7 ms·

Will YouTube also remove their algos that send people down rabbit holes of “extreme views” and encapsulate individuals in information bubbles that seem to valid

Will YouTube also remove their algos that send people down rabbit holes of “extreme views” and encapsulate individuals in information bubbles that seem to validate and fail to challenge their views? The platform should shoulder as much or more blame than the content in this case. Free speech man. This is not ok.

blancNoir 7y ago
From the article: "In addition to tightening its hate speech rules, YouTube announced it would also tweak its recommendation algorithm, the automated software that shows users videos based on their interests and past viewing habits. This algorithm is responsible for more than 70 percent of overall time spent on YouTube, and has been a major engine for the platform’s growth. But it has also drawn accusations of leading users down rabbit holes filled with extreme and divisive content, in an attempt to keep them watching and drive up the site’s usage numbers."
- patagonia 7y ago
  Touché. Guilty. I didn’t read. Thank you for pointing out. Pessimistic me says that not much will change because as the other person’s comment says, algos are there to maximize the viewing time of people, and that have their views challenged etc, they aren’t gonna watch as much.
- 6d6b73 7y ago
  The cynic in me thinks this is simply to have an excuse to recommend videos to people to change their views, only when it's in Google's interest.
la_barba 7y ago
>and encapsulate individuals in information bubbles that seem to validate and fail to challenge their views? Err, how do you know that the algorithm does this? And also, how do you know that people are not exposed to other views outside of YouTube. And lastly, why do you think its the job of an entertainment platform to "challenge" views?
- chronial 7y ago
  > Err, how do you know that the algorithm does this? Youtube optimizes for watch time. Most people don't want to spend their afternoons having their views challenged. Any algorithm that properly optimizes for watch time of the masses will learn to validate views.
  - la_barba 7y ago
    Right, we can all speculate. I'm asking for some objective proof, if any such is available. We can only propose a solution if we first demonstrate that the problem is real.
    - chronial 7y ago
      I don't want to assume bad faith, but I have the impression that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. What about my statement is speculation? • Youtube themselves state that they optimize for watch time. • I don't want to go and search for papers on this, but I don't think the idea that people prefer to have their views validated instead of challenged is in any way controversial or speculation. • It's also not speculation to state that people want to spend their time doing things that gives them positive emotions. You clearly won't get "objective proof" on this, because the only way to actually proof this would be to do a formal study on it. And why would anyone to a study on such an obvious non-controversial topic?
      - la_barba 7y ago
        Maybe it seems confrontational to you but, I don't think "how do you know this" is the same as "can you make a reasonable guess". I don't want to have a personal back and forth with you on this, because it doesn't serve any purpose.
    - skinnymuch 7y ago
      I agree with the other commentator. You seem to be posting pointless confrontational messages that you know there’s no complete proof for, but if you were discussing in good faith, you wouldn’t have posted your messages questioning Google’s YouTube algo.
umvi 7y ago
> and fail to challenge their views So you are saying YouTube should actively recommend people stuff they disagree with? Like, if you are religious it should recommend atheist and skeptic videos? And if you are vegetarian it should recommend meat smoking videos? I'm pretty should people would hate that
- wry_discontent 7y ago
  I think you know what's being discussed. YouTube should actively try to prevent people from being drawn into racist rabbit holes. If your rabbit hole ends with "and that's why we should exterminate Jews", probably not a good idea to encourage viewers down that path.
  - umvi 7y ago
    Well then they should have a transparent blacklist of censored topics that the majority of users collectively agree on. Otherwise it's too easy to start lobbying for the censoring of politically advantageous "extremism" (i.e. groups petitioning YouTube to censor anti-abortion rabbit holes as "misogynistic extremism")
Theodores 7y ago
One thing I wish YouTube would clamp down on is extreme planet trashing. People do pranks such as buying a thousand burgers to toss the lot in a swimming pool. They get the ten million likes that pays for the burgers and the local burger restaurant makes a bit of money but some cows had to die for the 'stunt'. Meanwhile at YouTube headquarters they are diligently doing their recycling. At some stage you have to wonder if YouTube are being a good corporate citizen. They encourage this wasteful behaviour. Regarding the censoring of extreme views, what I don't understand is why YouTube gave the likes of Alex Jones such a long run. I suspect that for a while it was working out well for YouTube having people watch his rants as well as the 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff. This defied common sense, his garbage was being recommended to people that weren't looking for it. I think these Google people get a bit too clever for their own good without taking time out to just ask if things are common sense. I think we should all have the option to seek out views differing to our own, for instance I do care to find out what the likes of Timothy McVeigh actually thought. It doesn't mean I believe in them or what they have done. I don't want some BBC journalist to interpret that for me, I want to hear it for myself. Recently the Iran state broadcaster Press TV got banned from YouTube with no explanation given. They did not have many views, however, now they are gone, how is anyone supposed to 'see' what Iran thinks of the world? There was no hate speech on their channel, it was just banished. Press TV is positively benign compared to recent UK/US leaders and I don't believe I am controversial in saying that. Something is deeply wrong with the censorship landscape.

blancNoir 7y ago

From the article: "In addition to tightening its hate speech rules, YouTube announced it would also tweak its recommendation algorithm, the automated software that shows users videos based on their interests and past viewing habits. This algorithm is responsible for more than 70 percent of overall time spent on YouTube, and has been a major engine for the platform’s growth. But it has also drawn accusations of leading users down rabbit holes filled with extreme and divisive content, in an attempt to keep them watching and drive up the site’s usage numbers."

patagonia 7y ago
Touché. Guilty. I didn’t read. Thank you for pointing out. Pessimistic me says that not much will change because as the other person’s comment says, algos are there to maximize the viewing time of people, and that have their views challenged etc, they aren’t gonna watch as much.
6d6b73 7y ago
The cynic in me thinks this is simply to have an excuse to recommend videos to people to change their views, only when it's in Google's interest.

la_barba 7y ago

>and encapsulate individuals in information bubbles that seem to validate and fail to challenge their views? Err, how do you know that the algorithm does this? And also, how do you know that people are not exposed to other views outside of YouTube. And lastly, why do you think its the job of an entertainment platform to "challenge" views?

chronial 7y ago
> Err, how do you know that the algorithm does this? Youtube optimizes for watch time. Most people don't want to spend their afternoons having their views challenged. Any algorithm that properly optimizes for watch time of the masses will learn to validate views.
- la_barba 7y ago
  Right, we can all speculate. I'm asking for some objective proof, if any such is available. We can only propose a solution if we first demonstrate that the problem is real.
  - chronial 7y ago
    I don't want to assume bad faith, but I have the impression that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. What about my statement is speculation? • Youtube themselves state that they optimize for watch time. • I don't want to go and search for papers on this, but I don't think the idea that people prefer to have their views validated instead of challenged is in any way controversial or speculation. • It's also not speculation to state that people want to spend their time doing things that gives them positive emotions. You clearly won't get "objective proof" on this, because the only way to actually proof this would be to do a formal study on it. And why would anyone to a study on such an obvious non-controversial topic?
    - la_barba 7y ago
      Maybe it seems confrontational to you but, I don't think "how do you know this" is the same as "can you make a reasonable guess". I don't want to have a personal back and forth with you on this, because it doesn't serve any purpose.
  - skinnymuch 7y ago
    I agree with the other commentator. You seem to be posting pointless confrontational messages that you know there’s no complete proof for, but if you were discussing in good faith, you wouldn’t have posted your messages questioning Google’s YouTube algo.

umvi 7y ago

> and fail to challenge their views So you are saying YouTube should actively recommend people stuff they disagree with? Like, if you are religious it should recommend atheist and skeptic videos? And if you are vegetarian it should recommend meat smoking videos? I'm pretty should people would hate that

wry_discontent 7y ago
I think you know what's being discussed. YouTube should actively try to prevent people from being drawn into racist rabbit holes. If your rabbit hole ends with "and that's why we should exterminate Jews", probably not a good idea to encourage viewers down that path.
- umvi 7y ago
  Well then they should have a transparent blacklist of censored topics that the majority of users collectively agree on. Otherwise it's too easy to start lobbying for the censoring of politically advantageous "extremism" (i.e. groups petitioning YouTube to censor anti-abortion rabbit holes as "misogynistic extremism")

Theodores 7y ago

One thing I wish YouTube would clamp down on is extreme planet trashing. People do pranks such as buying a thousand burgers to toss the lot in a swimming pool. They get the ten million likes that pays for the burgers and the local burger restaurant makes a bit of money but some cows had to die for the 'stunt'. Meanwhile at YouTube headquarters they are diligently doing their recycling. At some stage you have to wonder if YouTube are being a good corporate citizen. They encourage this wasteful behaviour. Regarding the censoring of extreme views, what I don't understand is why YouTube gave the likes of Alex Jones such a long run. I suspect that for a while it was working out well for YouTube having people watch his rants as well as the 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff. This defied common sense, his garbage was being recommended to people that weren't looking for it. I think these Google people get a bit too clever for their own good without taking time out to just ask if things are common sense. I think we should all have the option to seek out views differing to our own, for instance I do care to find out what the likes of Timothy McVeigh actually thought. It doesn't mean I believe in them or what they have done. I don't want some BBC journalist to interpret that for me, I want to hear it for myself. Recently the Iran state broadcaster Press TV got banned from YouTube with no explanation given. They did not have many views, however, now they are gone, how is anyone supposed to 'see' what Iran thinks of the world? There was no hate speech on their channel, it was just banished. Press TV is positively benign compared to recent UK/US leaders and I don't believe I am controversial in saying that. Something is deeply wrong with the censorship landscape.