3 ms·

When "stupid" conspiracy theories lead to real-world violence committed by their believers, they're harmful. And there's pretty clear evidence that YouTube's re

When "stupid" conspiracy theories lead to real-world violence committed by their believers, they're harmful. And there's pretty clear evidence that YouTube's recommendation algorithm, in optimizing for time spent watching YouTube videos, has as a side effect optimized for sending people to the most extreme stuff on the site. YouTube has an ethical responsibility to, y'know, do something about that.

Natsu 9y ago
Does this logic imply that we can ban Islam because of terrorists? As I understand it, they thought they were bringing about the end times and there was some theory about the 12th Imam or something. Why or why not?
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  Do you think YouTube is a government? Why or why not?
  - Natsu 9y ago
    No, I don't and I'm not sure what I said to make you imagine such a strawman. I'm interested in whether you think YouTube should block Islam entirely, or perhaps to separate out the terrorist conspiracies within Islam from the rest and where to draw the line. Would, e.g., this 12th Imam stuff, even from ostensibly peaceful folks who did not advocate violence, draw a ban in your view if it was also something terrorists used? Please explain.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      Why should I? Your approach obviously is going to be to make a laundry list of things you don't like and that you'll claim I somehow do like, and aggressively accuse me of all sorts of things if I don't either give up or assert perfect agreement with you. What's in it for me to engage with you?
      - Natsu 9y ago
        Please do not stuff words in my mouth, I've said no such things and we're supposed to assume good faith here, which only becomes more difficult when you're explicitly assuming bad faith on my part here. I'm asking exactly how much you're willing to ask them to ban to "do something" and how to define the contours of that. Proposals to "do something" about what people are allowed to say should be checked the same way we test code--by looking at all the hard edge cases. Your retort here is akin to a dev blaming QA for breaking their code by making the testcase too hard. That said, if your idea of "do something" isn't to block the speech, please let me know what it is that you have in mind, I will give you credit that it's not entirely clear what you're suggesting here.
        ubernostrum 9y ago
        My original comment was perfectly clear in identifying the problem with YouTube's recommendation algorithm, as I see it: in optimizing for time spent on site, it also as a side effect optimizes for recommending the most extreme content on YouTube. The fact that you felt the need to jump in the way you did suggests that you A) didn't actually read the comment, and B) were responding with a knee-jerk sound bite based on a ton of assumptions about me and my political inclinations. So like I said, what do I get out of engaging with you? So far, the answer is nothing worthwhile.
        Natsu 9y ago
        This whole exchange might have been avoided by simply clarifying that your idea of doing something was to change how the recommendation algorithm works.

Natsu 9y ago

Does this logic imply that we can ban Islam because of terrorists? As I understand it, they thought they were bringing about the end times and there was some theory about the 12th Imam or something. Why or why not?

ubernostrum 9y ago
Do you think YouTube is a government? Why or why not?
- Natsu 9y ago
  No, I don't and I'm not sure what I said to make you imagine such a strawman. I'm interested in whether you think YouTube should block Islam entirely, or perhaps to separate out the terrorist conspiracies within Islam from the rest and where to draw the line. Would, e.g., this 12th Imam stuff, even from ostensibly peaceful folks who did not advocate violence, draw a ban in your view if it was also something terrorists used? Please explain.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Why should I? Your approach obviously is going to be to make a laundry list of things you don't like and that you'll claim I somehow do like, and aggressively accuse me of all sorts of things if I don't either give up or assert perfect agreement with you. What's in it for me to engage with you?
    - Natsu 9y ago
      Please do not stuff words in my mouth, I've said no such things and we're supposed to assume good faith here, which only becomes more difficult when you're explicitly assuming bad faith on my part here. I'm asking exactly how much you're willing to ask them to ban to "do something" and how to define the contours of that. Proposals to "do something" about what people are allowed to say should be checked the same way we test code--by looking at all the hard edge cases. Your retort here is akin to a dev blaming QA for breaking their code by making the testcase too hard. That said, if your idea of "do something" isn't to block the speech, please let me know what it is that you have in mind, I will give you credit that it's not entirely clear what you're suggesting here.
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        My original comment was perfectly clear in identifying the problem with YouTube's recommendation algorithm, as I see it: in optimizing for time spent on site, it also as a side effect optimizes for recommending the most extreme content on YouTube. The fact that you felt the need to jump in the way you did suggests that you A) didn't actually read the comment, and B) were responding with a knee-jerk sound bite based on a ton of assumptions about me and my political inclinations. So like I said, what do I get out of engaging with you? So far, the answer is nothing worthwhile.
        Natsu 9y ago
        This whole exchange might have been avoided by simply clarifying that your idea of doing something was to change how the recommendation algorithm works.