12 ms·

YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

115 points by dfabulich 7y ago

dfabulich 7y ago
For the convenience of those who can't conveniently read a PDF on their current device: > The role that YouTube and its behind-the-scenes recommendation algorithm plays in encouraging online radicalization has been suggested by both journalists and academics alike. This study directly quantifies these claims by examining the role that YouTubes algorithm plays in suggesting radicalized content. After categorizing nearly 800 political channels, we were able to differentiate between political schemas in order to analyze the algorithm traffic flows out and between each group. > After conducting a detailed analysis of recommendations received by each channel type, we refute the popular radicalization claims. To the contrary, these data suggest that YouTubes recommendation algorithm actively discourages viewers from visiting radicalizing or extremist content. Instead, the algorithm is shown to favor mainstream media and cable news content over independent YouTube channels with slant towards left-leaning or politically neutral channels. Our study thus suggests that YouTubes recommendation algorithm fails to promote inflammatory or radicalized content, as previously claimed by several outlets. Tweet from the author: https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743168246771716 https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743168246771716 > It turns out the late 2019 algorithm DESTROYS conspiracy theorists, provocateurs and white identitarians > Helps partisans > Hurts almost everyone else.
- falcolas 7y ago
  > Our study thus suggests that YouTubes recommendation algorithm fails to promote inflammatory or radicalized content Asserting that "mainstream media and cable news content" is neither inflammatory nor radicalized. I'm not sure how accurate this statement is today.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    True or not, this isn't what they were referring to.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    I believe it is generally accepted definitionally that "mainstream" isn't radicalized (i.e. mainstream is defined as "not the radical fringe"). Can you think of an example of why that definitional assertion should be discarded?
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      I don't think it matches modern usage. I regularly see complaints about how suchandsuch politician with mainstream support has a "radical agenda" or is "radicalizing" their followers. If we insist on the definitional assertion, it becomes a lot less obvious why we should care about the original claim. Is it even a problem for Youtube to promote "radical" content if "radical" just means "different than what mainstream news channels say"?
    - stevenicr 7y ago
      what spicylemon pointed out, and I find many 'mainstream' news shows to be radical and not fringe. Sometimes it's little slants added by hosts around facts.. sometimes it's hosts adding in little details to what interviewees have said - once you start to see it, it becomes sadly obvious that it's radical bias, and yet looking at the polls or seeing other people's fbook feeds, and such - it's not fringe. Sometimes it's fact being left out, sometimes it's only reported what can be shown as bad.. or good - and avoiding showing other details. I must say 'mainstream' news both right and left has been radical in their support or resistance of certain narratives.
- cm2012 7y ago
  This should be the top comment of the thread.
- baking 7y ago
  Anyone who regularly browses their Youtube recommendations knows that the algorithm changed dramatically a few months ago.
  - on_and_off 7y ago
    I haven't realized :/. Do you have some examples ? Now that I think about it, I distinctly remember is that at some point Youtube started throwing lots of "it's always sunny in philadelphia" scenes at my face. I am not even angry, I discovered my favorite show this way.
    - khawkins 7y ago
      I used to see a heavy dose of my subscribed channels in my recommendations, now only a fraction of them are represented. We're talking channels where I watch nearly every video they post but they won't show up in my recommendations. There's clearly stuff Youtube "likes" and even a naive recommendation engine would perform better.
      - pitay 7y ago
        Same here. That's why I changed a couple of subscribed channels to send me notifications, it puts updates of these channels in the notifications area and sends me an email for every update. The June 2019 change of algorithm was that big and hostile that I had to turn on notifications.
      - on_and_off 7y ago
        interesting, there must be some variation in the algorithm. I have just loaded Youtube and in the 8 recommendations above the fold : - 4 of them are from my subscriptions - 1 is the last published in a series of videos I have been watching, published 2 hours ago - 1 is from a channel I have never watched AFAIK, but contains a sketch from a comic duo I watched often on Youtube - leaving 2 lectures that don't come directly from what I watched recently. If anything, I would prefer if Youtube was pushing way more original topics. One thing I have remarked is that their algorithm is very "grippy". Once it identifies a topic you might be interested in, it makes sure to find other videos on the same topic. As an example I stumbled on a beautiful video about what life is like for an man with autism. The next day Youtube recommended me a video where women with autism talk about their lives (actually I remember having already watched that video several years ago, so a meh recommendation). Today Youtube wants me to watch a video about autistic children in China. Also, with the magic of A/B groups, we might be running on 2 very different algorithms for all we know. > even a naive recommendation engine would perform better. I think you are underestimating the complexity of the problem :)
- sandworm101 7y ago
  Whether it works one way or the other, I find what it recommends to me very disturbing. Example: I'm a former rock climber and am very interested in knot and knot-tying. I watched some vids on hemp ropes, including "braiding" strands of rope. That points me to a video on hair braiding, which I watch as I do find it mildly interesting, a knot system that won't bind into a mess. Now youtube is recommending me very odd videos of little girls doing makeup and gymnastics. And all the static ads are suddenly only dating aps, "find flirty women in your area" junk. What do I need to watch to get out of this inappropriate category?
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    I think your Google account has a page where it tells you what it thinks your interested in and lets you opt out of mistakes. Not used it in a while so it may have changed.
  - suby 7y ago
    Perhaps removing it from your watch history? There should be some ui somewhere on yt to do this, or at the very least there used to be. Personally, Youtube seems to only recommend me mainstream media now (CNN, MSNBC, even The Daily Show). It's better than pushing me towards right wing independent media like Sargon and Ben Shapiro, which is what it used to do every chance it got, but I very much don't want to watch either option. As a Bernie Sanders supporter, I'm not exactly wanting what either of them are pushing. It's not that I want an echochamber, but it'd be nice to have political commentary which did not try to either obviously lie, or selectively tell the truth in order to paint a false narrative.
  - wcoenen 7y ago
    > What do I need to watch to get out of this inappropriate category Nothing, just tap the three dots on wrongly recommended videos and then "not interested" or "don't recommend channel". The recommendation algorithm might need more than one data point but it will catch on eventually.
    - duskwuff 7y ago
      The recommendation algorithm can be really bad at taking negative feedback. It'll sometimes stop recommending videos from a specific source when you give negative feedback, but once it's decided you might be interested in a topic, getting it to stop recommending videos related to that topic feels impossible. The only reliable way to get it to stop recommending inappropriate content is to delete the videos that triggered those recommendations from your viewing history.
- dathinab 7y ago
  > over independent YouTube channels with slant towards left-leaning or politically neutral channels. Why were they explicitly listing this channel types not including right-leaning? From what I heard there indeed is no problem with left radicalization but with right radicalization and mind fuckery through conspiracie channels and similar. I guess I have to read that article
  - testaccount21 7y ago
    I think you've mis-parsed. The algorithm itself (as opposed to the independent channels) is "with [a] slant towards left-leaning or politically neutral channels." i.e, it recommends channels which are slightly left-of-center.
- jdjdjjsjs 7y ago
  I don't entirely understand the linked chart here. But best I can make of it, has 1/4 the # of impressions as MSM and almost half the impressions for either partisan left or right. This is a minor issue that is showing impression numbers the equivalent of entire media organizations. How is this evidence that Youtube's algorithm does not promote radicalized content?
minimaxir 7y ago
It should be noted that this research was likely published with a specific agenda in mind: https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743217982803970?s=21 https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743217982803970?... > My new article explains in detail. It takes aim at the NYT (in particular, @kevinroose) who have been on myth-filled crusade vs social media. We should start questioning the authoritative status of outlets that have soiled themselves with agendas. From the linked Medium article: > These events, along with the promotion of the now-debunked YouTube “rabbit hole” theory, reveal what many suspect — that old media titans, presenting themselves as non-partisan and authoritative, are in fact trapped in echo chambers of their own creation, and are no more incentivized to report the truth than YouTube grifters. The paper itself makes a fundamental flaw of using logged out recommendations and attempts to disprove 2018 algos even after substantial changes since, which invalidates the research entirely.
- fastball 7y ago
  Less of an agenda than the aforementioned NYT article. Sure, this research doesn't use 2018 algos, because it's 2019. I guess the NYT and others should've done the research in the first place then. It certainly doesn't invalidate the research - it shows that the claims made by others are probably not accurate in 2019 on YT.
  - shard972 7y ago
    > maybe the NYT should have done some research Wow, never heard that one before.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    They dont like the competition. https://imgur.com/VUdcIou https://imgur.com/VUdcIou
  - metamet 7y ago
    I believe the 2019 algo was dramatically changed recently, meaning that the core of the 2018 algo was present throughout the majority of 2019.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
This is a pretty clever way to identify natural recommendation levels. I wish the authors had given a bit more justification of why net impression flows are a good metric, but I don't want to quibble too much, because it seems pretty reasonable and it's certainly a vast improvement over what I was afraid I'd find going in. > However, it seems that the company will have to decide first if the platform is meant for independent YouTubers or if it is just another outlet for mainstream media. Come on, authors, save it for the blog post.
motohagiography 7y ago
Does Youtube radicalize? Edward Snowden made an observation during his Joe Rogan interview that compartmentalization within the CIA is necessary so that no person can see all the bad stuff at once and freak out at its total enormity. As a sysadmin, he was in effect radicalized by seeing the bigger picture at NSA that wasn't visible to other analysts. I think Youtube shows you an analogous bigger picture that makes the dominant media narratives seem fabricated and dishonest when viewed together, even if individually most of it is sincere (if dumb) reporting. The discourse around radicalization has also been abused by editors and academics with agendas to de-normalize formerly moderate views, and who treat the interests of regular people as beneath discourse. So it's hard to take any discussions of radicalization seriously, even ones questioning whether it's even a thing, as you still have to acknowledge the nonsense it has been freighted with first.
- TTPrograms 7y ago
  Which formerly moderate views do you believe are being de-normalized by "editors and academics with agendas"?
  - pjkundert 7y ago
    As a “libertarian”, I have to hold my tongue and smile in most conversations. The Overton Window has become so shockingly small, that most “normals” educated in the last 20 or so years no longer even realize that they have been mentally neutered.
    - peterwwillis 7y ago
      I mean, of all the different libertarian philosophies, most of them are radical, in so much as they all seek to distance the individual from systems of government and social institutions. Since those things are what most people use day to day, and in the US only one of the two political parties leans that way, it does put you in a minority camp whose views can be felt as a sort of existential threat. (And honestly, politics and religion should both be kept out of most conversations)
bjourne 7y ago
I'm curious why all submissions about YouTube manipulating their recommendation algorithm gets flagged? I've submitted lots of links to HN, most of which never gets any points of course, but only those about YouTube have ever been flagged: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21793498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21793498 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20475792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20475792
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  I can speculate that this particular submission might be flagged because it goes against anti-Youtube propaganda that some HN-popular companies are participating in, like Mozilla. And, you know, people love to suppress opposing views to their propaganda. But of course there might be more specific organized effort too.
faizshah 7y ago
Difficult to take this analysis seriously when CNN is categorized with The Young Turks as “Partisan Left.” Regardless of what you think of either channel the programming of these two channels is dramatically different. The fact that the tags were manually created by the experimenters and were manually assigned by the experimenters throws the results even more into question.
- datashow 7y ago
  I don't follow your logic. Yes, CNN and TYT are very different. This only means they can be tagged differently, but it doesn't mean they cannot be tagged under same category. For example, The Selfish Gene and Advanced Algebra are two very different books, but they can be both categorized as nonfiction. Maybe you are right with the conclusion, i.e. CNN or TYT should not be both categorized as “Partisan Left,” but you need a better reason.
  - faizshah 7y ago
    In my view it’s a good example of why the manual labeling is flawed as CNN regularly criticizes progressives and airs republican views that TYT then responds to and criticizes CNN for. To categorize them both as “Partisan Left Focused on politics and exclusively critical of Republicans” is a stark example of why manual labeling of these channels, especially by the two authors and some unnamed person the authors trusted (pg. 4), cannot be unbiased and a survey methodology or topic model would produce more persuasive results.
    - ravenstine 7y ago
      Isn't that kind of like saying InfoWars isn't a conspiracy/entertainment website because it regularly posts about actual news?
    - rapnie 7y ago
      Note I did not downvote you. These links provide some info on bias of the 2 channels: CNN: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ TYT: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-young-turks/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-young-turks/
joe_the_user 7y ago
This quote raises questions: "The scraped data, as well as the YouTube API, provides usa view of the recommendations presented to an anonymous account. In other words, the account has not ”watched” any videos, retaining the neutral baseline recommendations, described in further detail by YouTube in their recent paper that explains the inner workings of the recommendation algorithm[38]. One should note that the recommendations list provided to a user who has an account and who is logged into YouTube might differ from the list presented to this anonymous account." Many discussions of radicalization talk about recommendations coming after someone has watched a number of videos. This situation is that after N videos, the algorithm starts to see a pattern, a niche, that the user fits into and then recommends more niche content. Once the user watches the niche content, just more niche content is recommended, or that-niche and mainstream content is recommended and the mainstream content is boring. In a sense, I don't see how a blind recommendation system could escape this situation. It seems more an inherent problem of blind recommendation systems. What could be a better approach? * Better education in the US and the world so people have BS detectors? * Instead of unlabeled recommendations, the algorithm categorizes what you're seen, categorizes what it's recommending and let's the user say what category they want and remove or add categories for recommendation. * Have more ordinary search tool and a better categorization system (Youtube is a horrible black-box now, search is terrible, recommendations is terrible, I get videos from other sites mostly).
- pitay 7y ago
  Have the recommendation system mix it up, put niches that are somewhat similar in the recommendations not quite as often, put things a bit further away less often, etc. This should have the algorithm recommend counterpoints which are clearly visible to the user. This is assuming things that are partisan one way are similar to things that are partisan in the other way and counter partisan content. Avoid censorship, censorship is too easily abused.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    We should not classify "refusal to ever recommend X because you know X to be untrue or defamatory" as censorship.
XPKBandMaidCzun 7y ago
I see the term radicalization is being brought up, do we serve ourselves by focusing on superficial presentations that won't be the same in 10 years rather than how similar everyone is: Feeling enlightened, competitive and lack consideration that their perceived "ideological adversary" is every bit vulnerable, needy, and scared as themselves? How is this different from couple's therapy, just at long distances w/ groups? None of them want to have a picnic and cooperate with each other. And who could blame them? They both fail to recognize each others hardships, yet "get" the human condition better than the other so much better. They begin by insinuating there's another group that has a character flaw, and is so angry. Yet - all the while, they're angry and accusing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_identification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_identification) I have a hypothesis: It's all acting out, cathartic, to blow off steam. They're not at the soup kitchen or volunteering. They have a dysfunctional coping mechanism stemming from earlier traumas, and it's more profitable to captivate lonely, bored people by stir up people's anxiety existentially than help them find common ground. Because if people realized the common ground they shared and cooperated, people would start to pass laws and regulations to make healthcare, employment, housing, education for more fair for legal persons. The whole concept of political sides is a sham: They are legal persons and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs. If common sense stuff isn't being fixed and people are bikeshedding: the fix is in, people in suits are giving each other high fives and laughing at you. You're being suckered into squandering your political rights (you voted, or can!) to take worthless, symbolic digs at people rather than get what you need, better laws for the practical issues everyone shares. Hint: they tend to be boring.
- nothingtos33 7y ago
  Youtube recommended this to my son: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4LfJnj66HVQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=4LfJnj66HVQ Please watch it and tell me what you think of it.
  - fruffy 7y ago
    What do you mean? Gucci Gang is a pretty well known hip-hop track liked by the "youth". I am not surprised it was recommended to your son since most of his peers probably have watched it.
Thorentis 7y ago
> with slant towards left-leaning or politically neutral channels So ... YouTube is actually politically biased? This would be an interesting study to continue. You would need to normalise for view counts etc. since I suspect there is a bias just in terms of numbers. The biggest channels are more progressive, left leaning, so YouTube could appear left-biased simply by recommending most-viewed videos.
cirno 7y ago
This applies every bit as much to Google's web search as it does YouTube search. I know of many marginalized people targeted by online hate groups that have been smeared with proven-false allegations and doxxed online, and these stalking websites are consistently ranked as the top results in Google search and Google Images search results for their names. Google's AI is clearly trained to recognize and promote controversy, because it is human nature for controversy to drive engagement.
- taneq 7y ago
  I've been convinced for a while now that Facebook tries to start fights between people of opposite ideology. I'm sure it's just that their algorithms have picked up that pro-skub people are highly likely to reply to anti-skub comments in pro-skub threads (since that was the pattern I was seeing) but it sure comes across as trying to cause drama.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    Kind of reminds me of CGP Grey's this video will make you angry.
- Kiro 7y ago
  What applies? The submission concludes the opposite of what you're describing. > To the contrary, these data suggest that YouTubes recommendation algorithm actively discourages viewers from visiting radicalizing or extremist content.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    ...but only for logged out users. They didn't test what happens for people with an account.
EETruth 7y ago
Internet is way way too cheap. There's no reason why the working class should have access to it, their brains are not advanced enough to handle it...maybe run a government service for bureaucracy stuff + buying tickets, etc for free then have the full WWW accessible only for the high-middle class/rich/institutions.
twic 7y ago
Some other research came to a compatible conclusion: https://www.wired.com/story/not-youtubes-algorithm-radicalizes-people/ https://www.wired.com/story/not-youtubes-algorithm-radicaliz...
hooande 7y ago
I think this study is testing the wrong hypothesis. Their idea is that people get "radicalized" by being recommended extremist content after watching mainstream news videos. ie, fox news -> 911 conspiracy videos. They demonstrate that this doesn't happen often. But the real problem wirh youtube is intracategory recommendations. If someone watches one conspiracy video, then their recommendations become all conspiracy videos which inevitably leads to them consuming more and more far right content. This seems like good science and well conducted research. I just don't know if they had the correct view of the problem
- trekrich 7y ago
  Heaven forbid if people looked at other ideas than the official narrative! And not all conspiracy theories are far right content! Do you have much bias?!
- jansan 7y ago
  If someone watches one conspiracy video, then their recommendations become all conspiracy videos which inevitably leads to them consuming more and more far right content. Just in case you didn't know, conspiracy theories aren't an exclusively right wing thing.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >Just in case you didn't know, conspiracy theories aren't an exclusively right wing thing. Exclusively, no. Primarily, yes. At the moment, right-wing extremism is enjoying a global surge in popularity, so that ideology currently dominates conspiracy narratives online, and contributes to their virality.
    - Torches66 7y ago
      Alternative media is seeing a surge of right-wing because mainstream media is exclusively left-wing, often downright conspiratorially so. I could turn on the TV at prime time and expose my family to the supposed benefits of transgenderism, homosexuality, racial diversity, etc. I am infinitely more likely to see a positive portrayal of a mixed-race lesbian than a nationalist family man. If you share that perspective, then that's probably wonderful. You might even suppose I must have a serious flaw to see things differently. You need to realise that half of everyone else sees it the other way.
irthomasthomas 7y ago
I devised a simple test for this. After the last US election there was some analysis and discussion of Google's youtube recommendations engine which appeared to show a strong bias towards conspiracy videos, which in turn led to videos that generally promoted Trump over Clinton. Now, I'm not American, and don't care who your president is, but it was around this time that I realised youtube's search engine had become pretty useless for me. Since then I only use youtube for watching tutorials or technical talks (and old TV shows that are hard to find elsewhere). I try to avoid the search engine and recommendations altogether. Ok so that's the why, now what's this simple test? Just search youtube for CERN and note the mix of results. I found that most of the results could be categorised as either pro-science or anti-science/conspiracy. In an ideal world I would expect to see the official CERN channel at the top, followed by sciency videos about CERN, and finally the fringe conspiracy videos about wormholes to other dimensions and such. It's fun to use tor to see how the results vary by country. The last time I did this was 2017, and I don't have the data to hand, but it was roughly 70-80% of results in the first few pages where conspiracy related. Here's a screenshot of my result in 2017 when I'm logged in. https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/28928495/71557922-17e1b780-2a45-11ea-84de-93a9725dc6af.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/28928495/71557922-... I just had a quick look now and my first impression is that results have certainly changed and improved, but it's a mixed bag. I will find my old data and update it soon.
throwaway294072 7y ago
The far-right radicalization effect is well known. You can test easily with a dedicated account. https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-youtube-pulled-these-men-down-a-vortex-of-far-right-hate https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-youtube-pulled-these-men-d... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisation https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtube... https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/youtube-conspiracy-radicalization.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/youtube-conspiracy-radic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nrz4-FZx6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nrz4-FZx6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
- throwaway294072 7y ago
  All this downvotes for providing a list of sources? Interesting...
Mountain_Skies 7y ago
We can keep doing study after study but the kernel of all of this seems to be an inability of certain academics and tech industry titans to understand that not everyone thinks alike them or holds the same values. There is an undercurrent in all of this confusion that if we can just control what others are and hear, we can make them believe the exact same things we believe. Afterall, we are right, they are wrong, so the error must be due to some contamination of their minds by dangerous content. Eliminate access to that content and all will be well. Banning wrong think from YouTube might be good for advertisers and Google's bottom line but it's not going to make thoughts that have been around since the dawn of humanity magically disappear.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > we are right, they are wrong Vaccines work; the safety risks are minimal; there is no reliable evidence that they cause autism and the primary proponent of the theory was eventually struck off for malpractice. Getting this wrong will cause the unnecessary suffering and death of small children. The earth is spherical, and this has been known since ancient times. Some things are not a matter of opinion.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ben_w 7y ago
    > The earth is spherical Well, close enough for most people. But I think the problem is that just trying to suppress dangerous untruths doesn’t seem to work in our society, and the greater the capacity to do so in other societies, the more that capacity is itself incredibly easy to abuse. I don’t have solutions for this. I wish I did, because I have no reason to think I might be immune to untruths.
  - Torches66 7y ago
    Now do racial diversity.
    - pjc50 7y ago
r721 7y ago
Thread: https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/1211262124724510721 https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/1211262124724510721

115 points by dfabulich 7y ago

For the convenience of those who can't conveniently read a PDF on their current device: > The role that YouTube and its behind-the-scenes recommendation algorithm plays in encouraging online radicalization has been suggested by both journalists and academics alike. This study directly quantifies these claims by examining the role that YouTubes algorithm plays in suggesting radicalized content. After categorizing nearly 800 political channels, we were able to differentiate between political schemas in order to analyze the algorithm traffic flows out and between each group. > After conducting a detailed analysis of recommendations received by each channel type, we refute the popular radicalization claims. To the contrary, these data suggest that YouTubes recommendation algorithm actively discourages viewers from visiting radicalizing or extremist content. Instead, the algorithm is shown to favor mainstream media and cable news content over independent YouTube channels with slant towards left-leaning or politically neutral channels. Our study thus suggests that YouTubes recommendation algorithm fails to promote inflammatory or radicalized content, as previously claimed by several outlets. Tweet from the author: https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743168246771716 https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743168246771716 > It turns out the late 2019 algorithm DESTROYS conspiracy theorists, provocateurs and white identitarians > Helps partisans > Hurts almost everyone else.

falcolas 7y ago
> Our study thus suggests that YouTubes recommendation algorithm fails to promote inflammatory or radicalized content Asserting that "mainstream media and cable news content" is neither inflammatory nor radicalized. I'm not sure how accurate this statement is today.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  True or not, this isn't what they were referring to.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  I believe it is generally accepted definitionally that "mainstream" isn't radicalized (i.e. mainstream is defined as "not the radical fringe"). Can you think of an example of why that definitional assertion should be discarded?
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I don't think it matches modern usage. I regularly see complaints about how suchandsuch politician with mainstream support has a "radical agenda" or is "radicalizing" their followers. If we insist on the definitional assertion, it becomes a lot less obvious why we should care about the original claim. Is it even a problem for Youtube to promote "radical" content if "radical" just means "different than what mainstream news channels say"?
  - stevenicr 7y ago
    what spicylemon pointed out, and I find many 'mainstream' news shows to be radical and not fringe. Sometimes it's little slants added by hosts around facts.. sometimes it's hosts adding in little details to what interviewees have said - once you start to see it, it becomes sadly obvious that it's radical bias, and yet looking at the polls or seeing other people's fbook feeds, and such - it's not fringe. Sometimes it's fact being left out, sometimes it's only reported what can be shown as bad.. or good - and avoiding showing other details. I must say 'mainstream' news both right and left has been radical in their support or resistance of certain narratives.
cm2012 7y ago
This should be the top comment of the thread.
baking 7y ago
Anyone who regularly browses their Youtube recommendations knows that the algorithm changed dramatically a few months ago.
- on_and_off 7y ago
  I haven't realized :/. Do you have some examples ? Now that I think about it, I distinctly remember is that at some point Youtube started throwing lots of "it's always sunny in philadelphia" scenes at my face. I am not even angry, I discovered my favorite show this way.
  - khawkins 7y ago
    I used to see a heavy dose of my subscribed channels in my recommendations, now only a fraction of them are represented. We're talking channels where I watch nearly every video they post but they won't show up in my recommendations. There's clearly stuff Youtube "likes" and even a naive recommendation engine would perform better.
    - pitay 7y ago
      Same here. That's why I changed a couple of subscribed channels to send me notifications, it puts updates of these channels in the notifications area and sends me an email for every update. The June 2019 change of algorithm was that big and hostile that I had to turn on notifications.
    - on_and_off 7y ago
      interesting, there must be some variation in the algorithm. I have just loaded Youtube and in the 8 recommendations above the fold : - 4 of them are from my subscriptions - 1 is the last published in a series of videos I have been watching, published 2 hours ago - 1 is from a channel I have never watched AFAIK, but contains a sketch from a comic duo I watched often on Youtube - leaving 2 lectures that don't come directly from what I watched recently. If anything, I would prefer if Youtube was pushing way more original topics. One thing I have remarked is that their algorithm is very "grippy". Once it identifies a topic you might be interested in, it makes sure to find other videos on the same topic. As an example I stumbled on a beautiful video about what life is like for an man with autism. The next day Youtube recommended me a video where women with autism talk about their lives (actually I remember having already watched that video several years ago, so a meh recommendation). Today Youtube wants me to watch a video about autistic children in China. Also, with the magic of A/B groups, we might be running on 2 very different algorithms for all we know. > even a naive recommendation engine would perform better. I think you are underestimating the complexity of the problem :)
sandworm101 7y ago
Whether it works one way or the other, I find what it recommends to me very disturbing. Example: I'm a former rock climber and am very interested in knot and knot-tying. I watched some vids on hemp ropes, including "braiding" strands of rope. That points me to a video on hair braiding, which I watch as I do find it mildly interesting, a knot system that won't bind into a mess. Now youtube is recommending me very odd videos of little girls doing makeup and gymnastics. And all the static ads are suddenly only dating aps, "find flirty women in your area" junk. What do I need to watch to get out of this inappropriate category?
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  I think your Google account has a page where it tells you what it thinks your interested in and lets you opt out of mistakes. Not used it in a while so it may have changed.
- suby 7y ago
  Perhaps removing it from your watch history? There should be some ui somewhere on yt to do this, or at the very least there used to be. Personally, Youtube seems to only recommend me mainstream media now (CNN, MSNBC, even The Daily Show). It's better than pushing me towards right wing independent media like Sargon and Ben Shapiro, which is what it used to do every chance it got, but I very much don't want to watch either option. As a Bernie Sanders supporter, I'm not exactly wanting what either of them are pushing. It's not that I want an echochamber, but it'd be nice to have political commentary which did not try to either obviously lie, or selectively tell the truth in order to paint a false narrative.
- wcoenen 7y ago
  > What do I need to watch to get out of this inappropriate category Nothing, just tap the three dots on wrongly recommended videos and then "not interested" or "don't recommend channel". The recommendation algorithm might need more than one data point but it will catch on eventually.
  - duskwuff 7y ago
    The recommendation algorithm can be really bad at taking negative feedback. It'll sometimes stop recommending videos from a specific source when you give negative feedback, but once it's decided you might be interested in a topic, getting it to stop recommending videos related to that topic feels impossible. The only reliable way to get it to stop recommending inappropriate content is to delete the videos that triggered those recommendations from your viewing history.
dathinab 7y ago
> over independent YouTube channels with slant towards left-leaning or politically neutral channels. Why were they explicitly listing this channel types not including right-leaning? From what I heard there indeed is no problem with left radicalization but with right radicalization and mind fuckery through conspiracie channels and similar. I guess I have to read that article
- testaccount21 7y ago
  I think you've mis-parsed. The algorithm itself (as opposed to the independent channels) is "with [a] slant towards left-leaning or politically neutral channels." i.e, it recommends channels which are slightly left-of-center.
jdjdjjsjs 7y ago
I don't entirely understand the linked chart here. But best I can make of it, has 1/4 the # of impressions as MSM and almost half the impressions for either partisan left or right. This is a minor issue that is showing impression numbers the equivalent of entire media organizations. How is this evidence that Youtube's algorithm does not promote radicalized content?

minimaxir 7y ago

It should be noted that this research was likely published with a specific agenda in mind: https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743217982803970?s=21 https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743217982803970?... > My new article explains in detail. It takes aim at the NYT (in particular, @kevinroose) who have been on myth-filled crusade vs social media. We should start questioning the authoritative status of outlets that have soiled themselves with agendas. From the linked Medium article: > These events, along with the promotion of the now-debunked YouTube “rabbit hole” theory, reveal what many suspect — that old media titans, presenting themselves as non-partisan and authoritative, are in fact trapped in echo chambers of their own creation, and are no more incentivized to report the truth than YouTube grifters. The paper itself makes a fundamental flaw of using logged out recommendations and attempts to disprove 2018 algos even after substantial changes since, which invalidates the research entirely.

fastball 7y ago
Less of an agenda than the aforementioned NYT article. Sure, this research doesn't use 2018 algos, because it's 2019. I guess the NYT and others should've done the research in the first place then. It certainly doesn't invalidate the research - it shows that the claims made by others are probably not accurate in 2019 on YT.
- shard972 7y ago
  > maybe the NYT should have done some research Wow, never heard that one before.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jakeogh 7y ago
  They dont like the competition. https://imgur.com/VUdcIou https://imgur.com/VUdcIou
- metamet 7y ago
  I believe the 2019 algo was dramatically changed recently, meaning that the core of the 2018 algo was present throughout the majority of 2019.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

This is a pretty clever way to identify natural recommendation levels. I wish the authors had given a bit more justification of why net impression flows are a good metric, but I don't want to quibble too much, because it seems pretty reasonable and it's certainly a vast improvement over what I was afraid I'd find going in. > However, it seems that the company will have to decide first if the platform is meant for independent YouTubers or if it is just another outlet for mainstream media. Come on, authors, save it for the blog post.

motohagiography 7y ago

Does Youtube radicalize? Edward Snowden made an observation during his Joe Rogan interview that compartmentalization within the CIA is necessary so that no person can see all the bad stuff at once and freak out at its total enormity. As a sysadmin, he was in effect radicalized by seeing the bigger picture at NSA that wasn't visible to other analysts. I think Youtube shows you an analogous bigger picture that makes the dominant media narratives seem fabricated and dishonest when viewed together, even if individually most of it is sincere (if dumb) reporting. The discourse around radicalization has also been abused by editors and academics with agendas to de-normalize formerly moderate views, and who treat the interests of regular people as beneath discourse. So it's hard to take any discussions of radicalization seriously, even ones questioning whether it's even a thing, as you still have to acknowledge the nonsense it has been freighted with first.

TTPrograms 7y ago
Which formerly moderate views do you believe are being de-normalized by "editors and academics with agendas"?
- pjkundert 7y ago
  As a “libertarian”, I have to hold my tongue and smile in most conversations. The Overton Window has become so shockingly small, that most “normals” educated in the last 20 or so years no longer even realize that they have been mentally neutered.
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    I mean, of all the different libertarian philosophies, most of them are radical, in so much as they all seek to distance the individual from systems of government and social institutions. Since those things are what most people use day to day, and in the US only one of the two political parties leans that way, it does put you in a minority camp whose views can be felt as a sort of existential threat. (And honestly, politics and religion should both be kept out of most conversations)

bjourne 7y ago

I'm curious why all submissions about YouTube manipulating their recommendation algorithm gets flagged? I've submitted lots of links to HN, most of which never gets any points of course, but only those about YouTube have ever been flagged: * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21793498 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21793498 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20475792 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20475792

zzzcpan 7y ago
I can speculate that this particular submission might be flagged because it goes against anti-Youtube propaganda that some HN-popular companies are participating in, like Mozilla. And, you know, people love to suppress opposing views to their propaganda. But of course there might be more specific organized effort too.

faizshah 7y ago

Difficult to take this analysis seriously when CNN is categorized with The Young Turks as “Partisan Left.” Regardless of what you think of either channel the programming of these two channels is dramatically different. The fact that the tags were manually created by the experimenters and were manually assigned by the experimenters throws the results even more into question.

datashow 7y ago
I don't follow your logic. Yes, CNN and TYT are very different. This only means they can be tagged differently, but it doesn't mean they cannot be tagged under same category. For example, The Selfish Gene and Advanced Algebra are two very different books, but they can be both categorized as nonfiction. Maybe you are right with the conclusion, i.e. CNN or TYT should not be both categorized as “Partisan Left,” but you need a better reason.
- faizshah 7y ago
  In my view it’s a good example of why the manual labeling is flawed as CNN regularly criticizes progressives and airs republican views that TYT then responds to and criticizes CNN for. To categorize them both as “Partisan Left Focused on politics and exclusively critical of Republicans” is a stark example of why manual labeling of these channels, especially by the two authors and some unnamed person the authors trusted (pg. 4), cannot be unbiased and a survey methodology or topic model would produce more persuasive results.
  - ravenstine 7y ago
    Isn't that kind of like saying InfoWars isn't a conspiracy/entertainment website because it regularly posts about actual news?
  - rapnie 7y ago
    Note I did not downvote you. These links provide some info on bias of the 2 channels: CNN: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ TYT: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-young-turks/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-young-turks/

joe_the_user 7y ago

This quote raises questions: "The scraped data, as well as the YouTube API, provides usa view of the recommendations presented to an anonymous account. In other words, the account has not ”watched” any videos, retaining the neutral baseline recommendations, described in further detail by YouTube in their recent paper that explains the inner workings of the recommendation algorithm[38]. One should note that the recommendations list provided to a user who has an account and who is logged into YouTube might differ from the list presented to this anonymous account." Many discussions of radicalization talk about recommendations coming after someone has watched a number of videos. This situation is that after N videos, the algorithm starts to see a pattern, a niche, that the user fits into and then recommends more niche content. Once the user watches the niche content, just more niche content is recommended, or that-niche and mainstream content is recommended and the mainstream content is boring. In a sense, I don't see how a blind recommendation system could escape this situation. It seems more an inherent problem of blind recommendation systems. What could be a better approach? * Better education in the US and the world so people have BS detectors? * Instead of unlabeled recommendations, the algorithm categorizes what you're seen, categorizes what it's recommending and let's the user say what category they want and remove or add categories for recommendation. * Have more ordinary search tool and a better categorization system (Youtube is a horrible black-box now, search is terrible, recommendations is terrible, I get videos from other sites mostly).

pitay 7y ago
Have the recommendation system mix it up, put niches that are somewhat similar in the recommendations not quite as often, put things a bit further away less often, etc. This should have the algorithm recommend counterpoints which are clearly visible to the user. This is assuming things that are partisan one way are similar to things that are partisan in the other way and counter partisan content. Avoid censorship, censorship is too easily abused.
- pjc50 7y ago
  We should not classify "refusal to ever recommend X because you know X to be untrue or defamatory" as censorship.

XPKBandMaidCzun 7y ago

I see the term radicalization is being brought up, do we serve ourselves by focusing on superficial presentations that won't be the same in 10 years rather than how similar everyone is: Feeling enlightened, competitive and lack consideration that their perceived "ideological adversary" is every bit vulnerable, needy, and scared as themselves? How is this different from couple's therapy, just at long distances w/ groups? None of them want to have a picnic and cooperate with each other. And who could blame them? They both fail to recognize each others hardships, yet "get" the human condition better than the other so much better. They begin by insinuating there's another group that has a character flaw, and is so angry. Yet - all the while, they're angry and accusing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_identification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_identification) I have a hypothesis: It's all acting out, cathartic, to blow off steam. They're not at the soup kitchen or volunteering. They have a dysfunctional coping mechanism stemming from earlier traumas, and it's more profitable to captivate lonely, bored people by stir up people's anxiety existentially than help them find common ground. Because if people realized the common ground they shared and cooperated, people would start to pass laws and regulations to make healthcare, employment, housing, education for more fair for legal persons. The whole concept of political sides is a sham: They are legal persons and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs. If common sense stuff isn't being fixed and people are bikeshedding: the fix is in, people in suits are giving each other high fives and laughing at you. You're being suckered into squandering your political rights (you voted, or can!) to take worthless, symbolic digs at people rather than get what you need, better laws for the practical issues everyone shares. Hint: they tend to be boring.

nothingtos33 7y ago
Youtube recommended this to my son: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4LfJnj66HVQ https://youtube.com/watch?v=4LfJnj66HVQ Please watch it and tell me what you think of it.
- fruffy 7y ago
  What do you mean? Gucci Gang is a pretty well known hip-hop track liked by the "youth". I am not surprised it was recommended to your son since most of his peers probably have watched it.

Thorentis 7y ago

> with slant towards left-leaning or politically neutral channels So ... YouTube is actually politically biased? This would be an interesting study to continue. You would need to normalise for view counts etc. since I suspect there is a bias just in terms of numbers. The biggest channels are more progressive, left leaning, so YouTube could appear left-biased simply by recommending most-viewed videos.

cirno 7y ago

This applies every bit as much to Google's web search as it does YouTube search. I know of many marginalized people targeted by online hate groups that have been smeared with proven-false allegations and doxxed online, and these stalking websites are consistently ranked as the top results in Google search and Google Images search results for their names. Google's AI is clearly trained to recognize and promote controversy, because it is human nature for controversy to drive engagement.

taneq 7y ago
I've been convinced for a while now that Facebook tries to start fights between people of opposite ideology. I'm sure it's just that their algorithms have picked up that pro-skub people are highly likely to reply to anti-skub comments in pro-skub threads (since that was the pattern I was seeing) but it sure comes across as trying to cause drama.
- pixl97 7y ago
  Kind of reminds me of CGP Grey's this video will make you angry.
Kiro 7y ago
What applies? The submission concludes the opposite of what you're describing. > To the contrary, these data suggest that YouTubes recommendation algorithm actively discourages viewers from visiting radicalizing or extremist content.
- DanBC 7y ago
  ...but only for logged out users. They didn't test what happens for people with an account.

EETruth 7y ago

Internet is way way too cheap. There's no reason why the working class should have access to it, their brains are not advanced enough to handle it...maybe run a government service for bureaucracy stuff + buying tickets, etc for free then have the full WWW accessible only for the high-middle class/rich/institutions.

twic 7y ago

Some other research came to a compatible conclusion: https://www.wired.com/story/not-youtubes-algorithm-radicalizes-people/ https://www.wired.com/story/not-youtubes-algorithm-radicaliz...

hooande 7y ago

I think this study is testing the wrong hypothesis. Their idea is that people get "radicalized" by being recommended extremist content after watching mainstream news videos. ie, fox news -> 911 conspiracy videos. They demonstrate that this doesn't happen often. But the real problem wirh youtube is intracategory recommendations. If someone watches one conspiracy video, then their recommendations become all conspiracy videos which inevitably leads to them consuming more and more far right content. This seems like good science and well conducted research. I just don't know if they had the correct view of the problem

trekrich 7y ago
Heaven forbid if people looked at other ideas than the official narrative! And not all conspiracy theories are far right content! Do you have much bias?!
jansan 7y ago
If someone watches one conspiracy video, then their recommendations become all conspiracy videos which inevitably leads to them consuming more and more far right content. Just in case you didn't know, conspiracy theories aren't an exclusively right wing thing.
- krapp 7y ago
  >Just in case you didn't know, conspiracy theories aren't an exclusively right wing thing. Exclusively, no. Primarily, yes. At the moment, right-wing extremism is enjoying a global surge in popularity, so that ideology currently dominates conspiracy narratives online, and contributes to their virality.
  - Torches66 7y ago
    Alternative media is seeing a surge of right-wing because mainstream media is exclusively left-wing, often downright conspiratorially so. I could turn on the TV at prime time and expose my family to the supposed benefits of transgenderism, homosexuality, racial diversity, etc. I am infinitely more likely to see a positive portrayal of a mixed-race lesbian than a nationalist family man. If you share that perspective, then that's probably wonderful. You might even suppose I must have a serious flaw to see things differently. You need to realise that half of everyone else sees it the other way.

irthomasthomas 7y ago

I devised a simple test for this. After the last US election there was some analysis and discussion of Google's youtube recommendations engine which appeared to show a strong bias towards conspiracy videos, which in turn led to videos that generally promoted Trump over Clinton. Now, I'm not American, and don't care who your president is, but it was around this time that I realised youtube's search engine had become pretty useless for me. Since then I only use youtube for watching tutorials or technical talks (and old TV shows that are hard to find elsewhere). I try to avoid the search engine and recommendations altogether. Ok so that's the why, now what's this simple test? Just search youtube for CERN and note the mix of results. I found that most of the results could be categorised as either pro-science or anti-science/conspiracy. In an ideal world I would expect to see the official CERN channel at the top, followed by sciency videos about CERN, and finally the fringe conspiracy videos about wormholes to other dimensions and such. It's fun to use tor to see how the results vary by country. The last time I did this was 2017, and I don't have the data to hand, but it was roughly 70-80% of results in the first few pages where conspiracy related. Here's a screenshot of my result in 2017 when I'm logged in. https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/28928495/71557922-17e1b780-2a45-11ea-84de-93a9725dc6af.jpg https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/28928495/71557922-... I just had a quick look now and my first impression is that results have certainly changed and improved, but it's a mixed bag. I will find my old data and update it soon.

throwaway294072 7y ago

The far-right radicalization effect is well known. You can test easily with a dedicated account. https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-youtube-pulled-these-men-down-a-vortex-of-far-right-hate https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-youtube-pulled-these-men-d... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtubes-alternative-influence-network-breeds-rightwing-radicalisation https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/sep/18/report-youtube... https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/youtube-conspiracy-radicalization.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/youtube-conspiracy-radic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nrz4-FZx6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Nrz4-FZx6k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g

throwaway294072 7y ago
All this downvotes for providing a list of sources? Interesting...

Mountain_Skies 7y ago

We can keep doing study after study but the kernel of all of this seems to be an inability of certain academics and tech industry titans to understand that not everyone thinks alike them or holds the same values. There is an undercurrent in all of this confusion that if we can just control what others are and hear, we can make them believe the exact same things we believe. Afterall, we are right, they are wrong, so the error must be due to some contamination of their minds by dangerous content. Eliminate access to that content and all will be well. Banning wrong think from YouTube might be good for advertisers and Google's bottom line but it's not going to make thoughts that have been around since the dawn of humanity magically disappear.

pjc50 7y ago
> we are right, they are wrong Vaccines work; the safety risks are minimal; there is no reliable evidence that they cause autism and the primary proponent of the theory was eventually struck off for malpractice. Getting this wrong will cause the unnecessary suffering and death of small children. The earth is spherical, and this has been known since ancient times. Some things are not a matter of opinion.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 7y ago
  > The earth is spherical Well, close enough for most people. But I think the problem is that just trying to suppress dangerous untruths doesn’t seem to work in our society, and the greater the capacity to do so in other societies, the more that capacity is itself incredibly easy to abuse. I don’t have solutions for this. I wish I did, because I have no reason to think I might be immune to untruths.
- Torches66 7y ago
  Now do racial diversity.
  - pjc50 7y ago

r721 7y ago

Thread: https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/1211262124724510721 https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/1211262124724510721