4 ms·

YouTube does not have a big influence on society. Culture reflects society and not the other way around. Although YouTube can act as a censor and slowly cast aw

YouTube does not have a big influence on society. Culture reflects society and not the other way around. Although YouTube can act as a censor and slowly cast away people from society.

j7ake 7y ago
An intriguing hypothesis, is there any data to support this theory ?
- 6nf 7y ago
  YouTube's algorithm shows people more of the stuff they like to watch. The most popular content on Youtube is primarily driven by demand, not by execs at Youtube.
  - pasquinelli 7y ago
    Is that what it does? I find it likes to recommend stuff i absolutely hate because i've, what's the word, engaged too much in the past with videos i hate, and people like me tend to engage too much with videos they hate too.
    - lanevorockz 7y ago
      Google is being pressured by politicians to replicate the results they want. Slowly YouTube is becoming a huge real life social experiment, where Google is trying to control public opinion through censorship and the recommendation engine.
      - kuu 7y ago
        Google is trying to earn money, as much as they can. No need to imagine a conspiracy about censorship and control public opinion...
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    I am sure that is the goal, on some level. But it is not good at that goal.
  - trevyn 7y ago
    >YouTube's algorithm shows people more of the stuff they like to watch. More of the stuff that will increase a user’s watch time; subtle difference. I’d be surprised if they haven’t also experimented with adjusting for overall ad revenue; some specific ads pay more than others.
- lanevorockz 7y ago
  There is not only a hypothesis but there is a whole science behind it. That's part of the PhD research of Larry Page for the PageRank algorithm. It's pretty much like a modified way of Academic Paper ranking. Innovators, Influencers, Advocates, Envangelists are all terms used to qualify the types of edges on a social graph.
  - TelmoMenezes 7y ago
    Not really. PageRank is a centrality measure for networks, not a sociological theory / hypothesis. It is very useful in finding the most popular nodes in a network, but it says nothing about whether this popularity is byproduct of culture or the other way around.
jdietrich 7y ago
Immediate counter-arguments: Most professional YouTubers complain about having to tailor their videos to suit the recommendations algorithms. Historically, many short videos were padded out to just over 10 minutes in order to reach the minimum threshold to insert a midroll advertisement; today, many videos are as long as possible to take advantage of the algorithmic prioritisation of view time over view count. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the recent necessity to use clickbait thumbnails and titles, due to YouTube's increasing weighting of click-through-rate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHsa9DqmId8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHsa9DqmId8 Most analysts believe that the high weight on view time is causing the YouTube algorithms to promote the kind of videos that their heaviest users watch. The problem is that these heavy users aren't representative of the general population - they're far more likely to be interested in conspiracy theories or extremist politics. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtu... The vast majority of YouTube video views are as a result of algorithmic decisions by YouTube - what to show in the recommendations bar, what to prioritise on the home page, what to put at the top of search results. Those algorithms are not and cannot be neutral. These algorithms aren't just shaping which videos people watch; YouTube creators freely admit to tailoring the content of their videos to fit the recommendations algorithm.
pjc50 7y ago
> Culture reflects society and not the other way around. The entire fields of sociology, media and literary criticism would like a word with you. Or several million words. The important thing to think about is cultural reproduction: the things that we carry with us in our heads that make up our culture have to come from somewhere. They are acquired over our lives but especially in our youth, and in the 20th century and beyond they are to a very great extent acquired from media. The 20th century was the TV century. A significant part of the hours devoted to watching TV and absorbing culture from it have now switched to youtube. And there are two important feedback loops that youtube has accelerated. One is the process of making a piece of media in response to or influenced by another. The hyper-accelerated version of critique is now the "reaction" video. The second is the process by which we influence other people's culture by making suggestions as to what they consume. To a certain extent recommendations are culture; we used to have a standard ""playlist"" of literature we called the "canon", and within film and music genres you can still find discussions of canonical works. Every recommendation by Google's automated system is a cultural statement, and in aggregate these can have as big an effect on society as a TV channel's choice of programming. The BBC's Reithian mission was to inform, educate, entertain; what is the mission that Youtube are carrying out with their recommendations?

YouTube does not have a big influence on society. Culture reflects society and not the other way around. Although YouTube can act as a censor and slowly cast away people from society.

j7ake 7y ago

An intriguing hypothesis, is there any data to support this theory ?

6nf 7y ago
YouTube's algorithm shows people more of the stuff they like to watch. The most popular content on Youtube is primarily driven by demand, not by execs at Youtube.
- pasquinelli 7y ago
  Is that what it does? I find it likes to recommend stuff i absolutely hate because i've, what's the word, engaged too much in the past with videos i hate, and people like me tend to engage too much with videos they hate too.
  - lanevorockz 7y ago
    Google is being pressured by politicians to replicate the results they want. Slowly YouTube is becoming a huge real life social experiment, where Google is trying to control public opinion through censorship and the recommendation engine.
    - kuu 7y ago
      Google is trying to earn money, as much as they can. No need to imagine a conspiracy about censorship and control public opinion...
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  I am sure that is the goal, on some level. But it is not good at that goal.
- trevyn 7y ago
  >YouTube's algorithm shows people more of the stuff they like to watch. More of the stuff that will increase a user’s watch time; subtle difference. I’d be surprised if they haven’t also experimented with adjusting for overall ad revenue; some specific ads pay more than others.
lanevorockz 7y ago
There is not only a hypothesis but there is a whole science behind it. That's part of the PhD research of Larry Page for the PageRank algorithm. It's pretty much like a modified way of Academic Paper ranking. Innovators, Influencers, Advocates, Envangelists are all terms used to qualify the types of edges on a social graph.
- TelmoMenezes 7y ago
  Not really. PageRank is a centrality measure for networks, not a sociological theory / hypothesis. It is very useful in finding the most popular nodes in a network, but it says nothing about whether this popularity is byproduct of culture or the other way around.

jdietrich 7y ago

Immediate counter-arguments: Most professional YouTubers complain about having to tailor their videos to suit the recommendations algorithms. Historically, many short videos were padded out to just over 10 minutes in order to reach the minimum threshold to insert a midroll advertisement; today, many videos are as long as possible to take advantage of the algorithmic prioritisation of view time over view count. There is widespread dissatisfaction with the recent necessity to use clickbait thumbnails and titles, due to YouTube's increasing weighting of click-through-rate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHsa9DqmId8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHsa9DqmId8 Most analysts believe that the high weight on view time is causing the YouTube algorithms to promote the kind of videos that their heaviest users watch. The problem is that these heavy users aren't representative of the general population - they're far more likely to be interested in conspiracy theories or extremist politics. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtubes-algorithm-distorts-truth https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtu... The vast majority of YouTube video views are as a result of algorithmic decisions by YouTube - what to show in the recommendations bar, what to prioritise on the home page, what to put at the top of search results. Those algorithms are not and cannot be neutral. These algorithms aren't just shaping which videos people watch; YouTube creators freely admit to tailoring the content of their videos to fit the recommendations algorithm.

pjc50 7y ago

> Culture reflects society and not the other way around. The entire fields of sociology, media and literary criticism would like a word with you. Or several million words. The important thing to think about is cultural reproduction: the things that we carry with us in our heads that make up our culture have to come from somewhere. They are acquired over our lives but especially in our youth, and in the 20th century and beyond they are to a very great extent acquired from media. The 20th century was the TV century. A significant part of the hours devoted to watching TV and absorbing culture from it have now switched to youtube. And there are two important feedback loops that youtube has accelerated. One is the process of making a piece of media in response to or influenced by another. The hyper-accelerated version of critique is now the "reaction" video. The second is the process by which we influence other people's culture by making suggestions as to what they consume. To a certain extent recommendations are culture; we used to have a standard ""playlist"" of literature we called the "canon", and within film and music genres you can still find discussions of canonical works. Every recommendation by Google's automated system is a cultural statement, and in aggregate these can have as big an effect on society as a TV channel's choice of programming. The BBC's Reithian mission was to inform, educate, entertain; what is the mission that Youtube are carrying out with their recommendations?