Before requesting any edits to this protected article, please familiarise yourself with reliable sourcing requirements.
Before posting an edit request on this talk page, please read the reliable sourcing and original research policies. These policies require that information in Wikipedia articles be supported by citations from reliable independent sources, and disallow your personal views, observations, interpretations, analyses, or anecdotes from being used.
Only content verified by subject experts and other reliable sources may be included, and uncited material may be removed without notice. If your complaint is about an assertion made in the article, check first to see if your proposed change is supported by reliable sources. If it is not, it is highly unlikely that your request will be granted. Checking the archives for previous discussions may provide more information. Requests which do not provide citations from reliable sources, or rely on unreliable sources, may be subject to closure without any other response.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
.svg?lang=en){kind=icon}
