4 ms·

Long overdue. Maybe in a few months I can watch a Joe Rogan podcast video without tainting my YouTube recommendations for the next year with Ben Shapiro-style c

Long overdue. Maybe in a few months I can watch a Joe Rogan podcast video without tainting my YouTube recommendations for the next year with Ben Shapiro-style clickbait.

sametmax 8y ago
On the other hand, I wouldn't know who Ben Shapiro is without having watched Rogan videos. It's an important info to have, because it tells you what people are interested in, and what they believe in. You can't communicate efficiently without knowing that.
- Elitroness 8y ago
  I don't know who Ben Shapiro is so I'm just using him as an example and maybe he is noteworthy, but if the system tells everyone to watch Ben Shapiro videos of course everyone is gonna know who he is. Maybe he wouldn't be 'required knowledge' if youtube didn't force it and reinforce it on everyone. The current system doesn't tell you what people are interested in, it tells you what the system made the people pay interest to.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    Well, I assume it recommends what other people that watched similar videos watched as well. I doubt Ben Shapiro is 'required knowledge', nor that he became popular only through youtube. Those people usually have an IRL crowd. They have IRL impacts. But I see your point.
    - jobigoud 8y ago
      > Well, I assume it recommends what other people that watched similar videos watched as well. The problem is it creates a feedback loop and amplifies whatever is slightly over represented. I also noticed that on LinkedIn profiles, on many high profiles ones the related section contains pretty girls profiles with unrelated positions, just because statistically they get more clicks I guess.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    To take the position that people only believe stuff because it is fed to them is incredibly patronizing. Sure, the fundamental dynamic of social media (that immediate and direct feedback about what captures user attention is used to determine what users see) makes things more polarized, but people are polarized to begin with. Conservatives are conservatives because they have a fundamentally different outlook about the world, not because they just happened to fall down a specific click hole on the internet.
    - Elitroness 8y ago
      I have not taken that position. To misrepresent the views of others to make your argument easier is very patronizing. My post was about notoriety not belief. Many things, trends and personalities are created by the media, whether you believe what they say or not. Flat earth conspiracies would never have been repeated by NBA players if not because of Youtube's recommendation algorithm.
      - sametmax 8y ago
        Way before internet, I remember people were talking about how Marilyn Manson had surgery to be able to suck himself I also remember when I watched in disbelieve people saying the sun was going around the earth. Internet is just the reflect of human nature. Flat earth theory would have existed without it.
        fhbdukfrh 8y ago
        Maybe so, but it now enables global reach at the speed of light. You can't argue that the danger from a stick of dynamite is the same as the danger from a nuclear bomb. You might not care about the difference if you're standing next to it, but they are bit the same thing
    - fhbdukfrh 8y ago
      You're basically saying that well done propaganda doesn't work then, which is patently false. Watching polarizing YouTube videos isn't going to flip a bit, but constant exposure to a single perspective constantly reinforced is certainly going to influence your formation of beliefs. That's exactly what YouTube does with their recommendation system
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    >The current system doesn't tell you what people are interested in, it tells you what the system made the people pay interest to. I agree with you 100% here. But this problem can't be fixed. All that's about to happen is Google is going to decide that people will be interested in something Google finds more palatable. I don't know how to fix/escape this problem.
FiveSquared 8y ago
However, who determines what is a conspaircy? The government might be deciding that Iraq has WMDs and any evidence to the contrary is a conspiracy. While some measures are needed to be taken, who decides what is? No one is truly impartial. The censorship (while required due to how much crap is in YouTube) might devolve to 1984 without comple transparency, which we all know google isn’t providing.
- sametmax 8y ago
  NSA mass surveillance was considered conspiracy before PRISM. Worse, people that said it was a conspiracy are now calling other things conspiracy, without any consideration for their past errors.
  - itchyjunk 8y ago
    There seems to be people around who still think NSA mass surveillance is a conspiracy. Heck, don't the flat earther think round earth is a conspiracy? One mans theory is another mans conspiracy.
    - rjf72 8y ago
      There's some fun even around the origin of the term. In late 1963 JFK was assassinated. According to a sourced referenced on Wiki [1] the first mainstream reference to "conspiracy theory" was the New York Times who, in 1964, posted some 5 articles using the phrase. In 1967 the CIA had a psychological operation manual on discrediting conspiracy theories. [2] The reason I mention JFK there is because the conspiracy theory tactics created by the CIA were specifically relating to the Warren Commission [3]. Ultimately I've always found the term silly. People can believe idiotic things for sure, yet on the other hand I think there is an equilibrium where on one end you have people who believe no 'conspiracy theory' could ever be real, and on the other hand you have people who indulge every 'conspiracy theory' as probable. Both opposite extremes are equally naive. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_and_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_an... [2] - https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-create... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission
spamizbad 8y ago
Youtube OBLITERATES elektor's recommendations with Logic & Reason!
vbuwivbiu 8y ago
same! I touched a Rogan podcast & ever since I've been getting recommendations for a certain JP
imhelpingu 8y ago
Yeah, and maybe some day I'll be able to do anything on the site whatsoever without it shoving CNN videos in my face.

Long overdue. Maybe in a few months I can watch a Joe Rogan podcast video without tainting my YouTube recommendations for the next year with Ben Shapiro-style clickbait.

sametmax 8y ago

On the other hand, I wouldn't know who Ben Shapiro is without having watched Rogan videos. It's an important info to have, because it tells you what people are interested in, and what they believe in. You can't communicate efficiently without knowing that.

Elitroness 8y ago
I don't know who Ben Shapiro is so I'm just using him as an example and maybe he is noteworthy, but if the system tells everyone to watch Ben Shapiro videos of course everyone is gonna know who he is. Maybe he wouldn't be 'required knowledge' if youtube didn't force it and reinforce it on everyone. The current system doesn't tell you what people are interested in, it tells you what the system made the people pay interest to.
- sametmax 8y ago
  Well, I assume it recommends what other people that watched similar videos watched as well. I doubt Ben Shapiro is 'required knowledge', nor that he became popular only through youtube. Those people usually have an IRL crowd. They have IRL impacts. But I see your point.
  - jobigoud 8y ago
    > Well, I assume it recommends what other people that watched similar videos watched as well. The problem is it creates a feedback loop and amplifies whatever is slightly over represented. I also noticed that on LinkedIn profiles, on many high profiles ones the related section contains pretty girls profiles with unrelated positions, just because statistically they get more clicks I guess.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  To take the position that people only believe stuff because it is fed to them is incredibly patronizing. Sure, the fundamental dynamic of social media (that immediate and direct feedback about what captures user attention is used to determine what users see) makes things more polarized, but people are polarized to begin with. Conservatives are conservatives because they have a fundamentally different outlook about the world, not because they just happened to fall down a specific click hole on the internet.
  - Elitroness 8y ago
    I have not taken that position. To misrepresent the views of others to make your argument easier is very patronizing. My post was about notoriety not belief. Many things, trends and personalities are created by the media, whether you believe what they say or not. Flat earth conspiracies would never have been repeated by NBA players if not because of Youtube's recommendation algorithm.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      Way before internet, I remember people were talking about how Marilyn Manson had surgery to be able to suck himself I also remember when I watched in disbelieve people saying the sun was going around the earth. Internet is just the reflect of human nature. Flat earth theory would have existed without it.
      - fhbdukfrh 8y ago
        Maybe so, but it now enables global reach at the speed of light. You can't argue that the danger from a stick of dynamite is the same as the danger from a nuclear bomb. You might not care about the difference if you're standing next to it, but they are bit the same thing
  - fhbdukfrh 8y ago
    You're basically saying that well done propaganda doesn't work then, which is patently false. Watching polarizing YouTube videos isn't going to flip a bit, but constant exposure to a single perspective constantly reinforced is certainly going to influence your formation of beliefs. That's exactly what YouTube does with their recommendation system
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  >The current system doesn't tell you what people are interested in, it tells you what the system made the people pay interest to. I agree with you 100% here. But this problem can't be fixed. All that's about to happen is Google is going to decide that people will be interested in something Google finds more palatable. I don't know how to fix/escape this problem.

FiveSquared 8y ago

However, who determines what is a conspaircy? The government might be deciding that Iraq has WMDs and any evidence to the contrary is a conspiracy. While some measures are needed to be taken, who decides what is? No one is truly impartial. The censorship (while required due to how much crap is in YouTube) might devolve to 1984 without comple transparency, which we all know google isn’t providing.

sametmax 8y ago
NSA mass surveillance was considered conspiracy before PRISM. Worse, people that said it was a conspiracy are now calling other things conspiracy, without any consideration for their past errors.
- itchyjunk 8y ago
  There seems to be people around who still think NSA mass surveillance is a conspiracy. Heck, don't the flat earther think round earth is a conspiracy? One mans theory is another mans conspiracy.
  - rjf72 8y ago
    There's some fun even around the origin of the term. In late 1963 JFK was assassinated. According to a sourced referenced on Wiki [1] the first mainstream reference to "conspiracy theory" was the New York Times who, in 1964, posted some 5 articles using the phrase. In 1967 the CIA had a psychological operation manual on discrediting conspiracy theories. [2] The reason I mention JFK there is because the conspiracy theory tactics created by the CIA were specifically relating to the Warren Commission [3]. Ultimately I've always found the term silly. People can believe idiotic things for sure, yet on the other hand I think there is an equilibrium where on one end you have people who believe no 'conspiracy theory' could ever be real, and on the other hand you have people who indulge every 'conspiracy theory' as probable. Both opposite extremes are equally naive. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_and_definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Etymology_an... [2] - https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-create... [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission

spamizbad 8y ago

Youtube OBLITERATES elektor's recommendations with Logic & Reason!

vbuwivbiu 8y ago

same! I touched a Rogan podcast & ever since I've been getting recommendations for a certain JP

imhelpingu 8y ago

Yeah, and maybe some day I'll be able to do anything on the site whatsoever without it shoving CNN videos in my face.