Talk:BitChute/Archive 2

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

This article clearly includes a biased opinion about the content served on Bit Chute website. This, however is not the case for other video hosting services mentioned elsewhere her on Wikipedia, such as youtube. YouTube's article does not start off with what it is known for but actual data of usage. ^[1] I suggest removing the content "known for accommodating far-right..." and purely stick to request data like the article on YouTube does. This wording impresses on people that the content of this website is somehow bad, and there for the service itself is bad, and may actually have a financial impact on revenue for the BitChute service. ^[2] wikipedia should really stay as unbiased as possible as wikipedia is a trusted source of information. In Wikipedia's own content guide it states articles should maintain a neutral view. ^[3] So really this alone should be enough to remove the content about far-right and conspiracy theories. I suggest the article be amended from :

BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful content.[a][b] The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube,[14] and some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetised") have migrated to BitChute.[1]

to read as such:

BitChute is a peer-to-peer content sharing platform and associated services. Created in 2017, BitChute aims to put creators first and provide them with a service that they can use to express their ideas freely. ^[4]

As arbiters of knowledge we should strive to leave political commentary out of these articles, unless the page is specifically created with that in mind, and at that point should either be created as a separate article, or mentioned in a subsection in the article specifically titled "political controversy" or similarly to convey this political commentary. This way the info can still be included and represented in an unbiased manner. MjrArchangel33 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC) User:MjrArchangel33

 Not done: @MjrArchangel33: You are misunderstanding our neutral point of view policy. The policy does not mean that articles should contain no critical statements, it says that we must "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Basically every available reliable source describes BitChute as home to hateful content produced by members of the far-right, and so this article reflects that. BitChute can do their own advertising about "putting creators first" and all that on their own website. As for relegating critical content to a separate article or a subsection, see WP:CRITS for why we do not do that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Please cite the sources for your comments "Basically every available reliable source describes BitChute as home to hateful content produced by members of the far-right...". I will concede the point for not relegating critical content to a separate article, due to your citation. But I would still argue that BitChute is not "represent[ed] fairly, proportionately, and, as fair as possible, with out editorial bias..." especially not with reliable sources, as any sources I seem to be finding in support of this assessment of BitChute is far from reliable. In other words the cited BUZZFEED article is not reliable. reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia seems to preclude that news blogs as being reliable as they may not go through rigorous fact checking. Furthermore most news outlets these days can no longer be considered reliable as they are all (both sides) themselves biased. In Addition, Neutral point of view states "Avoid stating opinions as facts." the article as currently written seems to do just that, represent opinions as facts. It also states in the Impartial tone section that "even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized", which furthers the point that the way this article is worded is in fact biased, and should be amended. So I think I am not misunderstanding Neutral point of view at all. Wikipedia Verifiability also states that if there is a disagreement between reputable sources, then "... maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight" Alas, if there can't be a consensus on reliability of sources, Wikipedia Verifiability also states "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it", this would imply that if it can't be verified then it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia. I also remember seeing text supporting this sentiment somewhere else on wikipedia's pages, but I cant seem to find it again at this time. So if this is the case then the introductory statement to this article should at the very least be removed in its entirety. MjrArchangel33 (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@MjrArchangel33: The sources are already cited within the article; feel free to peruse them at BitChute#References. And yes, BuzzFeed News is reliable: WP:RSP#BuzzFeed News. Regarding Furthermore most news outlets these days can no longer be considered reliable as they are all (both sides) themselves biased., see WP:BIASEDSOURCE.

What are these statements in this article that can't be verified, and where is there disagreement in reputable sources that is not being represented? If you have additional sources that you think ought to be used, I'd be happy to take a look. I will note that if you meant that BitChute.com link you provided above, that won't do—we do not write Wikipedia articles about companies based on what those companies say about themselves. We require reliable, independent sources.

Saying that BitChute accommodates far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and hosts hateful content, is factual, not opinion, and there are multitudes of sources saying just that (again, see BitChute#Notes).

As a note, you do not need to keep changing your edit request template to "unanswered". That is to alert editors to implement uncontroversial and simple "change X to Y" edit requests, which this is not—you will need consensus for a rewrite like the one you're suggesting, and certainly first you will need to present some sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thanks for that note about changing the edit request template, I will keep that in mind for the future. If you don't mind me asking who all is notified when that is changed? didn't realize my simple change was so controversial, just wanted to fairly represent the platform itself irrespective of its political userbase. To your comment about Buzzfeed news being reliable, I find that hard to believe as WP:RSP#BuzzFeed News itself indicates that the all content on BuzzFeed was imported to BuzzFeed News and BuzzFeed is itself contested as a reliable source, and by extension BuzzFeed News. However the list there and items on it, is another point of contention, but I will leave that till another day and address that in the appropriate location, and not here, as you suggest. (side note) It surprises me the amount of political bias allowed on Wikipedia, I've seen other articles with right/left leaning bias before, but never thought enough about it to do anything, however with todays political climate around the world, and especially in the US, I see it necessary to eliminate bias from our rhetoric in attempts to remove fuel from the flames, regardless of my political views. As per your request and only pertaining to the originally proposed edit, of the introductory lines. Here are a few references to support the originally suggested edit:

• https://reclaimthenet.org/bitchute-overview/
• https://fossbytes.com/bitchute-video-streaming-bittorrent-network/
• https://bitcoinexchangeguide.com/bitchute/
• https://onmoneyline.com/bitchute-review-youtube-alternative/ (there may be an argument for this one as un-reliable)

Again I'm not suggesting that the commentary about BitChute's userbase and the content they post is wrong, or even shouldn't exist, just that the first introductory lines of the article should not contain such politically charged sentiment and should rather be the actual description of the platform itself. These references are also fairly un-biased as they talk about the platform itself with little to no commentary on the userbase's content. This is not to say they don't mention the content at all just that they are more focused on the platform and mention the userbase and hosted content as a secondary matter. I see these as good examples too as what should be done here for again at the minimum the introductory lines of this article.

Maybe you might suggest an edit to my edit so we can discuss what you think to be an accurate depiction of the BitChute platform?

To your point "Saying that BitChute accommodates far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and hosts hateful content, is factual, not opinion, and there are multitudes of sources saying just that (again, see BitChute#Notes)." I would refer you to Neutral point of view where it states "even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized" Emphasis mine, and in my above comments where I quoted this same phrase. This articles introductory phrase as written seems to be an inappropriate tone due to how it is organized and presented. By having it as the first line this sets a tone for the entire article that the platform is somehow "bad" when in reality it is a viable alternative to YouTube, vemeo, etc.

The above sources are examples of fair representation as well. If these sources are not considered reliable, would you mind explaining specifically why these are not, as I have read through Reliable Sources and they seem to fit the bill. The existing sources on the article currently don't seem to fairly represent the site itself, and are extremely biased. They only speak to the content hosted on the service (which technically isn't even hosted on the service as it is a peer to peer service). I read through the post about biased sources you posted and understand that biased sources may be ok but again my point isn't really about the hosted content and userbase but the platform itself. So I appreciate your help, I ask here as these references pertain directly to this article and is not a general question of reliability.

I would also like to bring attention to this blog post written by Wikipedia's co-founder Larry Sanger. Where he suggests that it is important to limit bias surrounding politically charged articles.^[1] I would say this is a case in which his thoughts should be heeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MjrArchangel33 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Responding roughly in order: If you don't mind me asking who all is notified when that is changed? An active edit request template shows up in a handful of places for various editors to review, including at Wikipedia:Dashboard#Requested edits, Category:Requested edits, etc.

I am not sure how you are reaching this conclusion on BuzzFeed is itself contested as a reliable source, and by extension BuzzFeed News when RSP discusses their reliability separately, and clearly marks BuzzFeed News as generally reliable. If you would like the description of BuzzFeed News at RSP to change to "no consensus" based on imports from BuzzFeed or any other reason, feel free to begin a new discussion at WP:RSN, but until then we will go with the established consensus.

I have previously encountered articles from Reclaim the Net that I wished to use as a source (to do with a different article I've worked on, not this one), but ended up determining that they are not usable as a reliable source. I also suspect they would be marked as "considered biased or opinionated" if ever listed at RSP (which I mention because it would affect how we present statements sourced to them, not to imply it is unusable as a result). If you disagree with my own evaluation of their reliability, feel free to begin a discussion at WP:RSN—I was unable to find any past ones, but would be happy to join a new discussion. But until then I don't think we can use this source. The other three sources appear to be fairly obscure, and also have not been discussed at RSN that I've seen. It is not clear to me that these are reliable sources—the FossBytes one appears to be a blog post and certainly doesn't seem to have been edited ("I scrolled the website for a while, and it's pretty impressing.") Of all the sources, the BitcoinExchange one looks perhaps the most usable, but again I would rather see some outside input on its usability as a source—there are a lot of Bitcoin news sites out there and my understanding is that they are often not usable as sources. Your last source is almost certainly not usable, as you've acknowledged.

Per MOS:LEAD: [The lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. I think the current lead does this well. We describe what BitChute is (a video hosting website created in 2017 and for what purpose), and what it is known for/why it is notable. We are not going to remove the latter piece just because you think it is "politically charged", when it is well-supported in, again, basically all reliable sources about the platform. Even one of the sources you've provided has an opener very similar to our own: "BitChute, found online at BitChute.com, is an alternative video sharing platform using blockchain technology. The platform has become a hub for alt right vloggers and conspiracy theorists – including many vloggers who have been banned or demonetized from YouTube and other traditional social media platforms for their perceived hate speech."

Maybe you might suggest an edit to my edit so we can discuss what you think to be an accurate depiction of the BitChute platform? Sure: "BitChute is a video hosting service known for accommodating far-right individuals and conspiracy theorists, and for hosting hateful content. The platform was created in 2017 to allow video uploaders to avoid content rules enforcement on YouTube, and some creators who have been banned from YouTube or had their channels barred from receiving advertising revenue ("demonetised") have migrated to BitChute."

By having it as the first line this sets a tone for the entire article that the platform is somehow "bad" when in reality it is a viable alternative to YouTube, vemeo, etc. No, by having it as the first line we describe the platform in the way it is described in reliable sources. That you wish it to be portrayed as a "viable alternative to YouTube, etc." is the part that's not compatible with NPOV—we are not an advertising platform for BitChute, we reflect the RS.

I am familiar with Sanger's blog post. That he wishes Wikipedia to be something it's not, and give undue prominence to fringe views, is a fine opinion for him to hold, but it does not change our policies and guidelines. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: As a part of edit with the summary "remove one unreliable" (cite) ... the removed cite in question being: Computing Forever (7 March 2018). Interview with Ray Vahey of Bitchute (YouTube video). Event occurs at 8:01. Archived from the original on 16 September 2018. Retrieved 30 November 2019.. Would you care to elaborate on the unreliability of this cite. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a self-published interview by an alt-right YouTuber (well, former YouTuber... BitChuter? now, I presume) and a voice who is presumably Vahey, published on a now-defunct YouTube channel. It was only supporting a statement already supported by a more reliable source and seemed to serve little purpose. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

A key point about this source is surely whether the voice is Vahey? If it is Vahey's (ie BitChute's) responses are eligible to be quoted are they not? ... for example that most content, which is viewed relatively rarely, is centrally server, while it is only the small number of videos that "go viral" that utilize the distributed technology. I agree there is a question as to whether Vahey was faked ... though to some extent the nature and fluency of the answers tends to make me judge it was highly plausible it was Vahey. And I would also point that if you are keen to minimize multiple cites to the same point you should scrutinize for example the "hateful-material" group very selectively and wonder what an ADL.org blog source is doing in it? Otherwise there is risk of a from at least one external viewpoint of biased selection; though these examples differ in as between chalk and cheese that said it is extremely difficult to comb through cites of an article this size and spot such points; and frankly it is pretty well beyond my capability to do so. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark 05:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: Presuming it is Vahey, he could possibly be quoted, though we are of course somewhat choosy about what we quote just for weight and WP:ABOUTSELF purposes. Secondary sources on the centrally-served vs. distributed technology would be far preferable, and in the case of the example you give, I wonder if that's not outdated information. The interview is from March 2018, and a more recent (April 2021) Ars Technica report describes BitChute's WebTorrent hosting feature as apparently deprecated.

Regarding minimizing multiple cites, I don't know if I'd say I'm "keen" to do it—I think there is a balance to be struck between showing that a viewpoint is widely held, and including an overwhelmingly long list of sources. I wanted to add a more right-leaning source I had come across that supports that the site is known for accommodating far-right individuals, and so I removed some sources to keep the citegroup from breaking ten entries. I picked the two that (at least in my view) are furthest left and not quite as reliable, and left the more reliable sources and those that represent publications that take a range of political viewpoints. Can you explain a bit more what your concern is with the ADL source being used in the "hateful material" citegroup? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• @GW: Technicially the ARS Technica statement is a little vaguewave to quote: "The site previously let users host videos through WebTorrent, a peer-to-peer streaming client, though that option appears to have been deprecated." We need to note the word "appears". My best guess, and I am only guessing, or half guessing, that a user-selectable widget on whether to permit peer-to-peer streaming (that I think was previously present on the interface) has been removed. Under the cover the functionality might still be present and able to be invoked. The interviewee plainly claimed most videos were only seen occasionally and streamed centrally: with the peer-to-peer technology only invoked for high demand "viral" videos that would swamp the central server(s). My personal opinion is the technology may be being used cleverly and they may not be disclosing the architecture for business reasons, but that's WP:OPINION. Or they could use the old Dorset traffic light repair contract from the 1970's trick ... You know if a traffic goes down in a busy city your engineer's wont get through the gridlock to repair it in an hour and a penalty will have to be paid ... equally that penalty clause is the only way to get the (profitable) contract ... the equivalent here is you might know you can't handle a peak viral demand but you simply ignore it and take the hit and if people come back anyway its not a problem. AS to a degree with most companies they market heavily what they are not good at. (I've gone on a tangent and its TYF then MOTD) Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• The archived video is not playing for me tonight, though it has come back to me and its a pain if always goes back to the beginning at the slightest mouse click! Unsure if the transcript was successfully captured either which would be handy. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• @GW: As I said before ADL.org is a blog. Are you claiming it is RS and of the same quality as the other sources? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Djm-leighpark: Yes, it is a little vague. I also noticed "appears", which is what I was trying to convey with my use of the word "apparently", and is why I included "appears to be" in the quote on the article itself. Right now I think the article fairly well conveys the state of affairs: BitChute describes (or described?) itself as P2P, but independent sources don't believe it actually uses such tech.
• I've also had trouble playing/fast-forwarding that video, so I haven't watched much of it (particularly because I don't think it's very useful as a source).
• The ADL's blog is a WP:RSBLOG, and the ADL is a generally reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• @GW: I apologise for missing ADL on RSP. There are some nuances ... e.g. As they are a .org are they "professional writers"? (actually the writers aren't attributed). Is WP:RSPLOG totally fulfilled? As a blog is it an opinion piece? But I'd probably lose the WP:wikilawyering on a 1:1 in the end but it would be a good question for the next RFA maybe? in the event you've reviewed and pruned the lists ... per essays Wikipedia:Citation overkill & [WP:CITETRIM]] leaving .org so I think I'll leave it there. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@GW: I see you introduced the ARS technina piece after I set up this section: As I say while its generally a strong source I've re-read it very carefully; and I'm pretty sure you've misrepresented the source by extracting a quote out of context; though I'm willing to assume that was in good faith. I'd also note support.bitchute.com currently clearly states at the bottom: "BitChute is a peer-to-peer content sharing platform.". If its lying it should probably be reported to ASA. And by the way, this independent source (ie me) believes Bitchute may (repeat may) be using P2P technology but (a) certainly not in a simple 'all peers equal' context, (b) with central control, (c) only for high demand video services, (d) leveraging a tier of on-demand cloud peer servers - it is these that might utilise P2P. (e) possibly only for some channels (f) It might require a test of multiple (powerful) peers in a high bandwidth lan on a low bandwidth wan with no firewall blocking (and appropriate client option set if necessary) for a viral video to have more definitive evidence P2P is not in use at end user leaf level. It is also possible the P2P is mostly simply being used in a 1-1 mode from the central servers to the end users. Thankyou. (if this makes any sense). Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: How have I misrepresented the source? The full sentence is "The site previously let users host videos through WebTorrent, a peer-to-peer streaming client, though that option appears to have been deprecated." My addition to the article was "According to Ars Technica in April 2021, WebTorrent hosting on BitChute 'appears to have been deprecated'."

Good find with the support page; that answers my earlier curiosity about whether BitChute currently describes itself as P2P or only did so in the past. The rest of your comment is interesting but ultimately not usable in the article—speculation from editors without any RS to back it up can't be used. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@GW: Ars Technica allows specifically refers to UI option, in fact specifically to the deprecation of the the user selectability. "Deprecation" is alos a key word here. You've started a Chinese whisper.(albeit that's probably no longer politically correct). Your wording points to your POV. While my suggestions above cannot be used in the article it defines the sort of methodology and conditions I'd expect to be set up and demonstrated for a proper test by ARS Technica or Trinity or whoever. I'd really have to dig a bit deeper. In all event my memory recalls from somewhere the client (I think it was the client) had a button saying you permitted your PC allow vide sharing ... is it still there? While checking for this I noticed the video I cited above appeared (80% certainty due to retrieval issues) to be the referred to in (Brennan, 27 November 2019). I've already put in too much bandwidth in here at the moment and I can do without sifting through most of the rubbish some google searches are returning. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see the distinction that you're drawing now. To me it's not actually clear that that's what they meant (that only the option to use WebTorrent was deprecated, not the use of the technology was stopped) but I have matched the wording in the article a little more closely. I don't appreciate the accusation that "your wording points to your POV"—I have exactly zero opinions on whether or not BitChute does or should use P2P. I have no idea if there is or was a button to toggle P2P, I don't use BitChute. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@GW: Thankyou.21:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

As a followup to the preceding discussion I found a (more usable) copy of the "Computing forever" video on dailymotion (x6fu44a). The interviewee (Vahey - SE london accent? - also seems to match a (James? "CorbettReport") podcast on Google. Overall interesting comments ... the distinction between "platform monetization" and "Creator monetization" was. Alt-views or e.g. Youtube given. Very clearly states about video's being shared by end users and the "magnet" meaning they can be kept online (ie scummering my comments about upper tier sharing only) ... The "Corbett Report also gave some interesting stuff about the "3rd party" comments system dropping cookies. In general, even though, 2018, there is probably quotable with attribution stuff relevant to this article. (Accept this only works if Vahey=BitChute ... and only for Vahey answers ... would do this for any other non-RS). I'm really not expecting to follow this through at the moment as I have 4/5/6 articles I'm parallel working on. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

After reviewing more of this Article, this seems to be a very politically slanted and charged article. I am not suggesting that it should be re-written in a favorable light but I'm curious as to why this article hasn't been given fair treatment and giving "each side its due weight"? Especially due to the fact that this is a protected page, and considering the politically charged context surrounding this video hosting service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MjrArchangel33 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@MjrArchangel33: As I said above, our neutrality policy requires us to "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If there is a significant view you feel is not being represented in this article, feel free to present the reliable sources that have published on it and we can make sure it's included. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to add more basic information in the description of what BitChute is, rather than immediately attack it for some of its user base? I don't use BitChute, I use Odysee, but upon comparing a few decentralized YouTube alternatives, this article struct me as extremely partisan. I think the information given is fine, I just object to it being placed at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weagesdf (talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The lead of an article is intended to describe what the subject is and why it is notable. We say what it is (a a video hosting service established in 2017) and why it is notable (its preponderance of far-right individuals, conspiracy content, etc.) We are not "attack[ing] it for some of its user base", we are describing it in the way it is described in nearly every reliable source from left to right.

I will note that the inclusion of "far-right" in the lead sentence has been discussed at great length on this talk page in the past, and would invite you to read through some of those discussions on this page and in the archives to avoid repetition. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would suggest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is about BitChute. I did not say that YouTube shouldn't be mentioned at all, but any mention of YouTube must be as context for BitChute, and must be proportionate. Adding opinions about YouTube would be a WP:COATRACK. Reliably-sourced criticism of YouTube, and there is a lot of that, would belong at one of the several articles we have which are dedicated to YouTube. Grayfell (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The second sentence is criticism of the subject, and should be stated as such. This not an unbiased statement as required by Wikipedia, perhaps it should also be removed from general description of the site. Phorodendron (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done If you examine the two notes attached to that sentence, you'll see that there are about 13 sources supporting that statement from WP:RS in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Furthermore, the WP:LEDE is intended to explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Second sentence: “known” should be changed to “widely criticized for”. 107.127.18.20 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Grayfell (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You cannot cite journalistic sources in an encyclopedia. Present the factual information, and it will be readily apparent to the reader if something is a conspiracy theory, disinformation, misinformation, extreme, alt, or any of your other characterizations. You don’t cite a news article, you find the primary source. Carpedm333 (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest that in fact, a huge proportion of this project is supported by "journalistic sources" and this is quite normal. See WP:RS. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I see no source for the claims made in the article and also you blocked the edit for this page ,with the weird statement "to protect it against vandalism" when in fact You are protecting baseless opinions or claims You made against this network.So You are protecting your lies in fact but You are doing it for a good reason.I remember the old days when Wikipedia was not extrem left political platform. 86.126.133.159 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The article has 32 sources. You're going to need to be a little more specific. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie

It's also protected by section 230 as platform that is open to all users. Every citation I've seen that infers conspiracy or the undefined subjective far right is describing particular users. This erroneously conflates attribution of the site to the individual members on the platform.

This is violating every honest NPV. I'll give this 1 week before I have an Admin unlock this ~~ Objective Reason (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2023

You're free to make that request any time at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

No I would prefer an explanation Objective Reason (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

You'll find that Plandemic is described as a conspiracy theory on it's own article because we have plenty of reliable sources that describe it as such. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No the entire section is up for removal. The site has taken neutrality as their stance, so we need to include Verizon and AT&T for having users that were on other sites also sign up on this site . Has zero relevancy. Objective Reason (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear what you are proposing to change. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Feel free to provide reliable, independent sources that support your assertions that the public perception of the platform has changed. However, the Ofcom article is not such an article — it merely notes some changes that BitChute promised to make, while also noting "While we welcome these improvements, we are aware of reports alleging that content likely to incite violence and hatred continues to be uploaded to BitChute, can be accessed easily, and may pose significant risks to users." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but do you see how this isn't fair? Even YouTube had Nazi content in the beginning, which was eventually blocked and the users banned. I'm not asking to remove the entire statement, just the part about hosting neo-Nazis. Twitter X and Rumble have a lot of nazi content, yet there's no mention of neo-Nazis in their opening paragraph of a Wikipedia article that millions read. BitChute is a small operation, and descriptions like this can be damaging.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/bitchute-03-10-2023/ Xyron1987 (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Independent, reliable sources have overwhelmingly discussed Bitchute as home to neo-Nazis and other such content, and so the Wikipedia page reflects that. If Bitchute has indeed changed their platform moderation strategy then perhaps they will eventually become known for something else. However, there has been little in the way of coverage of the site since the Ofcom press release, so it would be premature to suggest that that has indeed happened. We follow the reliable sources, not the other way around. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Can we have at least an introductory paragraph like this one? "Rumble is an online video platform, web hosting, and cloud services business headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, with its U.S. headquarters in Longboat Key, Florida. It was founded in 2013 by Chris Pavlovski, a Macedonian Canadian technology entrepreneur. Rumble's cloud services business hosts Truth Social, and the video platform is popular among American conservative and far-right users. Rumble has been described as "alt-tech"."

Then the part about Nazis, hate speech, and other concerns can be included in a "Controversies" section of the article. Placing it right at the beginning feels a bit excessive, in my opinion. Also, keep in mind that Ofcom is a UK government agency—I wouldn’t underestimate their influence. Xyron1987 (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It has one: “BitChute is an alt-tech video hosting service launched by Ray Vahey in January 2017.” I have no doubts about Ofcom’s influence, but that does not change that Wikipedia reflects what is written in secondary, reliable sources, and reflects what has happened rather than trying to predict what may happen. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

How about 'publishing far right content' instead of hosting neo nazis since there's no proof of this? Xyron1987 (talk) 08:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by no proof, the citations (for example, ) are adequate. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

They are old that's what I mean, we are talking about what the website was not is. Do you think the White House would have a verified channel on a neo nazi site? C'mon this is not stormfront. Please revise neo nazi to far right. Xyron1987 (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

What the White House does or doesn't do is not relevant to this article; if you want changes to the article to be made, you will need to provide actual reliable sources that support your claims. As GW has explained, the Ofcom's non-case says that BitChute has promised to make some changes, but it says nothing about whether those promises have actually been delivered on. Furthermore, it doesn't once mention "neo-Nazis" specifically, so it's certainly not usable as a source for the specific neo-Nazi angle you're going for (as otherwise, it'd require a bucket of WP:SYNTH).

But even if the website no longer hosts Neo-Nazi content (which, again, [citation needed]), the lede would still be correct: the service is known for hosting neo-Nazis, harmful conspiracy theories, and hate speech (emphasis mine). Even if it no longer does, one of the main reasons people know and talk about it is hosting neo-Nazi stuff, as evidenced by the cited sources. To draw a somewhat-flippant analogy, Mark David Chapman hasn't murdered a Beatle in nearly a half-century, but that's still what he's known for. As GW said, if these changes are actually implemented effectively, and if reliable sources start reporting on BitChute as no longer being affiliated with neo-Nazis, and if it gains enough coverage in the future that its neo-Nazi origins become a footnote in its history, then we could consider removing that from the lede. But we're a very long way off of any of that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

There isnt a reliable source that says Bitchute hosts neo-nazi content. You are breaking this sites rules by hosting libelous content on Wikipedia. 2600:100F:B1B5:AB10:0:31:798C:D601 (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

That was originally an unsourced change back in July https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BitChute&diff=1235916177&oldid=1224211921 and has since been reverted --FMSky (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

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

BitChute and the Accommodation of All Manner of Speech

BitChute is a video-sharing platform that emerged in 2017 as an alternative to mainstream sites like YouTube, particularly after growing concerns about censorship and content moderation. Unlike more regulated platforms, BitChute has positioned itself as a champion of free speech, explicitly stating its commitment to allowing a wide range of viewpoints, even controversial or unpopular ones. This philosophy is reflected in its relatively hands-off approach to moderation, allowing users to post content that might otherwise be removed or demonetized elsewhere.

BitChute’s decentralized nature supports its mission. The platform initially used peer-to-peer technology to host videos, which made it harder for any single entity to exert control over what content could or could not exist on the site. In principle, this structure created a digital space where ideas, opinions, and narratives—regardless of how mainstream or fringe—could be shared without fear of corporate or governmental intervention.

As a result, BitChute accommodates everything from political discourse and independent journalism to conspiracy theories and controversial social commentary. While this broad accommodation has drawn praise from free-speech advocates, it has also led to criticism. Some argue that BitChute's minimal moderation has made it a haven for misinformation, hate speech, and extremist views. Nevertheless, the platform’s defenders argue that open dialogue is essential in a free society, and that users should be trusted to think critically and engage responsibly with the content they consume.

Ultimately, BitChute represents a deliberate experiment in digital freedom—a space where all manner of speech is permitted, for better or worse. It challenges the boundaries of acceptable discourse and forces important conversations about the balance between freedom of expression and the potential societal harms of unfettered speech in the digital age. Blorbus Unimax (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Grayfell (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

This article appears to have been formulated with a specific agenda in mind. BitChute actually hosts left-wing content as well. In comparison, there are way more neo-nazis on Rumble and in select YouTube comment sections. I will try finding sources for this claim, I guess, but please go to the website and take a look around yourself. It's not nearly as bad as the article would have you believe. Birdstan (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources to support that feel free to share them here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I will do that. The article could be more like that for Parler, a similar service. Birdstan (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I have found this source to be very substantive:

-> https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/02/17/key-facts-about-bitchute/

Somebody should add it. Birdstan (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)People have said this on this talk page before. Just like last time, when I go to Bitchute, just on the off chance it's changed for some reason, I still see pages full of mostly extremist nonsense, clickbait, and conspiracy theories. It doesn't matter, though. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, specifically independent sources. If you know of any sources, please propose them here. Grayfell (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

On October 9 I added to the Content section one sentence which included two facts quoted from the October 2022 Pew Research Center study, published in February 2023--a reliable source cited in this article for other propositions. These facts would tend to show that BitChute is, as founder Ray Vahey has repeatedly stated, ideologically neutral. In fact, these two facts, in this one sentence, would have been the only two listed in a long string of assertions posted by others, assertions from arguably biased sources (also redundant as Bellingcat is just repeating negative characterizations from another, biased source), accusing BitChute of being an extreme right-wing site by design. And yet *I* was accused of "cherry picking." It seems to me that this entire article on Bitchute violates the neutral point of view policy, and this edit would have at least done a little towards remedying that defect. I respectfully object. LegalizePrivacy (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

As I look at this BitChute entry some more, I see that the accusation of "cherry picking" was projection. This entry is full of cherry-picking, and uses biased language to introduce its cherry-picked sources, besides. ADL reports such as this one , confirm that larger sites have plenty of "extremist" or "hateful" content that is easily encountered. There is no evidence presented here that any "objectionable" content seen on BitChute isn't the result of content-neutral policies that allow maximum freedom of expression consistent with the law. Instead, this article paints something that is merely a side-effect of a valid policy decision as if it were the intended, desired outcome.

Plenty of respected scholars hold that the moral and practical answer to bad speech is more speech. The former head of the ACLU, Nadine Strossen, is a notable example. Here we see Wikipedia, which states that it adheres to a Neutral Point-of-View policy, taking a particular point-of-view about platform content guidelines, and then cherry picking to make a platform taking a different approach look as bad as possible. LegalizePrivacy (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This is not the Wikipedia article for any other platform, nor is it the Wikipedia article for free speech. If Strodden has commented on BitChute in any reliable sources, let's see it. Don't worry, I don't think anyone here is pretending that Facebook doesn't have blood on their hands, but 'more speech' wouldn't have stopped that, and again, this article isn't about any other platform.

That survey was from October 2022. Biden was president at that time, so mentioning how often Trump was discussed is arbitrary. Further, per the Pew study, none of the alt-tech sites they surveyed declare any political position, so presenting this as significant to Bitchute, specifically, is misleading, which is part of why I describe it as cherry-picking. Grayfell (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)