3 ms·

> Users searching for news on Chemnitz would be sent down a rabbit hole of misinformation and hate. And as interest in Chemnitz grew, it appears, YouTube funnel

> Users searching for news on Chemnitz would be sent down a rabbit hole of misinformation and hate. And as interest in Chemnitz grew, it appears, YouTube funneled many Germans to extremist pages, whose view counts skyrocketed. As a long time YouTube user, I've noticed this myself. The starting video doesn't even have to be extreme. For example, watching a 5-minute daily news video on Fox News channel primes YouTube's super sensitive [$] algorithm to nudge me toward channels with considerably more ideology-driven content (like 'PragerU,' for example). Watching the next auto-recommended video primes the algorithm to an even greater extent that nudges me toward channels with even more extreme positions ('1791L,' 'Computing Forever,' for example). Rinse and repeat a few more times and you end up on channels that server as a gateway to radicalization -- channels whose names I'm not comfortable mentioning. YouTube's algorithm needs some urgent tweaking, especially to its topic/video recommendation sensitivity. It gives more weight to recently watched content, which is fine, but should not be at the cost of previously watched content by the user. [$] When I talk about YouTube's 'super sensitive' algorithm, I mean to say how watching even a single video on a particular subject primes it to keep showing me similar videos everywhere -- from homepage to recommendations to the auto-play ones. P. S. The aforementioned example is also perfectly applicable for channels on the opposite end of the political-spectrum.

blattimwind 8y ago
I very rarely use youtube on my (iOS) phone; I'm not logged into any Google account on it. Before Chemnitz started I showed some friends a video of a robot marching to "Erika" (a WW2 marching song)... a few days later I got a push notification by the Youtube app on my homescreen of a video posted in some fringe-AfD channel which was full-on propaganda. Youtube will literally push extremist right propaganda onto peoples homescreens based on what I can only assume a single video view.
- abhiminator 8y ago
  > Youtube will literally push extremist right propaganda onto peoples homescreens based on what I can only assume a single video view. Absolutely. It's as if YouTube forgets about your previously viewed videos and channels, and tunnel-visions you into watching content around your most recently viewed single video.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >It's as if YouTube forgets about your previously viewed videos and channels, and tunnel-visions you into watching content around your most recently viewed single video. Which, if your primary concern is maximizing engagement, makes perverse sense. Viewers are more likely to be attracted to content similar to what they just watched than content they watched less recently. Edit: I just realized the opposite might be true as well... some viewers might be attracted to videos which appear to contradict their preferences as well, just to be able to criticize or debunk it in comments. There's probably a relationship between this and successful clickbait thumbnails with their random arrows and circles that don't actually indicate anything.
    - abhiminator 8y ago
      >primary concern is maximizing engagement, makes perverse sense. I agree. But considering online platforms have, more or less, become de facto town squares, it's no longer responsible for a tech company to ruthlessly optimize for user engagement at the cost of stability of democracy.
      - krapp 8y ago
        There appears a conflict of interest for those platforms because they don't intend to act as de facto town squares... they are businesses, and arguably don't have an obligation to anything but profit, regardless of their popularity or ubiquity. Despite this, their nature as "town squares" affects the market whether they want it to or not. If enough viewers disengage because of their their ruthless tactics, or change their behavior in ways that don't fit their algorithm, that creates a business case for more ethical behavior... which would probably be more compelling to them than an argument for preserving the social fabric or democracy.
benbenolson 8y ago
1791L? How is that an "extreme position?"
- claydavisss 8y ago
  Right...very few people seem able to differentiate "radical" views with views they merely oppose. What does "radical" even mean? Opinions that are not part of the present consensus? How is society supposed to evolve? A society that cannot express "radical" views with society's support may eventually express these ideas violently. The downvote button only works for so long.
  - Retra 8y ago
    And what facts do you base these assertions on?
- akhilcacharya 8y ago
  I’ve seen a few of their videos - their analysis is definitely out of the mainstream. Defending “whomp whomp” and saying the response is worse comes to mind.

blattimwind 8y ago

I very rarely use youtube on my (iOS) phone; I'm not logged into any Google account on it. Before Chemnitz started I showed some friends a video of a robot marching to "Erika" (a WW2 marching song)... a few days later I got a push notification by the Youtube app on my homescreen of a video posted in some fringe-AfD channel which was full-on propaganda. Youtube will literally push extremist right propaganda onto peoples homescreens based on what I can only assume a single video view.

abhiminator 8y ago
> Youtube will literally push extremist right propaganda onto peoples homescreens based on what I can only assume a single video view. Absolutely. It's as if YouTube forgets about your previously viewed videos and channels, and tunnel-visions you into watching content around your most recently viewed single video.
- krapp 8y ago
  >It's as if YouTube forgets about your previously viewed videos and channels, and tunnel-visions you into watching content around your most recently viewed single video. Which, if your primary concern is maximizing engagement, makes perverse sense. Viewers are more likely to be attracted to content similar to what they just watched than content they watched less recently. Edit: I just realized the opposite might be true as well... some viewers might be attracted to videos which appear to contradict their preferences as well, just to be able to criticize or debunk it in comments. There's probably a relationship between this and successful clickbait thumbnails with their random arrows and circles that don't actually indicate anything.
  - abhiminator 8y ago
    >primary concern is maximizing engagement, makes perverse sense. I agree. But considering online platforms have, more or less, become de facto town squares, it's no longer responsible for a tech company to ruthlessly optimize for user engagement at the cost of stability of democracy.
    - krapp 8y ago
      There appears a conflict of interest for those platforms because they don't intend to act as de facto town squares... they are businesses, and arguably don't have an obligation to anything but profit, regardless of their popularity or ubiquity. Despite this, their nature as "town squares" affects the market whether they want it to or not. If enough viewers disengage because of their their ruthless tactics, or change their behavior in ways that don't fit their algorithm, that creates a business case for more ethical behavior... which would probably be more compelling to them than an argument for preserving the social fabric or democracy.

benbenolson 8y ago

1791L? How is that an "extreme position?"

claydavisss 8y ago
Right...very few people seem able to differentiate "radical" views with views they merely oppose. What does "radical" even mean? Opinions that are not part of the present consensus? How is society supposed to evolve? A society that cannot express "radical" views with society's support may eventually express these ideas violently. The downvote button only works for so long.
- Retra 8y ago
  And what facts do you base these assertions on?
akhilcacharya 8y ago
I’ve seen a few of their videos - their analysis is definitely out of the mainstream. Defending “whomp whomp” and saying the response is worse comes to mind.