. And I would include one "detracting" comment, not two or three "detracting" comments. Bus stop (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The lead needs to summarize the article, which is what it's currently doing. Removing information from the lead because it's "detracting" is not something we do. If you had concerns about the NPOV of the article, and thought the lead was also POV, that might make more sense to me. But it seems like you don't have concerns with the article, you just want the information to be kept out of the lead? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is short and the lede is loaded with political carping. The solution is to trim back the political carping in this short article and just let the reader read the article. The lede need not "summarize" the article or at least not with the degree of thoroughness seen here. Bus stop (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting that the lead shouldn't summarize the article. Like I said, MOS:LEAD directly contradicts that: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.... It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

As for your characterization of various parts of the lead as "political carping", do you feel those statements don't reflect the sourcing? The same information is in the article body (as it ought to be; you've said this is repetitive but article leads must only reflect statements made elsewhere in the article); are you suggesting the statements be removed entirely? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

In a short article it is not necessary to repeat a slew of complaints in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

They're not complaints, they are what the reliable sources have said about the site. Although some stubs are so short they don't have section headers, and therefore don't have a lead, that is not the case with this article. And as with all articles with a lead, it should summarize the article body, which is what the current lead does. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

It will be favorable for you to review the bitchute wiki page. It has been edited to read as as if the platform is provided, and populated by, extreem rightwing, hateful people. Obviously the editor of the first line of the introductory paragraph believes this to be true. I suggest you change things like this before your users begin to consider your site to permit biased and false information. Perhaps you should remove certain user's editing privileges if they continue to act in bad faith. 142.129.135.172 (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources. Per previous discussions, those sources support the current wording. Grayfell (talk) 03:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

BitChute milestones

October16 2020 :

BitChute has its first user with over 100,000 subscribers. That honour goes to the Internet content producer known as Styhexenhammer666, a libertarian social commentator whose content is available on incumbent platforms (Youtube, Dailymotion) as well as emerging platforms (BitChute, LBRY, Brighteon etc) .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:b3a3:3100:d106:eca4:7342:3d41 (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Without a reliable, independent source there's no indication this is noteworthy enough to mention on the BitChute article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Comments by Joshua Calkins-Treworgy

Has any attempt been made, anywhere, to talk to Bitchute content creators who don't easily fall into the category of 'far-right' or 'conspiracy theorist'? I would seriously like to know if such interviews or articles exist whatsoever, especially for users who identify in the 'Arts and Literature' category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Calkins-Treworgy (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Calkins-Treworgy: I'm not sure if I've seen any full-fledged interviews or articles fully devoted to the topic, but one of the sources used in this article does briefly touch on the less extreme content there: "At BitChute—which uses the same black-and-red color scheme in its logo as YouTube, and a fairly similar layout with headers for popular and trending videos—you can find makeup tutorials, wine reviews, DIY toilet repair. There are movie and game reviews, and pop-culture-list sites like WatchMojo, which has more than 19 million subscribers on YouTube, recently jumped over to BitChute." The Daily Dot. However, like most articles about BitChute, it only does so to lead in to discussing the extremist content there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Given that non-extremist content creators do exist on the platform, then, and are mentioned in articles such as the one from Daily Dot, it strikes me as disingenuous to leave the Wikipedia entry in its current state, entirely absent mention of those such users. Failing to mention non-extreme and non-far-right users effectively stamps the service unfairly, and helps to further delegitimize those users who do not engage in such material. I should mention for the sake of full disclosure and honesty that I am myself one such content creator who primarily uploads on Bitchute, and any argument I make in favor of the site should be viewed with an understanding that I am, as such, biased in favor of the site's success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Calkins-Treworgy (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Calkins-Treworgy: Such a brief mention in a single source does not warrant specific mention in this article, per WP:WEIGHT. This article isn't inaccurately claiming that BitChute exclusively hosts extremist content, but it does accurately note that it is the extremist content for which the site is known. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

History section

The history Section is supposed to focus on the history of Bitchute. The mid part of the first History section now has gained an WP:UNDUE focus on Youtube and points about that platform without flowing the context neatly around BitChute history. Needs resolution. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the chunk of content that was overly focused on YouTube, and which IMO was synthesizing sources to improperly claim in wikivoice that YouTube was biased against conservatives. Pinging Psiĥedelisto also, since I know you had concerns about that section—are you okay with this result? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

In the History section's last line, a clarification should be made. Though I am no fan of Twitter's warning page that automatically comes up on links to Bitchute, it should be noted that the links are not actually entirely blocked, per se, but gated; users can click on a hyperlink on the warning page to carry through to the linked videos. The term 'blocked' implies that traffic is absolutely ceased, whereas in truth, it is merely slowed down with one extra step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Calkins-Treworgy (talk • contribs) 14:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Calkins-Treworgy: Do you have a reliable source for that? At least for a time I think Twitter was actually preventing people from tweeting anything containing a BitChute link (see [22]) but I certainly believe they could've changed the behavior since. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I would refer you to the following link: https://www.newsbreak.com/news/1613829007447/twitter-censoring-tweets-containing-links-to-bitchute-video-service-flags-posts-as-potentially-harmful

I would have said to check Twitter itself and Bitchute users, but given that personal use is not accepted as reliable, I refer you to the newsbreak article above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Calkins-Treworgy (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2020

Bitchute accepts videos from everywhere not just "Far right"

Bitchute was taken down on the third of November "Error 525 SSL handshake failed". Davester1 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davester1: The article doesn't say that BitChute only accepts videos from the far right. As for BitChute being taken down, do you have a third-party reliable source to verify? From what you're describing it sounds like they might just be experiencing a technical glitch, and regardless we shouldn't add it to the article unless another source verifies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

change "BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful material.[notes 1][notes 2] The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube,[14] and some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetized") have migrated to BitChute.[2]" to "BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating content creators previously banned from other platforms.[notes 1][notes 2] The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube,[14] and some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetized") have migrated to BitChute.[2] " This is a much more accurate representation of Bitchute as they have much more than just politically driven content on the site (categories include anime and animation, beauty and fashion, auto and vehicles, business and finance, travel, vlogging to name a few). The way the article has been written/edited beforehand is largely opinion based (sourced from opinion based articles) and with clear bias. Thank you.

Source:

References

Zed477 (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Zed477 Zed477 (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template.

Sourcing supports the current lead, which does not claim that BitChute only hosts far-right/conspiracy theory/hateful material as you are suggesting. Furthermore, we base Wikipedia articles about what reliable sources have to say about a topic, not on our own interpretation of what kind of material is available on a website. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I did not suggest the current lead claims that BitChute "only hosts far-right/conspiracy theory/hateful material". That is your own interpretation. I am suggesting that the current lead claims that is the primary focus of the platform (which it is not). As for sourcing I checked into the sourcing from notes one and two. The sourcing from note one is nothing more than amazon alexa analytics portraying the audience demographics, keywords, popular articles, etc. Note 2 leads to a Buzzfeed article (hardly a reliable source) that is heavily laden with the author's own opinion. As this is an encyclopedia and the articles are supposed to be written with an impartial tone I feel it is improper to use such an opinionated piece as a source (especially since the sourced information is itself opinion). As for consensus, it is not possible to reach consensus on any topic of suggestion until the suggestion has been made. Citing Wikipedia's own view of consensus "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns". Given that I was simply suggesting an edit be made and tried to persuade others reading it using the website (as it is it's own best source in this instance) it was improper for you mark the parameter as "not done for now" on the basis of consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed477 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zed477: It sounds like you may have accidentally followed the wrong citation links—based on your description of Alexa and BuzzFeed, it sounds like you looked at references 1 and 2 and not notes 1 and 2. The notes are bundled citations, so if you look at BitChute#Notes you'll see that the statement about far-right individuals and conspiracy theories is actually supported by references 2–9, and the statement about hateful material is supported by references 7 and 10–13.

As for reference #2, it's important to distinguish that that source is BuzzFeed News (which is considered generally reliable by the Wikipedia editing community, see WP:RSP#BuzzFeed News) and not BuzzFeed (which is not, see WP:RSP#BuzzFeed).

Regarding my marking of this discussion, I was simply marking the edit request as not done—meaning, it's too early to use the edit request template, as that's only meant to be used once consensus is reached. Discussion can absolutely continue with the edit request template marked as complete, and if/when consensus for a change is reached you can either reactivate it or just ask one of the talk page watchers here (such as myself) to implement it for you. All marking "answered=yes" does is take it out of the queue of edit requests that are immediately ready to be implemented, because this is not.

Regarding your claim that BitChute is the best source about BitChute, that is unfortunately quite out of line with Wikipedia's policies which require articles primarily be sourced to reliable, independent sources. Only the most uncontroversial factual statements, such as the date a company was founded, can be sourced to the company itself. Everything else must come from third-party reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

InfoWars connection

@GorillaWarfare: Regarding the summary comment at [23]: ... this is the same description agreed upon at InfoWars. Take it up at Talk:InfoWars if you think it ought to change I challenge there is an absolute requirement for BitChute's description to be forced to be inherited from InfoWars; especially as far as I am aware this article were not notified of said discussion. I am not against suggestions that that discussion is a good reason for the same description here but I am very against it being absolutely imposed by an Oversighter and Arbcom member and believe an Arbcom discussion may ultimately needed if you wish to mandate the that InfoWars discussion and result is used as an absolute requirement for this independent article. That is not so say the reversion was inappropriate not that the Infowars discussion result was not an inappropriate reason for the reversion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Surely you are aware that members of the Arbitration Committee and oversight teams do not relinquish their rights to edit pages like any other editor on this website when they join those teams. If there was such a requirement, I suspect there would be no Arbitration Committee or oversight team due to a lack of people willing to do so–after all, writing an encyclopedia is the main reason we are all here. If the edit had been a part of some Arbitration Committee or oversight team decision I would have said so, although such editorial decisions are far outside of the scope of either of those groups. If you would like to bring a bog-standard edit to ArbCom and insist it is inappropriate solely because I serve on the Arbitration Committee, be my guest, but you've probably got at least 100,000 other edits you'll need to challenge too, if the assumption is arbitrators cannot edit while they are on the Arbitration Committee.

Now that that's all out of the way, it is fairly standard to use the lead sentence (or something approximating it) of an article about a subject to briefly describe that subject when it is mentioned at other articles, to avoid requiring our readers to chase wikilinks when they are just trying to get a basic understanding of a concept. The edit summary accompanying its removal was "Again, surely another instance of opinionating !? There are others, too." -- my mention that this same phrasing is used at InfoWars was to clarify to that editor that that description matches the lead sentence of an article that has been developed through enormous amounts of discussion, and is not "opinionating". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The key point in my opinion is Heath St John should be able to raise concerns about this independent article here, though would be advised to consider the result at the other article first. Thankyou Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

And certainly they may; no one is preventing them from beginning a discussion here. My point is that if they truly believe that that is "opinionating", they'll probably want to bring it up at that subject's main article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. 16:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020

I would like to add this source as evidence in the dispute that the article lead does not seem neutral in point of view. Non-extremist users view the platform as a viable alternative to Youtube, for the specific purpose of avoiding accidental channel/content deletion. If comparing this article to the one for Youtube, it is observable that the Youtube article lead places moderation controversy at the bottom of the lead, whereas in the one for Bitchute, it is placed in the opening sentence. BobbyFrost (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Bitcoin.com is not a reliable source per consensus from previous discussions at WP:RSN and elsewhere. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding to this, even if Bitcoin.com was a reliable source, this article doesn't support the claim you are trying to make. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Can you reference the previous discussions that determined news.bitcoin.com to be an unreliable source? I could not find it in the archived discussions. I did find this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_233 but what is mentioned is speculation, not factual evidence of unreliability. To further expand, the concern was specific to it advocating for Bitcoin. The article I referenced is not about Bitcoin, but reports on interactions between members in the Bitcoin community and Youtube moderation.

Excerpts from the article:

"Recent widespread video removals have crypto Youtubers searching for greener and more dependable pastures for content production. While reports have since emerged of Youtube claiming the incident was an accident, and that videos are now being restored, the “Christmas Crypto purge” of 2019 has nonetheless burnt an indelible memory into the minds of dedicated Youtubers. Many are now looking to back up their content or even migrate elsewhere, and suggesting more decentralized and censorship-resistant platforms for video sharing." and "Whatever the case may be, the incident has now incapacitated many high-subscriber, prominent content creators in the crypto space and is sending a shockwave through the community, leading some to suggest migration and adoption of other platforms. This post aims to detail some of the most commonly suggested alternatives, as well as nascent sites seeking to provide greater freedom from Youtube policy to content creators."

The editorial policy for news.bitcoin.com be found here:

https://news.bitcoin.com/about-bitcoin-news/

There are also these sources which discuss much of the same, but do not elaborate on the alternative platforms users are considering.

The Forbes post references a cryptocoin focused website, which includes an article covering other platforms cryptocoin content producers are considering. It actually quotes one of them for that part and Bitchute is mentioned. That source has been mentioned as a RS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#CoinTelegraph

BobbyFrost (talk) 04:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll let Grayfell answer the reliability question because I'm not immediately familiar with the past discussions on the reliability of that source. But as I mentioned, the source does not support the inferences you appear to be making about "non-extremist users". GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how you could come to that conclusion, there's an individual from the cryptocurrency community that's quoted stating their intent for using the service, which is to solve the issue of censorship and content takedowns. Excerpt from the article:

"However, some YouTubers who use decentralized platforms like LBRY have pointed out that their audience is limited on these channels, as most already have an understanding about cryptocurrency and blockchain.

“In addition to YouTube, many creators including myself are using decentralized content platforms such DTube, Steemit, Minds, LBRY, Bitchute & Bittube, explained Siegel of Crypto Finally. “While these platforms do solve the issue of censorship and takedowns of our content, it unfortunately still does limit our audiences. Meaning it limits everyday people from getting involved in crypto in the first place,”

The above responses still do not address the inconstancy in the POV of the open lead. Here are the opening sentences of a few other platforms for content distribution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube

"YouTube is an American online video-sharing platform headquartered in San Bruno, California. Three former PayPal employees—Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim—created the service in February 2005. Google bought the site in November 2006 for US$1.65 billion; YouTube now operates as one of Google's subsidiaries."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DLive

"DLive is a video live streaming service founded in September 2018. DLive operates using a blockchain for its servers and donation systems."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steemit

"Steemit is a blockchain-based blogging and social media website, which rewards its users with the cryptocurrency STEEM for publishing and curating content, and is owned by Steemit Inc., a privately held company based in New York City and a headquarters in Virginia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minds

"Minds is a cross-platform distributed social networking service. The service has been described as an alt-tech platform, alongside other services including Parler, Gab, BitChute, and MeWe. Users can earn money or cryptocurrency for using Minds, and tokens can be used to boost their posts or crowdfund other users."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerTube

"PeerTube is a free and open-source, decentralized, federated video platform powered by ActivityPub and WebTorrent, that uses peer-to-peer technology to reduce load on individual servers when viewing videos."

And then there's the opening lead for Bitchute:

"BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful material. The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube, and some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetized") have migrated to BitChute."

BobbyFrost (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I may not be understanding what change you're hoping to support with the Bitcoin.com source. Do you mind specifically saying what change in wording you are proposing?

As for the other articles' leads, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. An article's lead reflects the overall weight of what sources have to say about that service, and this lead is doing so proportionately–the majority of sources describing BitChute mention its accommodation of extremist users and hosting of hateful content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm proposing essentially the same as what's mentioned in "Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020", but would have it written something like the following to be NPOV, but not exclude any existing information.

"BitChute is a video hosting service, established in 2017, to allow content producers to freely share their ideas. The platform was created in reaction to community guidelines enforcement on YouTube.[14] Some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetized"), have migrated to BitChute.[2] Other creators on Youtube, who have had their content erroneously affected by Youtube rules enforcement, have also migrated or begun cross-publishing content to BitChute. The platforms less restrictive community guidelines have made it accommodating for creators of content pertaining to conspiracy theories, extremist ideologies (mostly far-right), and controversial or hateful material.[notes 1][notes 2]"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyFrost (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

These sources are completely insufficient for these changes for many, many reasons. You cannot use unreliable source, you cannot use sources which don't mention BitChute, and you cannot ignore existing reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Grayfell. This lead is not at all reflective of the weight of coverage about BitChute, which is primarily notable because of the extremism on the site. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The linked Bitcoin.com article specifically says that cryptocurrency enthusiasts became aware of Bitchute via Infowars. The author euphemistically refers to it as a "popular right-libertarian conspiracy channel" which was "censored" by YouTube. Even a sympathetic advocacy site like Bitcoin.com accepts that the extremism on the site is important context.

Bitcoin.com is not a news site, it's a commercial service which provides something it describes as a news service. Its about page doesn't mention fact-checking, retractions, or similar. Instead, it states Our editorial policy is informed by logic and based on the Satoshi white paper which is borderline nonesense. It is not the worst site in the cryptocurrency niche, but that's a low bar. We are not assuming that these outlets are lying (necessarily) but any individual article would have to be evaluated in context. In context, this source is not reliable for this change. Grayfell (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The cointelegraph.com article is a better source, and as previously mentioned, it was deemed a mostly reliable source. The news.bitcoin.com article mentions Infowars in the sense of a canary test of community guidelines. Bitchutes less restrictive community guidelines, compared to that of Youtube, does not evaluate content beyond a set of narrow parameters, which are mostly based on the legality of the content. https://support.bitchute.com/policy/guidelines/ So the type of content is less important than the scope and misuse of policy, which is what's emphasized in the article."Recent widespread video removals have crypto Youtubers searching for greener and more dependable pastures for content production." That sentiment is also mirrored in the cointelegraph article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyFrost (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not accept that Cointelegraph.com is much better, and I do not accept that it is currently regarded as "mostly reliable".. As I said, the bar is very low for cryptocurrency sites, and these sources have gotten more scrutiny since that RSN post. Also as I said, all sources are judged in context, and this one is flimsy in this respect. This link includes only a single passing mention of Bitchute specifically. It is from almost a year ago, and the mention is attributed to an otherwise non-notable Bitcoin vlogger using the name "Crypto Finally".

I think it's important to understand just how small BitChute is, not to be petty, but to emphasize that very, very few reliable sources bother to cover BitChute at all. It's just not that widely used, so there is very little reason for it to receive coverage. This is why most coverage is related to extremism: because the only reason the website is significant. We have to reflect topics in proportion to how reliable sources cover them.

So for context, "Crypto Finally" is still uploading to YouTube, where they have about 8,000 subscribers. Only some of that channel's videos are uploaded to BitChute, where the channel has 21 subscriber and the most popular video has less than two hundred views. If the opinion of "Crypto Finally" is significant to this topic, it should be supported by both context and a more reliable sources, but this seems extremely unlikely. Grayfell (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

References

HCPUNXKID's edits

Since HCPUNXKID is refusing to start a discussion despite being the one to introduce their changes, I will.

• On the insertion of "(unlike YouTube)" into the sentence "BitChute (unlike YouTube) does not rely on advertising": This is WP:EDITORIALIZING and also not particularly informative. Countless companies rely on advertising.
• On the insertion of "according to some media outlets" into the lead sentence "BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists according to some media outlets, and for hosting hateful material." This not only makes the sentence read very awkwardly, it downplays the fact that basically all reliable sources describe BitChute in this way.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"according to some media outlets" violates WP:WEASEL too and I agree that it is attempting to downplay what the Wikipedia:Reliable sources say. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

While I do believe that this article does appear to have have some rather severe issues - I don't think that HCPUNXKID's changes are appropriate for the reasons that GW mentions. SQL^{Query me!} 23:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020

Remove the right-wing section, this is not the website to post your opinion as an article, just because a website isn't completely leftist doesn't mean it's hateful. 2603:6011:D141:F300:1DC2:8B1F:B9E:2804 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed at length on this talk page already; please review past discussions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Vahey's intention for BitChute should be stated in lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The goal of this post is to reach a consensus, where a solution is created that respects everyone's opinions and not the preference of the majority (as per Wikipedia’s policy). Please keep that in mind before posting a reply. To summarize my concerns so far:

I want to revise the following lead sentence, “The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube”. As Wikipedia must maintain a neutral perspective, in addition to interpretations by independent sources we should also state the original intention that the creator (Vahey) had for the website. The current sentence is not a neutral or accurate representation of Vahey’s original intentions for the site as it does not mention his desire for freedom of expression and portrays its users as ill-intentioned rule-breakers.

I propose the revised sentence reads as, “The platform was created in 2017 to provide video uploaders with a space where free expression is unrestricted as opposed to censored by the expanding content rules enforcement on YouTube”.

The revised sentence is a specific and uncontroversial fact plainly stated in a primary source, which is reliable in this instance according to Wikipedia's policy. However, if an independent reference is desired, I can easily find one. メガヒロ (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

EDITED REVISION 1:

BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful material. According to Ray Vahey, BitChute's founder, the platform was created in 2017 to provide video uploaders with a space where free expression receives less censorship as opposed to the expanding content rules enforcement on YouTube. Some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetized") have migrated to BitChute. メガヒロ (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies (WP:RS, WP:DUE, etc) are what is important here. The "revised" sentence you are proposing is WP:SELFPUBLISHed WP:PROMOtional material falling into the Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies category, and as such is not remotely WP:DUE for the lead sentence especially. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves because any other source would inherently be less reliable (WP:ABOUTSELF). And this sentence is clearly not an attempt at promoting BitChute. To be clear, the revised sentence is NOT stating that YouTube unreasonably restricts free expression (an opinion) - it is saying that the reason Vahey made BitChute was because he thought YouTube unreasonably restricts free expression (a fact). メガヒロ (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

You say it is clear, but it appears obviously promotional to me, so it's not so clear after all. Vahey's opinions about YouTube are not ABOUTSELF, they are "about youtube", and they imply something vaguely flattering about BitChute by contrast. This is a straightforward example of public relations.

Further, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy. We can use self-published sources, if necessary, but we are not required to use such sources. Typically sources like this would only be needed (A) the cited point is non-controversially significant, and (B) no other reliable, WP:IS source can be found. Neither of those apply here. Grayfell (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Then please tell me in what way do you think this is promotional? As far as I know, stating an objective fact is never promotional. Or are you disputing that Vahey ever had this intention for BitChute?

Concerning ABOUTSELF, you appear to have misunderstood my revision. Please read the last sentence of my previous comment again. This is a reference by BitChute about BitChute's motivation - a reference to what they said, not to whether it was justified.

You gave two reasons for when self-published sources should be used. But I have never seen this policy. Can you show me the Wikipedia page that explains these? メガヒロ (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"because any other source would inherently be less reliable (WP:ABOUTSELF)" - @メガヒロ: this seems to show a painful misunderstanding of the WP:ABOUTSELF policy, which knows that individuals and organizations are very likely to lie about themselves for a host of reasons and requires (a) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; (b) it does not involve claims about third parties;, (c)there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. In this case, all three of these fail on the part of your proposed wording:

1. The material is a self-serving claim, which is belied by the content that dominates the platform.[24]
2. The wording you propose makes claims about a third party (Youtube) and accuses it of censorship.
3. There IS reason to doubt the authenticity of the WP:PROMOtional material on the Bitchute website, since Vahey's actual words in interview contradict the wording you propose.[25]

As such, your proposed wording is completely unsuitable under policy. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: If primary sources ABOUTSELF are unreliable because individuals may lie, then independent sources about the same topic would also be unreliable. How ridiculous. If Vahey would lie on his website, then he would lie during an interview too. Absolutely nowhere in the ABOUTSELF policy is potential lying ever expressed as a reason for a source to not be considered reliable.

Also BitChute's statement is not unduly self-serving because it is objectively true - it is factual that BitChute does not restrict free speech in any way significantly different from our constitution's first amendment, but YouTube does.

You're right that this source makes a claim about a third party (YouTube), however the claim is already supported by an independent source. I'm talking about the source in the original sentence and I don't propose removing it.

Lastly, Vahey's actual words in the interview you referenced do NOT contradict my wording. He says, "All I want is a site where people can say what they want [...] The idea comes from seeing the increased levels of censorship by the large social media platforms in the last couple of years." As far as I have seen, Vahey has always been consistent with his motivation for BitChute. If you can provide a counter-source (that is not an outlier) where Vahey says he was motivated by something else other than his desire for more freedom / less censorship of expression, then perhaps there may be reasonable doubt to its authenticity.

I have explained here how my proposed revision does not break any ABOUTSELF policy. メガヒロ (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You're the one who brought up ABOUTSELF, but that link is to only a small slice of Wikipedia:Verifiability. More importantly, this is not the only issue. The purpose of this article is to summarize the topic with WP:DUE weight according to WP:RELIABLE sources. This mainly means independent sources. Further, all sources are judged in context. As I've said about TorrentFreak before, a single interview from a sympathetic niche outlet published the same month the website started is very light weight. Last I checked, this was the only time the outlet even mentioned BitChute at all. Considering that since then a reliable source has indicated that company exaggerated or fabricated its use of bittorrent technology, the company's own website is not even reliable for claims about itself. In other words, support.bitchute.com is even flimsier as a source than TorrentFreak, and is not inherently reliable. Any specific detail from such a source would need support or context from a reliable, independent source, and that source would be used to evaluate how weighty this claim is.

Additionally, again as I've said on this talk page in the past, Vahey has used different, contradictory PR tactics in interviews over the history of the company. This is common among people in his position, but the result is still to undermine the weight of these details. What is presented as significant in one interview at one time is not necessarily significant in the next interview a few weeks later. This is another reason to favor independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current wording is already something we arguably shouldn't include in the lead, since the founder's original intentions for the site aren't particularly noteworthy (as established by coverage in RS) compared to what the site is in practice. The proposed wording is more self-serving and would be improper to add to the lead. BitChute can make all the claims they want on their own site/social media/etc. about how they're a better place than YouTube, but Wikipedia is not the place for these. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: Vahey's original intentions for the site are absolutely noteworthy. Reliable and independent sources that report on Vahey's intentions for BitChute are widespread across the internet (see WP:GNG). In addition, you don't seem to understand my revision. Actually, it seems most people here do not. But I'll explain. You seem to think I am using BitChute's own words as evidence that they are better than YouTube. I am not (yes that would be ridiculous). I am showing Vahey's own, personal reasoning (agree with it or not) as to why HE wanted to make his website. メガヒロ (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  You have provided the explicit change you're hoping to make, so I think I understand quite clearly what you are proposing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an inappropriate use of a primary source ... it would need Bitchute claims ... And what anybody claims there motives are may vary from what they say there motives are. For all I know the purpose of the website was to make money. That isn't to say I don't have concerns but I'm not going there, certainly at present.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Djm-leighpark: According to this logic we should revise the pages of all other social media platforms. We can't say the purpose of YouTube is for hosting videos because it may actually be for making money? We can't say the purpose of Facebook is for connecting with friends because it may be that they just want to make money? The reason this sounds foolish is because their purposes are self-evident. And it's just the same if you look at BitChute - it's evident that free expression is unrestricted there. メガヒロ (talk) 10:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

"Free expression" is almost meaningless in this context. It sounds nice, but it's far too vague to take seriously. Free expression is restricted on BitChute about as much as it is any other website, it's just that they chose to restrict it in a superficially looser way. The site can and does remove content based on its own fairly broad community guidelines, but it has the right to remove content for any reason at all.

As for money, BitChute is still a for-profit company. Facebook, BitChute, and other social media companies offer services to users. The purpose is make money in various ways, mostly to the detriment of the users themselves (nobody signs up for the advertising, after all). Video hosting and streaming are comparatively expensive. Every video that BitChute hosts costs BitChute money, and its not really clear where the money is coming from. I suspect that if BitChute became competitive with YouTube, it would collapse under these costs, or it would have to drastically change its model in order to gain funding. In other words, the purpose of BitChute as a company (make money) is opposed to the service BitChute provides (host videos). Grayfell (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I have appended an edit to my proposed revision to the bottom of my first post. Please direct your suggestions or constructive criticisms to it below here. In this edit, I have made it more clear that we are stating what Vahey believes as opposed to what RS believes by saying "According to Ray Vahey, BitChute's founder...". I have also changed some wording to be more accurate, replacing "free expression is unrestricted as opposed to censored" with "free expression receives less censorship". Finally, I replaced the primary source with an independent source. I think this addresses everything people would have liked to see in a revision.

I am willing to compromise. So it would be much more helpful if people told me what they would like to see in the revision rather than just reject it outright. Reaching a consensus will be much faster if people participate in the revision with constructive criticism. メガヒロ (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The CURRENT consensus version as it exists on the page is better than what you have proposed. Your proposal still falls afoul of WP:WEASEL and WP:DUE concerns (and also veers deep into WP:MANDY territory), especially since Vahey has been self-contradictory in interviews. Your version also has WP:RS issues, since you have used sources such as the Moonie Times that are considered to have reliability issues.

Also, when you continually harp about "reaching a consensus", you seem to misunderstand Wikipedia:Consensus. There is, currently, a consensus about the wording on the page. That your version - which has had a host of policy-based issues - is not the consensus version does not mean that a consensus has yet to be reached. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree with what IHA has said. So far you have proposed a change to the lead that would make it worse. There is no need for editors here to accept a slightly less bad, but still worse, revision for the sake of "compromise". As for the source you have used to replace the primary source, The Washington Times is only marginally reliable and is considered a partisan source for US politics. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: You should know, all editors have an obligation to work towards consensus. That means editors should not continuously reject revisions to prevent consensus from being reached and it means all editors must attempt to find a solution that pleases everyone. So far, everyone has broken these rules, except me. As for the source, what do you suggest? メガヒロ (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@メガヒロ: To the contrary, your proposed edits appear to be of the WP:POVPUSH variety. Working towards consensus does not mean that editors are obligated to accept bad proposals that make the article worse, nor to "please everyone", as "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity".

The multiple problems with your proposed edits have been explained to you, quite thoroughly, by multiple editors including myself, GorillaWarfare, Djm-leighpark, and Grayfell. If you choose to engage in a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode, that's your issue, not the fault of the multiple editors who have tried to explain to you the problems with your proposals.

Also, the fact that multiple editors have rejected your proposals shows that there most definitely is a consensus on this page; it's just that your proposed revisions are not it. Your accusing others of bad faith here (such as "I know you’re not interested in reaching consensus and are looking for any reason to reject my revision" in your 10:36, 21 December 2020 comment below) is reaching the point of personal attacks. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Nothing I wrote even remotely uses WEASEL wording. Explain. Neither have I given anything UNDUE weight. In fact, the vast majority of articles that introduce BitChute describe Vahey’s motivation for creating it. However, that aspect is missing from our Wikipedia page – which is why I proposed this revision; I am trying to fix the page to give this DUE weight. Also, this is not MANDY because it is not outwardly obvious that Vahey would say his intentions were to have less censorship. He claimed YouTube censorship was too great before his website received criticisms. He was among the first to ever make the claim. And he could have claimed that he made the website for any other reasonable purpose. So unlike Lord Astor denying his affair with Mandy, Vahey’s claim does not go without saying. What sources are unreliable? Moonie Times is not my source. You can start a new talk section if you want to replace it. メガヒロ (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

To address a few pieces of your comment:

1. WP:WEASEL warns against "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated". This is very much what "a space where free expression is unrestricted as opposed to censored" in your proposal is, as it communicates nothing about what type of content constitutes "free expression" or "censored".
2. Please note that I wiki-linked the words "Moonie Times"; this is how I have known the Washington Times for the longest time, due to its historically being a propaganda mouthpiece of the cult of Sun Myung Moon and purvey various conspiracy theories, racist hatred, climate science denial, and so on. Since you made the Washington Times the
3. Deflections about "free speech" are a tactic smuggle hatred into public discourse. Various claims to be "about free speech" by purveyors of racist (especially white-supremacist) hatred, sexism, religious hatred, anti-LGBT bigotry, calls to violence, and the other miscellaneous odious content that forms the majority of the content Bitchute was designed to carry (and that appears in its top videos all the time) are definitely within WP:MANDY territory of denying accurate depictions in "well they would say that, wouldn't they" ways.

I believe that covers what I needed to address, and there is no need for "a new talk section." IHateAccounts (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• In the Washington Times article from 2018, Vahey claimed that that BitChute is "politically neutral". This is not supported by better sources, nor by a plain look at Vahey's other statements and actions. In other words, Vahey is not a reliable source, even for his own motivations. Per Hope Not Hate:

On 14 October 2017, Ray Vahey tweeted from his personal Twitter account that “Pizzagate is real. Pedogate is real”. The BitChute Twitter account has mentioned Pizzagate in 87 tweets and QAnon in 49 tweets, the vast majority of which were links to videos from proponents of the theories and which contained unfounded allegations of child abuse and Satanism against public figures such as John Podesta, Katy Perry, the Clintons and many more. Despite the Comet Pizza shooting incident and the campaign of threats against them, BitChute has retweeted seven tweets that name the restaurant or its founder James Alefantis, as well as dozens of videos devoted to perpetuating the allegations against them.[26]

Vahey cannot claim that BitChute is "politically neutral" while it promotes extremist political content. For this and other reasons, this proposal is not actionable. Grayfell (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hope Not Hate:@Grayfell: Of course the content on BitChute is not politically neutral. Vahey was referring to BitChute’s censorship policy, so this quote doesn’t speak against his reliability. Anyway I am not citing that statement. I know you’re not interested in reaching consensus and are looking for any reason to reject my revision, but try keep your criticisms relevant. メガヒロ (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Your dislike of a source doesn't make it irrelevant. You cannot use a source you like to justify adding trivia while ignoring all the other sources which contradict that trivia. Censorship is a political issues, so the idea that a "censorship policy" can be politically neutral is logically incoherent. As far as I can see, we already have reached consensus, and that consensus is "no". Grayfell (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Horribly biased article lacking any sources

The writer(s) of this article pretends several times that there is a source but there is only being referred to Wikipedia itself. The writer(s) make(s) strong claims about Bitchute being extreme right but fails to give any source for this. 145.132.75.218 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a group of eight sources cited inline. For your convenience, they are the first eight sources in the BitChute#References section. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

WP:FORUM rant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The main description of this is speculative, opinion-based and outright lies. Wikipedia should try to resist the ideology trying to change the definitions of things. Chriscapaci (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC) You have not suggested any edits to be made; hatting this as WP:FORUM violation. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

BitChute is starting to not feel like the alt-tech

It turns out that BitChute is based in the UK, who is cracking down on all the stuff the BitChute article here on Wikipedia says is far-right. BitChute seems to be moving away from the far-right, which their supporters say is “censorship”. Please update the article as it is moving away from the alt-tech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.89.96 (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Reddit posts are not reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

"Conspiracy Theorists and Hateful Material"

Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:24:AA00:1985:D27B:D609:E410 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you got a concern or suggestion? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Not liking some material on a channel doesn't make it "hateful". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:24:AA00:ECF2:704F:683A:D8B6 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

please add the following to this article

"Left wing extremists such as Antifa have caused destruction and violence in Boston, Chicago, and Atlanta and have used Twitter as a means to promote hateful, violent messages." 

sources: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/rita-panahi/antifa-and-blm-protesters-continue-their-reign-of-terror/news-story/7bcb9103329b7e029944fc681f780763 https://nlpc.org/2020/06/01/antifas-call-to-violence-gets-free-rein-on-twitter-while-trump-is-censored/

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillGilligan (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This article is about BitChute, not Twitter or antifa. Furthermore, blogs are not reliable sources, and I don't believe the NPLC has been decided to be either, so I'd recommend finding better sources before suggesting changes to those articles, if you choose to do so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Developing Ofcom situation

I added verifiable stuff to the article concerning the CST reporting BitChute to Ofcom for anti-Semitic content. What isn't currently verifiable through sources, is that the site seems to have reacted to this by removing ALL search results for things such as "Hitler", "Holocaust", "Jewish", etc. I can individually test this myself and see that it's true, but RS are not covering it yet. If you're a regular editor on this article, that may be worth looking out for in case it is soon covered by a RS. I have this which suggests they're doing this prior to filtering content per-region as a way to, I think, get around probable fines from Ofcom. But I don't think them saying it on Twitter is necessarily a good enough source, and I'm not certain it's currently relevant enough to be in the article anyway. Regardless, it's an interesting situation that could be worth looking out for. Chillabit (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I'll keep an eye out for any further sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020 (2)

Change "BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful material." To, " BitChute is a neutral website that supports free speech as an alternative to similar far left/right websites." 2603:6011:D141:F300:1DC2:8B1F:B9E:2804 (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This has been discussed at length on this talk page already; please review past discussions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I read it; this is disingenuous at best. Libelous at worst. The site is a platform; and has displayed neutrality. Simply correlating Youtube banning far right and conspiracy theorists who went to bitchute as another platform does not turn bitchute into it. Your accredited sources; each one, has displayed conflicts of interest on this precise issue. This is an abuse of Wikipedia. Objective Reason (talk) 17:40, 4 February 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 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia allowing false information

About BitChute. First of all, say goodbye to Youtube and Facebook. Censorship is rampant. BitChute is not bias and does not infringe on individual's rights or free speech. Wikipedia will soon be added to the list of unreliable sources for researchers and students looking for authentic and factual content. Bitchute aims to put creators first and provide them with a service that they can use to flourish and express their ideas freely. Shame on you Wikipedia. Jessiediconti (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Er, OK, but you really haven't said anything meaningful. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is you, me and every other member. If you've a disagreement, make it here and the community (which is everyone) will discuss it. All voices are welcome. Trust me, there is no conspiracy or "shadow government" here. BBX118 00:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2021

This is obvious not true informations. I started using bitchute and I realized the description presented here is far mislanding. Eder VP 10 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You need to outline what exact edit you'd like made. Which text you'd like to add, remove or replace and provide sources for the change. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

Read the first line, the first thing you read when you Google search Bitchute. What is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia or a tabloid? Do you publish facts, or opinions masquerading as facts? Because that first line is advertising the latter... 68.150.76.25 (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not an edit request. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021

The wikipedia says it is a platform FOR far right and conspiracy theories, even though the website "BIT CHUTE" specifically says at the bottom of every page says they are no related to the content posted on the website and the content does not reflect on the website, This further proves that there is and issue with this page's information. In order to make your page more correct you need to re-edit it to be a website which allows people to post content as long as it follows their policies for use. 174.27.165.115 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This article says that it is a platform "known for accommodating far-right..."; we do not suggest that is Vahey's stated purpose for the site. GorillaWarfare 

(talk) 21:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)