4 ms·

> YouTube recommendations can be delightful, but they can also be dangerous. The platform has a history of recommending harmful content — from pandemic conspira

by untog 6y ago

> YouTube recommendations can be delightful, but they can also be dangerous. The platform has a history of recommending harmful content — from pandemic conspiracies to political disinformation — to its users, even if they’ve previously viewed harmless content. What part of this is untrue? And again, you're saying "getting rid of it" without evidence. It's a study. It does not mention banning anything, anywhere. If the argument is that they should not study this because it might lead to bans in the future then you're being pro-censorship in order to promote anti-censorship which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

im3w1l 6y ago
Having tried to get rid of things in the past is evidence. The very loaded choice of words they use is another. I'm not saying they should not study this thing. I am just discussing their aims, because I think it's interesting, and it may inform others' choice of whether to participate or not.
heartbeats 6y ago
> What part of this is untrue? The characterization of pandemic conspiracies and political disinformation as harmful. It's like kids and allergies. You never hear about kids who grew up on farms being allergic to animals - it's always those whose parents didn't have any when they were growing up. If people aren't subject to misinformation, they'll never develop the sense of who's lying and who isn't. It used to be that we gave common-sense advice - "don't believe everything you read on the Internet". Now, it's the other way around - "we must cleanse the Internet of harmful content". Being exposed to misinformation is good for you, and it's good for democracy.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  "I never heard of it happening, so it is universally true that it never happens." Meanwhile, the actual state of affairs is[0] that there's one allergic farmer child per three allergic non-farmer children. Don't believe everything you read online. [0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11048766/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11048766/

by untog 6y ago

im3w1l 6y ago

Having tried to get rid of things in the past is evidence. The very loaded choice of words they use is another. I'm not saying they should not study this thing. I am just discussing their aims, because I think it's interesting, and it may inform others' choice of whether to participate or not.

heartbeats 6y ago

> What part of this is untrue? The characterization of pandemic conspiracies and political disinformation as harmful. It's like kids and allergies. You never hear about kids who grew up on farms being allergic to animals - it's always those whose parents didn't have any when they were growing up. If people aren't subject to misinformation, they'll never develop the sense of who's lying and who isn't. It used to be that we gave common-sense advice - "don't believe everything you read on the Internet". Now, it's the other way around - "we must cleanse the Internet of harmful content". Being exposed to misinformation is good for you, and it's good for democracy.

SiempreViernes 6y ago
"I never heard of it happening, so it is universally true that it never happens." Meanwhile, the actual state of affairs is[0] that there's one allergic farmer child per three allergic non-farmer children. Don't believe everything you read online. [0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11048766/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11048766/