7 ms·

YouTube Has Been 'Actively Promoting' Videos Spreading Climate Denialism

42 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

g82918 7y ago
I don't get the surprise. People want climate denialism. Youtube gives it. They get paid. How is this unusual?
- izacus 7y ago
  It's not unusual, it's just that I guess the "old" media expects Google to actively adjust algorithms to control narrative just like they do. For better or for worse. Plenty can be said about bad social influences of modern quackery and different types of anti- movements.
  - mikro2nd 7y ago
    I think the complaint is that Google is "actively adjusting algorithms to control narrative" -- just in a direction that directly violates the overwhelming consensus of scientists in the field, common sense and any sense of self-preservation humanity might still exhibit.
- glerk 7y ago
  Traditional media publications like Time magazine are direct competitors of YouTube. Their strategy here is to push this narrative that content platforms should act like active content editors/curators and be held to the same standard. A piece like this is infuriating to read if you take it at face value.
  - pdkl95 7y ago
    > Their strategy here is to push this narrative that content platforms should act like active content editors/curators and be held to the same standard. Except this isn't just a "narrative" being pushed by Time; YouTube explicitly wants the power to curate and actively uses that power in their business model: they curate ("recommend") videos to optimize engagement. If they want to wield editorial power, they are need to be held responsible for the consequences of their exercise of that power. The traditional way to avoid this problem is to make the platform into a common carrier that explicitly and visibly segregates itself away from anything that might be seen as using editorial power. The post office isn't held responsible for someone mailing a threatening letter because they just delivered the (sealed) letter and couldn't know anything about the content. > direct competitors Yes, as a publication that can be held responsible for their editorial decisions, Time would like YouTube to be held to the same standard.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    What's the argument that youtube isn't actively edited or curated?
- fulafel 7y ago
  It's currently a bigger threat to human welfare than most things they ban, so platforms that exert editorial control in accordance with mainstream morals should do more about it. An interesting topic is that since they ban some positive everyday-life things, to what extent should they (as perceived by the audience) have a burden of impartiality in the spirit of free discourse in the open society?
mikaeluman 7y ago
The mere word "denialism" is a scary sign of the times we live in. Is the idea that anything that goes against the current "consensus" be removed? And is this just regarding climate change or does it apply to how we think about physics, statistics or even software engineering? Are you an "agile denialist"? This type of reasoning shows a profound lack of understanding of what free speech is and why it's fundamental to our society. That involves catering to people who produce/consume content that is not consensus-based, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Did it even occur to these so-called journalists that if Greta wants to do research prep for a debate against a "denialist", then it's a very useful feature to be able to search for all their arguments and get them served to you? Or should she and others just focus on censorship and deplatforming instead?
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Except refuting BS is 10x harder than creating it By the way I'm an Iowa denialist. I refuse to believe the state of Iowa exists. Don't tell me you're part of the brainwashed masses that believe Iowa exists.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Clearly you're delusional for thinking that Iowa does not exist, thus every argument you've ever made and will ever make can be dismissed. Furthermore, because you're an Iowa-denialist you probably should lose your job and never hold another job ever again. That's essentially the danger of this type of reasoning. Differences in opinion and disagreements end up essentially as feuds. I think that the Internet is partly to blame here, because the mob simply tries to outdo one another at destroying the arguments, and eventually, the person that disagrees. We can see the extreme examples of this in the case of the gender debate. I wonder whether some people fighting against climate change will become as extreme.
    - raverbashing 7y ago
      It's certainly an interesting discussion. There are levels and levels of believe and promotion. Some Iowa denialist might also reject someone from a job because the candidate claim they're from Iowa and that's obvious a lie. And what if you're making Iowa denial videos and that's causing people to vandalize cars with Iowa plates? But hey, it all started as a joke right? That guy Bob was a jerk and he was from Iowa. Or some company that's competing with your company was from Iowa so, hey, why not mess things up right?
perceptronas 7y ago
Isn't it good that you can view both sides of the issue and decide for yourself? Even debate could be seen as something that spreads "climate denialism".
- jstummbillig 7y ago
  I would argue that "deciding for yourself" is not as much a thing, as we would like it to be and we are faced with a dilemma: As humans we are dangerously incapable of reasoning about most of our increasingly complex worlds' and societies' mechanics, while forming opinions about them easily and quickly. We treat hard to reason about issues, that are not a matter of opinion, as if they were. In this contact bias plays a huge role: The more people are subject to a topic, the more important it will be to them. And the more people are subjected to the idea of x being true on that topic, the more people will think of x as true. I can easily believe that YouTube (as in "the code") does not have an unfair and systemic bias towards climate denialism. But yeah, if the algorithm pegs climate denialism videos as content that keep people engaged (maybe because it keeps them enraged) and keeps feeding them to more people, then I have no doubt that it statistically will convince more people of those ideas – and that is an issue.
acd 7y ago
I see a ethic issue with ai recommendations algorithms. Say that YouTube’s algorithm optimizes to offer viewers content that they would like to watch. This maximizes viewer platform engagement which maximizes advertisement revenue. Say a clinically depressed person starts to watch videos on YouTube. The algorithms does what is does well. Optimize viewer retention and offers more depressing videos to keep the viewer engaged. Viewer gets more even more depressed? What is the moral programming goals? Same could be said for example of violent content. Viewer watches violent content get offered violent content?
- raverbashing 7y ago
  This is the point that's made here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI (ironic that's an YT video, oh well...)
  - M4v3R 7y ago
    This is probably one of the most important videos to watch on YouTube. Thanks for sharing that.
- logicchains 7y ago
  Presumably an AI recommendation algorithm would be incentivised to at least show videos that encouraged a depressed viewer to stay alive to keep viewing, otherwise they'd get less engagement. Similarly encouraging viewers of violent content to go out and commit violence (and probably be jailed) would result in less engagement, so ideally the AI would learn not to do that.
  - LockAndLol 7y ago
    The deaths of people create more sad, depressing and violent content, which might attract more depressed and violent people. In the end, it all benefits Youtube.
  - thrwaway69 7y ago
    How many people suffering from depression actually attempt suicide after watching a depressive video rather than just continuing? My guess is, not many for AI to learn atm. [1] Students suffering from depression are 3x more likely to attempt and do so when they are less depressed. [3] US suicide rate is 14 per 100,000 (age adjusted and closer to youtube viewers). [0] Taking worst case 25:1 ratio for successful attempts. There would be 350 attempts for every 100,000. Let's say YouTube can somehow narrow down it to students suffering from depression (one category). 3x multiplier - 1050 attempts for 100,000. That's presumably only 1% of very specific targeted audience. You need to decrease that 1% to match people who will supposedly get triggered by a depressing video on YouTube. Conservative guess is 10x less so 0.1% and [2] 7% people of total population suffer from depression in US. Isn't that something around 0.007% of population? What is the motivating factor for the algorithm? Profit. I just don't see how it is magically supposed to learn that. In fact, individuals suffering from depression are more likely to be profitable for youtube if it earns money based on consumption alone. Disclaimer: this is a quick broad guess. It can be pretty wrong. 0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attempt#epidemiology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attempt#epidemiology 1] https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/depression-and-suicide-attempt-psychology-essay.php https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/depression-and-su... 2] https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHDetailedTabs2017/NSDUHDetailedTabs2017.htm https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-report... 3] https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/ https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/
sample2448 7y ago
Climate change is like a religion now, anyone who disagress or questions it is automatically infidel.. oops I mean "denialist"
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
indigochill 7y ago
This is rather uncanny timing as Youtube has been "suggesting" flat earth videos to me despite my never once having had any interest nor watched any videos about it or tangential topics. Something seems fishy. And I mean, I find the notion that you could mathematically justify a flat earth by rebuilding a different system of geometry that made it "true" within that system and then seeing what all the other consequences of that system would be pretty entertaining (same with the heliocentric vs geocentric model, though that one's easier and even beautiful - Venus's orbit, for instance, makes a rosette sort of shape if you use Earth as your frame of reference rather than the sun). But still, it's not something I've ever looked at on YouTube (or Google more generally) so I have no idea why I'm now seeing videos about it while watching primarily music videos.
- mercer 7y ago
  Are you by any chance an (American) Evangelical Christian? Or have you been watching videos in that general 'area'? I truly don't mean this to offend, but my experience with that particular denomination is that it's rife with all kinds of 'out-there' theories, ranging from anti-vax to young-earth creationism to harry-potter-gives-you-demons to various apocalyptic anti-christ-will-rise beliefs. I can sort of imagine that YouTube might make some connection between those 'out-there' beliefs (leaving aside whether they're true or reasonable or not) and flat-eartherism, regardless of how different they might be in their out-there-ness. Again, I'm not saying this to offend or imply that Christians are inclined to be flat-earthers; the vast majority of them that I know are not. I'm just really curious how you might be getting flat-earth videos and this was the first thing that came to mind.
bronlund 7y ago
This article is bullshit.

42 points by rahuldottech 7y ago

g82918 7y ago

I don't get the surprise. People want climate denialism. Youtube gives it. They get paid. How is this unusual?

izacus 7y ago
It's not unusual, it's just that I guess the "old" media expects Google to actively adjust algorithms to control narrative just like they do. For better or for worse. Plenty can be said about bad social influences of modern quackery and different types of anti- movements.
- mikro2nd 7y ago
  I think the complaint is that Google is "actively adjusting algorithms to control narrative" -- just in a direction that directly violates the overwhelming consensus of scientists in the field, common sense and any sense of self-preservation humanity might still exhibit.
glerk 7y ago
Traditional media publications like Time magazine are direct competitors of YouTube. Their strategy here is to push this narrative that content platforms should act like active content editors/curators and be held to the same standard. A piece like this is infuriating to read if you take it at face value.
- pdkl95 7y ago
  > Their strategy here is to push this narrative that content platforms should act like active content editors/curators and be held to the same standard. Except this isn't just a "narrative" being pushed by Time; YouTube explicitly wants the power to curate and actively uses that power in their business model: they curate ("recommend") videos to optimize engagement. If they want to wield editorial power, they are need to be held responsible for the consequences of their exercise of that power. The traditional way to avoid this problem is to make the platform into a common carrier that explicitly and visibly segregates itself away from anything that might be seen as using editorial power. The post office isn't held responsible for someone mailing a threatening letter because they just delivered the (sealed) letter and couldn't know anything about the content. > direct competitors Yes, as a publication that can be held responsible for their editorial decisions, Time would like YouTube to be held to the same standard.
- fulafel 7y ago
  What's the argument that youtube isn't actively edited or curated?
fulafel 7y ago
It's currently a bigger threat to human welfare than most things they ban, so platforms that exert editorial control in accordance with mainstream morals should do more about it. An interesting topic is that since they ban some positive everyday-life things, to what extent should they (as perceived by the audience) have a burden of impartiality in the spirit of free discourse in the open society?

mikaeluman 7y ago

The mere word "denialism" is a scary sign of the times we live in. Is the idea that anything that goes against the current "consensus" be removed? And is this just regarding climate change or does it apply to how we think about physics, statistics or even software engineering? Are you an "agile denialist"? This type of reasoning shows a profound lack of understanding of what free speech is and why it's fundamental to our society. That involves catering to people who produce/consume content that is not consensus-based, regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Did it even occur to these so-called journalists that if Greta wants to do research prep for a debate against a "denialist", then it's a very useful feature to be able to search for all their arguments and get them served to you? Or should she and others just focus on censorship and deplatforming instead?

raverbashing 7y ago
Except refuting BS is 10x harder than creating it By the way I'm an Iowa denialist. I refuse to believe the state of Iowa exists. Don't tell me you're part of the brainwashed masses that believe Iowa exists.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Clearly you're delusional for thinking that Iowa does not exist, thus every argument you've ever made and will ever make can be dismissed. Furthermore, because you're an Iowa-denialist you probably should lose your job and never hold another job ever again. That's essentially the danger of this type of reasoning. Differences in opinion and disagreements end up essentially as feuds. I think that the Internet is partly to blame here, because the mob simply tries to outdo one another at destroying the arguments, and eventually, the person that disagrees. We can see the extreme examples of this in the case of the gender debate. I wonder whether some people fighting against climate change will become as extreme.
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    It's certainly an interesting discussion. There are levels and levels of believe and promotion. Some Iowa denialist might also reject someone from a job because the candidate claim they're from Iowa and that's obvious a lie. And what if you're making Iowa denial videos and that's causing people to vandalize cars with Iowa plates? But hey, it all started as a joke right? That guy Bob was a jerk and he was from Iowa. Or some company that's competing with your company was from Iowa so, hey, why not mess things up right?

perceptronas 7y ago

Isn't it good that you can view both sides of the issue and decide for yourself? Even debate could be seen as something that spreads "climate denialism".

jstummbillig 7y ago
I would argue that "deciding for yourself" is not as much a thing, as we would like it to be and we are faced with a dilemma: As humans we are dangerously incapable of reasoning about most of our increasingly complex worlds' and societies' mechanics, while forming opinions about them easily and quickly. We treat hard to reason about issues, that are not a matter of opinion, as if they were. In this contact bias plays a huge role: The more people are subject to a topic, the more important it will be to them. And the more people are subjected to the idea of x being true on that topic, the more people will think of x as true. I can easily believe that YouTube (as in "the code") does not have an unfair and systemic bias towards climate denialism. But yeah, if the algorithm pegs climate denialism videos as content that keep people engaged (maybe because it keeps them enraged) and keeps feeding them to more people, then I have no doubt that it statistically will convince more people of those ideas – and that is an issue.

acd 7y ago

I see a ethic issue with ai recommendations algorithms. Say that YouTube’s algorithm optimizes to offer viewers content that they would like to watch. This maximizes viewer platform engagement which maximizes advertisement revenue. Say a clinically depressed person starts to watch videos on YouTube. The algorithms does what is does well. Optimize viewer retention and offers more depressing videos to keep the viewer engaged. Viewer gets more even more depressed? What is the moral programming goals? Same could be said for example of violent content. Viewer watches violent content get offered violent content?

raverbashing 7y ago
This is the point that's made here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFTWM7HV2UI (ironic that's an YT video, oh well...)
- M4v3R 7y ago
  This is probably one of the most important videos to watch on YouTube. Thanks for sharing that.
logicchains 7y ago
Presumably an AI recommendation algorithm would be incentivised to at least show videos that encouraged a depressed viewer to stay alive to keep viewing, otherwise they'd get less engagement. Similarly encouraging viewers of violent content to go out and commit violence (and probably be jailed) would result in less engagement, so ideally the AI would learn not to do that.
- LockAndLol 7y ago
  The deaths of people create more sad, depressing and violent content, which might attract more depressed and violent people. In the end, it all benefits Youtube.
- thrwaway69 7y ago
  How many people suffering from depression actually attempt suicide after watching a depressive video rather than just continuing? My guess is, not many for AI to learn atm. [1] Students suffering from depression are 3x more likely to attempt and do so when they are less depressed. [3] US suicide rate is 14 per 100,000 (age adjusted and closer to youtube viewers). [0] Taking worst case 25:1 ratio for successful attempts. There would be 350 attempts for every 100,000. Let's say YouTube can somehow narrow down it to students suffering from depression (one category). 3x multiplier - 1050 attempts for 100,000. That's presumably only 1% of very specific targeted audience. You need to decrease that 1% to match people who will supposedly get triggered by a depressing video on YouTube. Conservative guess is 10x less so 0.1% and [2] 7% people of total population suffer from depression in US. Isn't that something around 0.007% of population? What is the motivating factor for the algorithm? Profit. I just don't see how it is magically supposed to learn that. In fact, individuals suffering from depression are more likely to be profitable for youtube if it earns money based on consumption alone. Disclaimer: this is a quick broad guess. It can be pretty wrong. 0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attempt#epidemiology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attempt#epidemiology 1] https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/depression-and-suicide-attempt-psychology-essay.php https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/depression-and-su... 2] https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHDetailedTabs2017/NSDUHDetailedTabs2017.htm https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-report... 3] https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/ https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/

sample2448 7y ago

Climate change is like a religion now, anyone who disagress or questions it is automatically infidel.. oops I mean "denialist"

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

indigochill 7y ago

This is rather uncanny timing as Youtube has been "suggesting" flat earth videos to me despite my never once having had any interest nor watched any videos about it or tangential topics. Something seems fishy. And I mean, I find the notion that you could mathematically justify a flat earth by rebuilding a different system of geometry that made it "true" within that system and then seeing what all the other consequences of that system would be pretty entertaining (same with the heliocentric vs geocentric model, though that one's easier and even beautiful - Venus's orbit, for instance, makes a rosette sort of shape if you use Earth as your frame of reference rather than the sun). But still, it's not something I've ever looked at on YouTube (or Google more generally) so I have no idea why I'm now seeing videos about it while watching primarily music videos.

mercer 7y ago
Are you by any chance an (American) Evangelical Christian? Or have you been watching videos in that general 'area'? I truly don't mean this to offend, but my experience with that particular denomination is that it's rife with all kinds of 'out-there' theories, ranging from anti-vax to young-earth creationism to harry-potter-gives-you-demons to various apocalyptic anti-christ-will-rise beliefs. I can sort of imagine that YouTube might make some connection between those 'out-there' beliefs (leaving aside whether they're true or reasonable or not) and flat-eartherism, regardless of how different they might be in their out-there-ness. Again, I'm not saying this to offend or imply that Christians are inclined to be flat-earthers; the vast majority of them that I know are not. I'm just really curious how you might be getting flat-earth videos and this was the first thing that came to mind.

bronlund 7y ago

This article is bullshit.