7 ms·

" why don’t you object equally to people with megaphones intentionally flooding the zone with shit" That analogy is simply incorrect. You can spend your life o

" why don’t you object equally to people with megaphones intentionally flooding the zone with shit" That analogy is simply incorrect. You can spend your life on YouTube watching cat videos, no conspiracy theory in sight. Nobody can force you to watch their video on YouTube. So nobody has a megaphone in YouTube. Only YouTube itself has the megaphone, they can choose what to push to people. It is NOT TV where you have a single stream that everybody watched, and if you insert shit, everybody watches it.

bonestormii_ 6y ago
It's crazy. I started writing why I disagreed based on my visceral reaction to the topic. But as I constructed my arguments, they were not sound. So I suppose I agree? Hm. The above paragraph is sincere--that did happen. And interestingly, it shows the power of consuming the opposing view point. We all know that the government is currently spewing lies, and it is indeed a disgusting and corrosive thing. I want to silence it, but it's easy enough to contempt it from a distance. Let the truth and the lies be heard so that we as a people will grow wise to it all.
- timeeater 6y ago
  Personally I am not from the US, and I don't know that the government is spewing lies. What makes you so sure? And if you are so sure, why are you worried people could be swayed by the lies - why not make them equally sure with the information you have? However, I am happy with letting the courts decide. Where is the problem? I have seen lies from all big political parties in the US.
  - bra-ket 6y ago
    it's funny the lies this time are coming not from the government but from the opposition and their propaganda machinery. I'd never consider myself government supporter, but with Trump it's like the last bastion before the country is overrun with far-left SJW hordes swayed by misinformation. It's ironic the ultimate win for democracy manifests itself in stolen elections.
    - Eldt 6y ago
      It's funny how from my perspective the reality is quite nearly the exact opposite of what you puport
      - bra-ket 6y ago
        yeah, there are 80M people like you and just 74M like me, congratulations. Both groups are influenced by media and social circles but the first group tends to trust others opinions more, methinks. The fact mainstream media was pretty much unified in anti-Trump stance strengthen that theory. If every day for 4 years you hear just how bad is the orange man (from someone you trust) it would definitely shape a certain reality in ones mind.
        Applejinx 6y ago
        Well, I have a belief system that's coherent and arrived at through my personal experience, which had me thinking very poorly of the 'orange man' LONG before it became a political thing. In fact, I'm damn horrified at how far the guy got, and I think I understand quite well how it was done. It's not just some abstract 'otherwise neutral orange man' whose identity is entirely constructed by news media, and that's a strange argument to make. I think many people thought 'Al Capone bad' too, particularly if he'd robbed them or shot somebody they liked. I'm sure the greedy news media HELPED people get mad at Al Capone, and that there were redeeming factors in the guy, but the notion that there were automatically as many redeeming factors in Capone as in everybody else is NOT sensible. Maybe he just was mean, and sucked. Likewise with 'orange man'. Way before he was a political figure, he was mean and sucked REALLY bad relative to my sense of how things work in the world. Some people just suck very, very much. If you assume anyone who has success automatically does not suck, I admire your optimism but I sure don't share it. Seems to me that without considerable oversight, the opposite is usually true, and that the worst people, entities, companies etc. win. Hence, the invention of means of oversight, and the attempt to codify what's good and bad.
        timeeater 6y ago
  - kipchak 6y ago
    More broadly, I think the trouble is that "lies" are often more appealing than truths by design, while truth is what it is. For example, some Americans may have been swayed to support the Gulf War by the Nayirah testimony, or in 2003 by Saddam Hussein's alleged people shredder. I don't think this justifies censorship, but the ability to sharpen people's BS filter and the amount of bunk they may receive is somewhat asymmetrical, echoing Goering's quote from the Nuremburg trials. [1] http://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html http://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html
    - timeeater 6y ago
      But weren't those lies perpetuated by mainstream media? Where, if not YouTube, would you find the counter narratives? And wouldn't people who believe the MSM not then considered the YouTube debunking to be "lies" and called for censorship?
      - kipchak 6y ago
        Unfortunately as YouTube and the rest of the internet has grown larger, and more consolidated, [1] the positions allowed have narrowed in scope and counter narratives have become less acceptable. While websites with counter narratives (WikiSpooks for example) do exist, they're generally not very visible anymore. I think what you're describing is largely what is happening will happen, and those who present counter narratives will be de-legitimized, including and conflating both those who are genuinely illegitimate (Dr. Gene Ray/time cube) and those who aren't. The closest alternative I can see is reading media with opposing spin (People's Daily, RT) and yours and hoping together they composite a clearer picture. For example I would not expect to see this [2] headline in a US paper. [1]https://www.ncta.com/sites/default/files/platform-images/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/150304_consumer-internet1.jpg https://www.ncta.com/sites/default/files/platform-images/wp-... [2]https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-center-7-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/...
RussianCow 6y ago
You have a good point, but I think you're downplaying the power of clickbait. I consider myself a relatively smart, educated, and rational person, and I can't tell you the number of outlandish headlines I've clicked on just to see what they say.
- roenxi 6y ago
  The thing with censorship is they aren't going to censor the clickbait. Google knows exactly what clickbait looks like and they could have purged it years ago with a few algorithm tweaks that nobody would have minded. They're going to censor stuff that makes people ask hard-to-answer questions and/or challenge consensus positions. That sounds like a good idea until it clicks that good scientists ask hard to answer questions and challenge consensus positions. Censorship is fundamentally anti-evidence. People can't present evidence that the channel owners don't like, and people can't model how to handle untrue opinions in conversation because they never come up.
- timeeater 6y ago
  Even if you click on the clickbait, it doesn't imply that you automatically believe everything it delivers.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    Indeed you probably clicked on it because it seemed unbelievable
pjc50 6y ago
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8360073/More-60-people-joining-extremist-groups-Facebook-pages-recommended-algorithms.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8360073/More-60-peo... (caution Daily Mail; mildly NSFW sidebar) "internal ⁦@Facebook⁩ research that found over 60% of people who joined groups sharing extremist content did so at Facebook’s recommendation." So you're right: youtube has the megaphone. I wonder what the proportion of people watching extremist/disinformation content on youtube because of suggestions is? In some ways it's worse than TV, because if you publish shit on TV you get people writing to the regulator to complain (qv Janet Jackson superbowl nipple ridiculousness). On youtube you may never know what your fellow citizens are watching until they say "of course the world is ruled by lizards, here's the video that proves it". I wonder if people would accept the compromise that youtube would host this content but force it to "unlisted". After all, the recommendations are their speech, not yours.
- timeeater 6y ago
  The 60% number sounds big, but how many people actually joined groups with extremist content? Without that context, the 60% doesn't say much. It also doesn't say why people joined those groups. Maybe they are just curious to see what the crazy people are up to.
- BrandonMarc 6y ago
  ... and Facebook's recommendation would be based on their prior activity. If their interests on Facebook (what they like, follow, etc) were mostly cat videos, Facebook wouldn't be recommending extremist groups. In the meantime, there's a heck of a gulf between whether or not Facebook lets a group be recommended, and actively censoring content dissenting to the chosen narrative.
  - pbourke 6y ago
    > If their interests on Facebook (what they like, follow, etc) were mostly cat videos, Facebook wouldn't be recommending extremist groups. The whole point of recommendation algorithms is to find missing edges in the graph, so it can easily lead you to misinformation in 1 or 2 hops. Think of it this way: the misinformation content is highly valuable - it generates a lot of engagement. There is always a “potential energy” (people like you also liked...) between low-value content and high-value content that the platforms are attempting to convert to “kinetic energy” (engagement - views, clicks, comments) in order to monetize it. The goal is to find the shortest path to the high value content.

bonestormii_ 6y ago

It's crazy. I started writing why I disagreed based on my visceral reaction to the topic. But as I constructed my arguments, they were not sound. So I suppose I agree? Hm. The above paragraph is sincere--that did happen. And interestingly, it shows the power of consuming the opposing view point. We all know that the government is currently spewing lies, and it is indeed a disgusting and corrosive thing. I want to silence it, but it's easy enough to contempt it from a distance. Let the truth and the lies be heard so that we as a people will grow wise to it all.

timeeater 6y ago
Personally I am not from the US, and I don't know that the government is spewing lies. What makes you so sure? And if you are so sure, why are you worried people could be swayed by the lies - why not make them equally sure with the information you have? However, I am happy with letting the courts decide. Where is the problem? I have seen lies from all big political parties in the US.
- bra-ket 6y ago
  it's funny the lies this time are coming not from the government but from the opposition and their propaganda machinery. I'd never consider myself government supporter, but with Trump it's like the last bastion before the country is overrun with far-left SJW hordes swayed by misinformation. It's ironic the ultimate win for democracy manifests itself in stolen elections.
  - Eldt 6y ago
    It's funny how from my perspective the reality is quite nearly the exact opposite of what you puport
    - bra-ket 6y ago
      yeah, there are 80M people like you and just 74M like me, congratulations. Both groups are influenced by media and social circles but the first group tends to trust others opinions more, methinks. The fact mainstream media was pretty much unified in anti-Trump stance strengthen that theory. If every day for 4 years you hear just how bad is the orange man (from someone you trust) it would definitely shape a certain reality in ones mind.
      - Applejinx 6y ago
        Well, I have a belief system that's coherent and arrived at through my personal experience, which had me thinking very poorly of the 'orange man' LONG before it became a political thing. In fact, I'm damn horrified at how far the guy got, and I think I understand quite well how it was done. It's not just some abstract 'otherwise neutral orange man' whose identity is entirely constructed by news media, and that's a strange argument to make. I think many people thought 'Al Capone bad' too, particularly if he'd robbed them or shot somebody they liked. I'm sure the greedy news media HELPED people get mad at Al Capone, and that there were redeeming factors in the guy, but the notion that there were automatically as many redeeming factors in Capone as in everybody else is NOT sensible. Maybe he just was mean, and sucked. Likewise with 'orange man'. Way before he was a political figure, he was mean and sucked REALLY bad relative to my sense of how things work in the world. Some people just suck very, very much. If you assume anyone who has success automatically does not suck, I admire your optimism but I sure don't share it. Seems to me that without considerable oversight, the opposite is usually true, and that the worst people, entities, companies etc. win. Hence, the invention of means of oversight, and the attempt to codify what's good and bad.
        timeeater 6y ago
- kipchak 6y ago
  More broadly, I think the trouble is that "lies" are often more appealing than truths by design, while truth is what it is. For example, some Americans may have been swayed to support the Gulf War by the Nayirah testimony, or in 2003 by Saddam Hussein's alleged people shredder. I don't think this justifies censorship, but the ability to sharpen people's BS filter and the amount of bunk they may receive is somewhat asymmetrical, echoing Goering's quote from the Nuremburg trials. [1] http://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html http://www.mit.edu/people/fuller/peace/war_goering.html
  - timeeater 6y ago
    But weren't those lies perpetuated by mainstream media? Where, if not YouTube, would you find the counter narratives? And wouldn't people who believe the MSM not then considered the YouTube debunking to be "lies" and called for censorship?
    - kipchak 6y ago
      Unfortunately as YouTube and the rest of the internet has grown larger, and more consolidated, [1] the positions allowed have narrowed in scope and counter narratives have become less acceptable. While websites with counter narratives (WikiSpooks for example) do exist, they're generally not very visible anymore. I think what you're describing is largely what is happening will happen, and those who present counter narratives will be de-legitimized, including and conflating both those who are genuinely illegitimate (Dr. Gene Ray/time cube) and those who aren't. The closest alternative I can see is reading media with opposing spin (People's Daily, RT) and yours and hoping together they composite a clearer picture. For example I would not expect to see this [2] headline in a US paper. [1]https://www.ncta.com/sites/default/files/platform-images/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/150304_consumer-internet1.jpg https://www.ncta.com/sites/default/files/platform-images/wp-... [2]https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/world-trade-center-7-building-did-not-collapse-due-to-fire-report https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/others/2020/05/...

RussianCow 6y ago

You have a good point, but I think you're downplaying the power of clickbait. I consider myself a relatively smart, educated, and rational person, and I can't tell you the number of outlandish headlines I've clicked on just to see what they say.

roenxi 6y ago
The thing with censorship is they aren't going to censor the clickbait. Google knows exactly what clickbait looks like and they could have purged it years ago with a few algorithm tweaks that nobody would have minded. They're going to censor stuff that makes people ask hard-to-answer questions and/or challenge consensus positions. That sounds like a good idea until it clicks that good scientists ask hard to answer questions and challenge consensus positions. Censorship is fundamentally anti-evidence. People can't present evidence that the channel owners don't like, and people can't model how to handle untrue opinions in conversation because they never come up.
timeeater 6y ago
Even if you click on the clickbait, it doesn't imply that you automatically believe everything it delivers.
- jjk166 6y ago
  Indeed you probably clicked on it because it seemed unbelievable

pjc50 6y ago

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8360073/More-60-people-joining-extremist-groups-Facebook-pages-recommended-algorithms.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8360073/More-60-peo... (caution Daily Mail; mildly NSFW sidebar) "internal ⁦@Facebook⁩ research that found over 60% of people who joined groups sharing extremist content did so at Facebook’s recommendation." So you're right: youtube has the megaphone. I wonder what the proportion of people watching extremist/disinformation content on youtube because of suggestions is? In some ways it's worse than TV, because if you publish shit on TV you get people writing to the regulator to complain (qv Janet Jackson superbowl nipple ridiculousness). On youtube you may never know what your fellow citizens are watching until they say "of course the world is ruled by lizards, here's the video that proves it". I wonder if people would accept the compromise that youtube would host this content but force it to "unlisted". After all, the recommendations are their speech, not yours.

timeeater 6y ago
The 60% number sounds big, but how many people actually joined groups with extremist content? Without that context, the 60% doesn't say much. It also doesn't say why people joined those groups. Maybe they are just curious to see what the crazy people are up to.
BrandonMarc 6y ago
... and Facebook's recommendation would be based on their prior activity. If their interests on Facebook (what they like, follow, etc) were mostly cat videos, Facebook wouldn't be recommending extremist groups. In the meantime, there's a heck of a gulf between whether or not Facebook lets a group be recommended, and actively censoring content dissenting to the chosen narrative.
- pbourke 6y ago
  > If their interests on Facebook (what they like, follow, etc) were mostly cat videos, Facebook wouldn't be recommending extremist groups. The whole point of recommendation algorithms is to find missing edges in the graph, so it can easily lead you to misinformation in 1 or 2 hops. Think of it this way: the misinformation content is highly valuable - it generates a lot of engagement. There is always a “potential energy” (people like you also liked...) between low-value content and high-value content that the platforms are attempting to convert to “kinetic energy” (engagement - views, clicks, comments) in order to monetize it. The goal is to find the shortest path to the high value content.