Technology

Please, Google, for the good of humanity add this to YouTube

View 4 Images
The Viblio browser extension could curb misinformation on video-sharing platforms like YouTube
The Viblio browser extension could curb misinformation on video-sharing platforms like YouTube
An example of X's Community Notes function
X
Citations added to a video show up in Viblio's timeline view
University of Washington
Viblio's 'add citation' view
University of Washington
View gallery - 4 images

These days, more people are getting their news from YouTube, which is known for being a hub of misinformation. But researchers have developed a browser extension that allows people to thumbs up (or down) a video's credibility by adding their own citations.

In 2023, Pew Research Center reported that 26% of Americans regularly got their news from YouTube. Because YouTube’s search results are affected by a user’s watch history, opening up the possibility of being presented with all sorts of content, users are likely to encounter misinformation, whether it’s unintentional or deliberate.

Compare YouTube to X, where there exists a feature called Community Notes. According to the X Help Center, the aim of Community Notes is “to create a better informed world by empowering people on X to collaboratively add context to potentially misleading posts.” It works like this: contributors leave a note on a post, and if enough contributors with other points of view rate that note as helpful, it’s shown publicly. (Community Notes contributors are X users who sign up to write and rate notes – the more there are, the more effective the program is.)

An example of X's Community Notes function
X

Seeing a gap that needed filling, researchers from the University of Washington (UW) developed Viblio. This browser extension enables YouTube users and content creators to assign credibility to a video via citations, much like those seen at the end of a Wikipedia post.

“The trouble is that a lot of YouTube videos, especially more educational ones, don’t offer a great way for people to prove they’re presenting good information,” said Emelia Hughes, the study’s lead author. “I’ve stumbled across a couple of YouTubers who were coming up with their own ways to cite sources within videos. There’s also not a great way to fight bad information. People can report a whole video, but that’s a pretty extreme measure when someone makes one or two mistakes.”

To inform Viblio’s design, the researchers studied how users interacted with existing ‘credibility signals’ on YouTube. By interviewing 12 YouTube users aged 18 to 60, they found out what factors helped them select and trust a video and what signals might confuse or be misleading. All participants relied on channel familiarity, channel name and production quality to assess a video’s trustworthiness.

Eight out of 12 (67%) relied on the video description, 58% went by how interesting the video looked, and 50% referred to the thumbnail. Interestingly, video quality, not really a mark of trustworthiness, was used as a proxy for it, even if the channel source was unfamiliar. The researchers noted that production quality compensated for a lack of other credibility signals.

Citations added to a video show up in Viblio's timeline view
University of Washington

Viblio was built based on this information, allowing any user or content creator to insert a citation – or a number of citations – on a YouTube video’s timeline. The citations are displayed during video playback so that other viewers can access the information if they want to. The browser extension appears below the video and alongside the channel information, so it’s easily seen.

Users simply click a button to add a citation. They can then add a link and select the timespan their citation refers to. They have the option to add comments and can select the type of citation it is, which corresponds with a different colored dot in the video’s timeline: “refutes the video clip’s claim” (red dot), “supports the video clip’s claim” (green), or “provides further explanation” (blue).

Viblio's 'add citation' view
University of Washington

The program was tested on 12 participants (different from the previous ones) aged from 18 to over 45. Over about two weeks, participants watched two to three videos a day totaling less than 30 minutes and rated the credibility of the video on a scale of one to five. Videos covered various topics, from informative (e.g. laser eye surgery, the history of cereal) to controversial (e.g. election fraud, COVID-19 vaccines, and abortion). The videos were from well-known sources, including Fox News and TED-Ed, as well as small local news stations and independent creators. Some of the videos had citations; some didn’t. Participants also had the ability to add their own citations.

The researchers received a wide range of feedback on Viblio’s usefulness in particular contexts. All participants agreed that Viblio would be useful for scientific or fact-based videos but not for entertainment-based videos. Some thought Viblio would be essential for controversial topics, while others were concerned about its misuse. Participants were unsure how they’d interpret citations on political videos and saw Viblio as a tool enabling balanced perspectives within news videos and facilitating neutral conversations. For many participants, the added citations changed their opinion of the credibility of certain videos.

The researchers are planning further study, extending Viblio to other video platforms such as TikTok or Instagram to see whether users are motivated enough to add citations. Then, they’ll look at whether a Community Notes-type approach could be incorporated into the program.

“Once we get past this initial question of how to add citations to videos, then the community vetting question remains very challenging,” said Amy Zhang, the study’s senior author. “It can work. At X, Community Notes is working on ways to prevent people from ‘gaming’ voting by looking at whether someone always takes the same political side. And Wikipedia has standards for what should be considered a good citation. So it’s possible. It just takes resources.”

Viblio sounds like an incredibly useful program. We hope that when it’s in its final form, Google thinks so, too, and adds it to YouTube. These kinds of initiatives can only work with a critical mass of users behind them, and the people that need this kind of fact checking the most are the ones least likely to install something like Viblio. This initiative can only help at scale if it becomes part of the global user experience. We can only hope!

The researchers will present their study findings at the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM) CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems in Honolulu, Hawai’i, on May 14. The study is available on the pre-print website arXiv.

Source: UW

View gallery - 4 images
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Flipboard
  • LinkedIn
7 comments
martinwinlow
Interesting. I'd like to see the same thing on news channels (by *law*). I simply no longer read news from channels that offer no facility to comment as this was the only way you could challenge the - now, ever-present - problem of fake news and/or click-bait headline clap-trap pushed out constantly by the more dubious channels (and often even the less-dubious ones).
Jinpa
This is a step from bad (aggregator stuff) to worse (making unprofessional readers into mini-influencers). A study based on 12 participants is ludicrous. There are professional news reporters and editors, and then there is everyone else. Google wants to control what users read, to enhance its income and influence. This is just a step in that direction. If you want to understand what the really big digital companies are up to with steps like this, read the book The Age Of Surveillance Capitalism, by Shoshana Zuboff. Meanwhile, get your news as paid subscribers from valid, competent journalism sources: NY Times, Washington Post, and The Guardian, as well as from Associated Press.
WillyDoodle
Honestly, I'd be thrilled if YouTube added a user definable date filter so I never have to be presented with videos before yyyy/mm/dd if I so choose. Currently this is only available on search results. Reducing bots would be nice too as would specifically identifying comments that are considered to have contravened community rules instead of screen popup with no details. Maybe a nominal monthly fee to comment of $1.00 on a credit card would help reduce state bots.
Karmudjun
I have been on a jury of peers.....why would I want to read the comments of just whomever happened to watch a video and then weigh in with an *opinion*? There is enough opinion thrown around on New Atlas panning incremental gains in technology or surmising the status quo is so much better than the reported possibilities. Unless there were qualifying criteria for making a comment, or adding a link, it will just be so much more garbage!!!
BlueOak
“Meanwhile, get your news as paid subscribers from valid, competent journalism sources: NY Times, Washington Post, and The Guardian, as well as from Associated Press.” - another commenter

Seriously? Those are proven establishment shills who turned in their unbiased journalism credentials many years ago. There’s a reason alternative media news sources have grown so dramatically - they’re attempting to fill the news vacuum created by traditional news sources blatantly turning their backs on honest, balanced reporting. This transition is very messy, but traditional media have only themselves to blame for it.

Aermaco
If the fact checkers are all amateurs they may or may not be more accurate which is the problem. At least on New Atlas the bogus comments are usually lame ignorance while accurate facts with data comments over rule.

But if amateurs are required to link to real fact checking by professionals that may work and spread readers to those better sources.

i.e. see how a conspiracy sucking fool like RFKJr can be overruled by facts here; https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/08/rfk-jrs-history-lesson-russias-invasion-ukraine-flunks-fact-test/?utm_campaign=wp_fact_checker&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_fact
Gagarin Miljkovich
Democracy of the vote without democracy of information is not democracy.

It doesn't matter if people are able to vote as long as the media-owning class are able to manipulate how they vote.

"One person, one vote" is meaningless if influence and control of information is highly concentrated in an elite few. And it is.