3 ms·
Let's look at the bigger picture. First, in March some newspapers find an extremist video. It has ~14 views and YT advertising all over it. They make a a big de
by molszanski 9y ago
Let's look at the bigger picture. First, in March some newspapers find an extremist video. It has ~14 views and YT advertising all over it. They make a a big deal out of it. As a result YouTube looses ad clients and tons of money.
Then, as a response, they make an alg. They don't want people to call them a "terrorist platform" ever again. Hence they take down the videos.
Now, this algorithm is hurting the bystanders. IMO the real problem is a public and business reaction to the initial event.
And this peace of news is an inevitable consequence.
- chii 9y agoif you look at this sequence of events, the deeper trouble is really that of the newspapers (or any other media outlet). Their incentive is to find things people are going to get shocked by, and report it to get views/clicks (that fuel advertising). They aren't going to fully explore the pros/cons, like long form journalism, since that's expensive, and they get paid peanuts from advertisers. The public's reaction is going to be the one of outrage, because the news article was _designed_ to evoke such feelings! If the public sentiment was more liberal, then the news article would've picked an even more extreme event, and evoke the same reaction. Fix the problem at its root - that of advertising funded news and media.
- molszanski 9y agoCouldn't agree more. In my opinion, advertising is not the _only_ problem. Remember, YT is a competitor to the "old media". And hurting them is in their best interest. Hope that initiatives like wikitribune will pave the way to a better future