White Rabbit The logic and proportion of conspiracy theory videos on YouTube: a Foucauldian discourse analysis M K Sam Birch Supervisor: Emil Stjernholm MA Media & Communication Studies: Culture, Collaborative Media, and Creative Industries Thesis Spring/Summer 2019 Abstract Conspiracy theories are everywhere. The internet has provided people with the tools for instantaneous, global communication and this has encouraged the spread of alternative narratives on a variety of platforms. This study is designed as a Foucauldian discourse analysis of how conspiracy theories disseminate and proliferate on YouTube, the pre-eminent provider of video Page | i streaming services. It aims to understand how the platform reflexively influences, and is influenced by, narratives of opposition and conflict, creating an online ‘reality’ which has the power to shape the world offline. Primarily, it addresses questions of whether YouTube promotes subversive thinking by accentuating conspiracy theory videos and recommending progressively extreme content. It also investigates how the design of the platform, including its powerful algorithm and embedded ‘social media’ functions, affects user experience and favours particular discourses over others. To achieve this, search terms were entered into YouTube, with recommended videos being studied and coded to reveal any extant bias. In addition to the content of the videos themselves, titles, descriptions, comments, further side-bar recommendations, likes, dislikes and view-counts were all recorded according to bias, providing an extensive overview of influences inherent to the YouTube platform. Results were analysed according to a Foucauldian discourse analysis which, following a multiperspectival approach, was subsequently summarised using a framework developed by Uldam & Kaun. Patterns were discovered indicating a propensity towards the propagation of increasingly extremist material. Furthermore, various discourses, including those of ambiguity, conflict and surprise, were found to proliferate on YouTube, with conspiracy theories actively benefitting from the algorithmic and thematic functions of the website. Overall, the study elucidates how power struggles enacted in online spaces are affected by their environments and, in turn, can have an effect on the beliefs and behaviour of people worldwide. Keywords: Conspiracy theory, YouTube, video, recommendations, social media, algorithm, comments, extremism, Foucauldian discourse analysis, mixed methods, multiperspectivalism, content analysis, truth. Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 (Background &) Literature Review .................................................................................................. 1 2.1 YouTube .................................................................................................................................. 1 2.1.1 YouTube and how it works .............................................................................................. 1 Page | ii 2.1.2 The YouTube recommendations system ........................................................................ 2 2.1.3 Algorithms and the challenge of studying them ............................................................. 4 2.1.4 A balancing act ................................................................................................................ 7 2.1.5 YouTube and conspiracy theories ................................................................................... 9 2.1.6 YouTube’s community functions .................................................................................. 10 2.2 Conspiracy theories............................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Conspiracy theories today ............................................................................................ 10 2.2.2 What is a conspiracy theory? ........................................................................................ 11 2.2.3 What are the effects of conspiracy theories? ............................................................... 15 2.2.4 Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? ........................................................... 19 2.2.5 What are common characteristics of conspiracy theories? ......................................... 21 2.3 Background on Conspiracy theories Chosen for the Study .................................................. 23 2.3.1 Climate change .............................................................................................................. 23 2.3.2 Flat Earth theory ........................................................................................................... 24 2.3.3 Fluoridation of water .................................................................................................... 25 2.3.4 HAARP ........................................................................................................................... 26 2.3.5 Denver airport ............................................................................................................... 28 3 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................................. 29 3.1 Foucauldian Discourse Analysis (FDA) .................................................................................. 30 3.1.1 Discourse ....................................................................................................................... 32 3.1.2 FDA and YouTube .......................................................................................................... 33 3.1.3 FDA and conspiracy theories......................................................................................... 35 3.2 Providing stability: a multiperspectival approach ................................................................ 37 4 Method ......................................................................................................................................... 40 4.1 Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 40 4.2 Research Process .................................................................................................................. 41 4.2.1 Search terms used ......................................................................................................... 41 4.2.2 Data collection .............................................................................................................. 42 4.3 Weaknesses and limitations ................................................................................................. 46 4.4 Ethics ..................................................................................................................................... 48 5 Results and Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 49 5.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 49 5.1.1 Initial top ten search results ......................................................................................... 49 Page | iii 5.1.2 Further recommendations: following the side-bar ....................................................... 50 5.1.3 Side-bar recommendations ........................................................................................... 51 5.2 Views ..................................................................................................................................... 53 5.3 Likes and dislikes ................................................................................................................... 54 5.3.1 Likes/dislikes compared to views .................................................................................. 54 5.4 Comments ............................................................................................................................. 55 5.4.1 Comment bias ............................................................................................................... 56 5.5 Video titles ............................................................................................................................ 57 5.6 Analysis framed by Uldam & Kaun’s four dimensional model .............................................. 59 6 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 61 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 64 1 Introduction In January of this year, YouTube released a statement asserting that it would “*continue its+ work to improve recommendations”1 on its platform. It proclaimed that it intended to reduce recommendations of “content that could misinform users,”2 giving the particular examples of popular conspiracy theory subjects such as flat earth theory, so-called miracle cures and the 9/11 Page | 1 terror attacks.3 This study investigates how conspiracy theories are highlighted by the platform’s algorithm, whether it acts as a gateway to more extreme ideas and if there are other ways in which the website (knowingly or otherwise) promotes