4 ms·

> are particularly bad if you are conservative or have gender critical ideas I downvoted you because this is not true. Watch YT logged out and you will discove

> are particularly bad if you are conservative or have gender critical ideas I downvoted you because this is not true. Watch YT logged out and you will discover it quickly starts recommending far right videos, recommending more extreme videos as you watch them. As for "gender critical" and your following paragraph, people aren't being banned for simply misgendering people. It's intentional misgendering from hateful people, often as a final straw after many similar hateful actions.

manfredo 6y ago
Doing what you suggest has an immense issue of selection bias. You go into youtube trying to see if it recommends right wing videos, and you're going to be a lot more likely to click on right wing videos. Which then informs the algorithm that you're interested in right wing videos. The correct way to test this is to write a program, not to just watch youtube while logged off. I used selenium to do exactly this. Start at a video, and do a breadth based search based on recommendations. No such preference for far right videos exist. It's frequently get into a hole of certain topics (e.g. first recommendation is on knitting, subsequent recommendations have a higher chance of being about knitting, and so on), but there was no substantial representation of right wing content. And it's not just me with a selenium driver. Other researchers have examined youtube and reached the same conclusion: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.11211.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.11211.pdf
seebetter 6y ago
That’s not true about YT wormholes pushing viewers into far right content. And yes people are being banned for innocuous misgendering. And for saying only biological women are women. It’s not hate speech to say that. Declaring things as true don’t make them true. Let’s try reasoning from first principles and acknowledging that principles actually exist. Amorphous relativism is a destructive force in society.
- specialist 6y ago
  "That’s not true about YT wormholes pushing viewers into far right content." What measure of proof do you require?
- khrbrt 6y ago
  The YouTube alt-right pipeline is well documented. ACM study: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3351095.3372879 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3351095.3372879 MIT Technology Review summary of the study: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a-study-of-youtube-comments-shows-how-its-turning-people-onto-the-alt-right/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a-study-o... NYTimes feature: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/yo...
- thebooktocome 6y ago
  What's the first principle that says "only women have cervixes"? It's medically false and objectively wrong. Now who is peddling in "amorphous relativism"?
  - trcollinson 6y ago
    I don't love fighting over these sorts of things, especially on Hacker News. So I am not trying to fight at all. But I am genuinely and honestly asking, where do I find research to say that not "only women have cervices"? After Googling for a few minutes I have found quite a bit of research on how cervical health of a female sexual partner can affect the male partner. I have found how male sexual partner health related to HPV can effect the female cervix. I have found information on how trans-men need to continue to have their cervix tested for medical issues. I haven't found any information on if chromosomal issues can cause cervices to be present in men. Or is your point that trans-men have cervices and so not "only women have cervices"? If that is the argument you are making, that is fine. Though then I am not sure what you are arguing. But I will just accept your opinion if that is what it is.
    - thebooktocome 6y ago
      It's not an opinion: that's the whole point. This is basic, "there exists X which is Y, therefore not all X is not-Y" logic. I find your framing device unnecessarily obtuse. Do all women have cervixes? No. Do all non-women lack cervixes? Also no. It's that simple.
      - trcollinson 6y ago
        You know, I'm trying to steer this towards a conversation. I guess I missed the mark. But I am undeterred. I will still try to pull something educational out for myself. According to the knowledge I have humans born with two X chromosomes have a cervix unless they have a generic abnormality or have a surgical procedure to remove the cervix. Humans born with an X and Y chromosome do not have a cervix. There may be humans born with different chromosome arrangements that do have a cervix, but I can't find a lot of, or any, medical research on such. If there is, I would like to read about it. That's what I'm asking. Again, according to my knowledge, humans can designate themselves with whatever noun (woman, man) and pronoun (he, she, it, etc) they wish. That means that humans who designate themselves as man can have a cervix because they picked the designation and that designation does not designate a set of reproductive organs. Education is not obtuse. Language had become complicated. Social norms have become complicated. I'm trying to actually get an understanding from various sources.

manfredo 6y ago

Doing what you suggest has an immense issue of selection bias. You go into youtube trying to see if it recommends right wing videos, and you're going to be a lot more likely to click on right wing videos. Which then informs the algorithm that you're interested in right wing videos. The correct way to test this is to write a program, not to just watch youtube while logged off. I used selenium to do exactly this. Start at a video, and do a breadth based search based on recommendations. No such preference for far right videos exist. It's frequently get into a hole of certain topics (e.g. first recommendation is on knitting, subsequent recommendations have a higher chance of being about knitting, and so on), but there was no substantial representation of right wing content. And it's not just me with a selenium driver. Other researchers have examined youtube and reached the same conclusion: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.11211.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1912.11211.pdf

seebetter 6y ago

That’s not true about YT wormholes pushing viewers into far right content. And yes people are being banned for innocuous misgendering. And for saying only biological women are women. It’s not hate speech to say that. Declaring things as true don’t make them true. Let’s try reasoning from first principles and acknowledging that principles actually exist. Amorphous relativism is a destructive force in society.

specialist 6y ago
"That’s not true about YT wormholes pushing viewers into far right content." What measure of proof do you require?
khrbrt 6y ago
The YouTube alt-right pipeline is well documented. ACM study: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3351095.3372879 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3351095.3372879 MIT Technology Review summary of the study: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a-study-of-youtube-comments-shows-how-its-turning-people-onto-the-alt-right/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/29/276000/a-study-o... NYTimes feature: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/yo...
thebooktocome 6y ago
What's the first principle that says "only women have cervixes"? It's medically false and objectively wrong. Now who is peddling in "amorphous relativism"?
- trcollinson 6y ago
  I don't love fighting over these sorts of things, especially on Hacker News. So I am not trying to fight at all. But I am genuinely and honestly asking, where do I find research to say that not "only women have cervices"? After Googling for a few minutes I have found quite a bit of research on how cervical health of a female sexual partner can affect the male partner. I have found how male sexual partner health related to HPV can effect the female cervix. I have found information on how trans-men need to continue to have their cervix tested for medical issues. I haven't found any information on if chromosomal issues can cause cervices to be present in men. Or is your point that trans-men have cervices and so not "only women have cervices"? If that is the argument you are making, that is fine. Though then I am not sure what you are arguing. But I will just accept your opinion if that is what it is.
  - thebooktocome 6y ago
    It's not an opinion: that's the whole point. This is basic, "there exists X which is Y, therefore not all X is not-Y" logic. I find your framing device unnecessarily obtuse. Do all women have cervixes? No. Do all non-women lack cervixes? Also no. It's that simple.
    - trcollinson 6y ago
      You know, I'm trying to steer this towards a conversation. I guess I missed the mark. But I am undeterred. I will still try to pull something educational out for myself. According to the knowledge I have humans born with two X chromosomes have a cervix unless they have a generic abnormality or have a surgical procedure to remove the cervix. Humans born with an X and Y chromosome do not have a cervix. There may be humans born with different chromosome arrangements that do have a cervix, but I can't find a lot of, or any, medical research on such. If there is, I would like to read about it. That's what I'm asking. Again, according to my knowledge, humans can designate themselves with whatever noun (woman, man) and pronoun (he, she, it, etc) they wish. That means that humans who designate themselves as man can have a cervix because they picked the designation and that designation does not designate a set of reproductive organs. Education is not obtuse. Language had become complicated. Social norms have become complicated. I'm trying to actually get an understanding from various sources.