Talk:BitChute/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to BitChute has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

This edit request to BitChute has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

"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)

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 confirms a contact point of Newbury, 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)

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)

• I would suggest the source 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].

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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 matches . 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 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)

@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)

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)

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 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:

• this discusses hosting of a COVID related video by Bitchute

• The Guardian:

• Guardian often is regarded WP:RS ...

• An analysis paper:

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

• The Times

• Looks goodbut behind a paywall.

• Independent:

• 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)

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”

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)

@GorillaWarfare: I see you reverted at , which included my change of which was a compromise over 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)

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to BitChute has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)