49 ms·

I don't know how the author came to the conclusion that they reached. As a person whose livelihood depends on the pound being strong against the yen, I'm not a

I don't know how the author came to the conclusion that they reached. As a person whose livelihood depends on the pound being strong against the yen, I'm not a fan of Brexit by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't understand what the difference is between pro and anti Brexit videos in this context. IIUC, the author is saying that divisive (i.e. controversial?) videos lead to longer watch times. Longer watch times lead to more ad breaks. More ad breaks leads to Youtube making more money. Videos with longer watch times are recommended over videos with shorter watch times (because Youtube makes more money that way). Thus, divisive topics are recommended over non-divisive topics. But pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit are two sides of the same coin. Given that Brexit won we could even conclude that the anti-Brexit stance was more divisive (controversial?). So I'm not sure what the author is saying. Again, to avoid a flame war, I'm not trying to make a political point. I'm just trying to follow the author's logic. What makes pro-Brexit videos more likely to be selected that couldn't also be utilised in an anti-Brexit stance?

jstanley 8y ago
Because obviously all moral, right-thinking people know that Remain is the right thing to do. The fact that Remain didn't win just proves that some people were tricked by divisive videos in favour of Brexit. The videos in favour of Remain weren't divisive, because being in favour of Remain is the moral, right-thinking stance.
- burlesona 8y ago
  I assume you’re being sarcastic but it’s sad to me that these days it’s hard to tell.
- throwaway-hn123 8y ago
  Sighs. 2 years later, as the country disintegrates into a mess because of ignorant assholes like you, here you are, still being a dick. Sort your life out, Jim. Pathetic little incel.
threeseed 8y ago
This is false equivalence. Anti-Brexit is the status quo. It's by definition not controversial since they can't do anything other than advocate for how things currently are. Pro-Brexit is by definition controversial since they were advocating for a complete upheaval in the relationship with the EU constructed over decades. And it was always going to be tinged with xenophobia and nationalism since that was the entire premise for the Brexit vote to begin with. And it doesn't get any more divisive than xenophobia.
- kodablah 8y ago
  It's not status quo in an active vote situation. Your not showing up to vote did not cast a vote in favor of the status quo. Divisiveness is bidirectional by its nature. The rest of your post is political fervor on your view of the vote and not related to whether YouTube's algorithms promoted divisiveness in all forms instead of just the one you don't like.
  - mxfh 8y ago
    As the turnout implies, the anti-brexit camp had it harder to mobilize, since the status que seemed quite safe and unlikely to be challenged by many, especially, being already in a pro EU-region. So a lot of people did not come out to vote in favor since they seemed their vote not neccessary. Asymmetric mobilisation and de-mobilization is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#Regional_count_results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_...
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      The election had higher voter turnout than any national election in the UK in decades, and most of all polls showed the election was going to be very close. Blaming voter complacency does not seem logical.
      - citation_please 8y ago
        It's quite reasonable to suppose that there are many reasons why one person would or would not mobilize to vote, and, correct me if I'm wrong, it's common knowledge that the "swing voter" effect is not due to undecided people becoming decided, rather that people are marginally motivated or unmotivated to vote. So, in the spirit of democracy, where the desires of all those who /can/ vote (not just those who /do/ vote) are respected, it is probably interesting to examine why voters do and do not find the motivation to vote. Hypothetically, if we had mind-reading devices, and motivation was not a prerequisite for voting, which side of the vote would have benefited? Asymmetrical motivation is the hypothesis that in referenda where Action/No-Action are the choices, there will be more voter motivation for Action rather than No-Action. This very reasonably applies to Brexit.
jawns 8y ago
I may be misreading, but I think he's talking about pro-Brexit videos being heavily promoted relative to all other videos, as opposed to relative to anti-Brexit videos. Which still means they were heavily promoted.
jancsika 8y ago
> But pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit are two sides of the same coin. Not necessarily. For example, recommending videos that are somehow categorized "pro-evolutionary theory" would almost certainly be less divisive than recommending Creationist videos that attempt to "debunk" evolutionary theory. The pro-evolutionary theory videos would typically be substantive scientific talks or lectures that require patience and critical thinking in order to understand. The Creationist videos, on the other hand, typically use lots of underhanded tactics. They will attempt to mislead the viewer and typically throw out so many different arguments from so many disparate fields that it's impossible for any one person to debunk them all out of hand. If you recommend the "pro-evolution" videos you probably end up with a lot of bored viewers who don't even make it through a single video. If you recommend the "anti-evolution" videos then you'll get a biologist debunking point 1 of 100 and a troglodyte responding "what about point 2-100?" I have no clue whether the pro/anti Brexit videos fit that bill. But it's certainly a possibility.
- drdeca 8y ago
  Pro and anti brexit are not questions of what materially is, but a question of what ought, but no, perhaps not even what ought, but what choice to make, possibly one which doesn't have one option as morally obligatory over the other. So, no, it isn't really like one group claiming a falsehood to be material fact while another claims the negation of that falsehood to be a material fact. (Material fact as opposed to moral fact)
  - ben_w 8y ago
    If only that was the case! One of the conversations I had before the referendum went like this: Them: “We should leave because then they’ll give us a great deal.” Me: “But they can’t give you a better deal.” Them: “That just proves we should leave!” This person has a Cambridge degree, yet this topic allowed them to mix up hopes and preferences with objective economic benefits and end up with cult-like thinking where the conclusion was kept despite the negation of the argument just used to reach it. From time to time, I ponder their mistake and ask if I have made a similar one of my own.
veidr 8y ago
The point being made is that, in order to promote the divisiveness that yields more ad revenue (through increased "watch time"), the YouTube algorithms disproportionately promote positions that are morally wrong, factually incorrect, or both. Brexit may not be the best example, because (perhaps, arguably) there could be legitimate arguments for the pro-Brexit stance. Vaccination might be a better illustration. Promulgating the view that "vaccines are a hoax, and vaccinating your child will cause autism, or let the government achieve mind control" is both incorrect (scientifically, factually) and wrong (morally). Those convinced by this view put their child and other children around their child at grave risk. A system that promotes this view over the established, normative, scientifically validated consensus view that we should vaccinate our children, to the point that it changes opinions and behavior, is harmful to public discourse (and harmful to children). This is true whether automated/algorithmic, or intentionally devised and operated by people with malevolent intent. At scale, these phonomena become harmful to democracy itself. Democracies are diminished when their subjects believe false information, especially objectively harmful false information whose belief causes disease, stuctural collapse of infrastructure, etc. Since we are now observing this happening to various extents in various areas of society, we should use our power as democratic citizens to compel operators such as YouTube to provide real data on what their algorithms are selecting, so that we can understand the effect on our society. At least, that's what I got out of his tweet.
- pixl97 8y ago
  Ya, I love getting flat earth suggestions because I watch the PBS Spacetime channel. YT promotes tons of absolute crap. Of course there is tons of crap, since making crap is low effort. Seems to go hand in hand with click bait titles, which are decisive in and of themselves.
lordgrenville 8y ago
Britain being in the EU was the status quo, so in that sense pro-Leave was the more 'divisive' option.
- hardlianotion 8y ago
  It's ... not that simple ...
  - lordgrenville 8y ago
    Fair enough. Not trying to relitigate the topic - that just seemed like one simple distinction, but I know it is more complex.

jstanley 8y ago

Because obviously all moral, right-thinking people know that Remain is the right thing to do. The fact that Remain didn't win just proves that some people were tricked by divisive videos in favour of Brexit. The videos in favour of Remain weren't divisive, because being in favour of Remain is the moral, right-thinking stance.

burlesona 8y ago
I assume you’re being sarcastic but it’s sad to me that these days it’s hard to tell.
throwaway-hn123 8y ago
Sighs. 2 years later, as the country disintegrates into a mess because of ignorant assholes like you, here you are, still being a dick. Sort your life out, Jim. Pathetic little incel.

threeseed 8y ago

This is false equivalence. Anti-Brexit is the status quo. It's by definition not controversial since they can't do anything other than advocate for how things currently are. Pro-Brexit is by definition controversial since they were advocating for a complete upheaval in the relationship with the EU constructed over decades. And it was always going to be tinged with xenophobia and nationalism since that was the entire premise for the Brexit vote to begin with. And it doesn't get any more divisive than xenophobia.

kodablah 8y ago
It's not status quo in an active vote situation. Your not showing up to vote did not cast a vote in favor of the status quo. Divisiveness is bidirectional by its nature. The rest of your post is political fervor on your view of the vote and not related to whether YouTube's algorithms promoted divisiveness in all forms instead of just the one you don't like.
- mxfh 8y ago
  As the turnout implies, the anti-brexit camp had it harder to mobilize, since the status que seemed quite safe and unlikely to be challenged by many, especially, being already in a pro EU-region. So a lot of people did not come out to vote in favor since they seemed their vote not neccessary. Asymmetric mobilisation and de-mobilization is a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016#Regional_count_results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Union_...
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    The election had higher voter turnout than any national election in the UK in decades, and most of all polls showed the election was going to be very close. Blaming voter complacency does not seem logical.
    - citation_please 8y ago
      It's quite reasonable to suppose that there are many reasons why one person would or would not mobilize to vote, and, correct me if I'm wrong, it's common knowledge that the "swing voter" effect is not due to undecided people becoming decided, rather that people are marginally motivated or unmotivated to vote. So, in the spirit of democracy, where the desires of all those who /can/ vote (not just those who /do/ vote) are respected, it is probably interesting to examine why voters do and do not find the motivation to vote. Hypothetically, if we had mind-reading devices, and motivation was not a prerequisite for voting, which side of the vote would have benefited? Asymmetrical motivation is the hypothesis that in referenda where Action/No-Action are the choices, there will be more voter motivation for Action rather than No-Action. This very reasonably applies to Brexit.

jawns 8y ago

I may be misreading, but I think he's talking about pro-Brexit videos being heavily promoted relative to all other videos, as opposed to relative to anti-Brexit videos. Which still means they were heavily promoted.

jancsika 8y ago

> But pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit are two sides of the same coin. Not necessarily. For example, recommending videos that are somehow categorized "pro-evolutionary theory" would almost certainly be less divisive than recommending Creationist videos that attempt to "debunk" evolutionary theory. The pro-evolutionary theory videos would typically be substantive scientific talks or lectures that require patience and critical thinking in order to understand. The Creationist videos, on the other hand, typically use lots of underhanded tactics. They will attempt to mislead the viewer and typically throw out so many different arguments from so many disparate fields that it's impossible for any one person to debunk them all out of hand. If you recommend the "pro-evolution" videos you probably end up with a lot of bored viewers who don't even make it through a single video. If you recommend the "anti-evolution" videos then you'll get a biologist debunking point 1 of 100 and a troglodyte responding "what about point 2-100?" I have no clue whether the pro/anti Brexit videos fit that bill. But it's certainly a possibility.

drdeca 8y ago
Pro and anti brexit are not questions of what materially is, but a question of what ought, but no, perhaps not even what ought, but what choice to make, possibly one which doesn't have one option as morally obligatory over the other. So, no, it isn't really like one group claiming a falsehood to be material fact while another claims the negation of that falsehood to be a material fact. (Material fact as opposed to moral fact)
- ben_w 8y ago
  If only that was the case! One of the conversations I had before the referendum went like this: Them: “We should leave because then they’ll give us a great deal.” Me: “But they can’t give you a better deal.” Them: “That just proves we should leave!” This person has a Cambridge degree, yet this topic allowed them to mix up hopes and preferences with objective economic benefits and end up with cult-like thinking where the conclusion was kept despite the negation of the argument just used to reach it. From time to time, I ponder their mistake and ask if I have made a similar one of my own.

veidr 8y ago

The point being made is that, in order to promote the divisiveness that yields more ad revenue (through increased "watch time"), the YouTube algorithms disproportionately promote positions that are morally wrong, factually incorrect, or both. Brexit may not be the best example, because (perhaps, arguably) there could be legitimate arguments for the pro-Brexit stance. Vaccination might be a better illustration. Promulgating the view that "vaccines are a hoax, and vaccinating your child will cause autism, or let the government achieve mind control" is both incorrect (scientifically, factually) and wrong (morally). Those convinced by this view put their child and other children around their child at grave risk. A system that promotes this view over the established, normative, scientifically validated consensus view that we should vaccinate our children, to the point that it changes opinions and behavior, is harmful to public discourse (and harmful to children). This is true whether automated/algorithmic, or intentionally devised and operated by people with malevolent intent. At scale, these phonomena become harmful to democracy itself. Democracies are diminished when their subjects believe false information, especially objectively harmful false information whose belief causes disease, stuctural collapse of infrastructure, etc. Since we are now observing this happening to various extents in various areas of society, we should use our power as democratic citizens to compel operators such as YouTube to provide real data on what their algorithms are selecting, so that we can understand the effect on our society. At least, that's what I got out of his tweet.

pixl97 8y ago
Ya, I love getting flat earth suggestions because I watch the PBS Spacetime channel. YT promotes tons of absolute crap. Of course there is tons of crap, since making crap is low effort. Seems to go hand in hand with click bait titles, which are decisive in and of themselves.

lordgrenville 8y ago

Britain being in the EU was the status quo, so in that sense pro-Leave was the more 'divisive' option.

hardlianotion 8y ago
It's ... not that simple ...
- lordgrenville 8y ago
  Fair enough. Not trying to relitigate the topic - that just seemed like one simple distinction, but I know it is more complex.