3 ms·

> Why would someone expect the recommendation algorithm to really know anything regarding whether videos violate their own policies? There's a big push to blam

> Why would someone expect the recommendation algorithm to really know anything regarding whether videos violate their own policies? There's a big push to blame recommendation engines in the wake of social media misinformation about elections and COVID-19. There's a growing perception, verging on conspiracy theory, that big social media companies are deliberately tuning their recommendation engines to promote this misinformation while publicly claiming to do the opposite. This Mozilla report feels like a strangely clumsy attack piece. They relied on self-selected volunteers to proactively report videos that they called "regrets" using a Mozilla plugin. Users were given little direction about what to report as a "regret" but according to the Mozilla report they marked as many as 1 in 8 videos as "should not be on YouTube". I have no idea how these self-reporters were going down a YouTube recommendations rabbit hole that ended up with 1 in 8 recommendations being policy-breaking or inappropriate, but that couldn't be farther from my own experience. I stream YouTube in the background while working on projects around the house and I can't recall the last time I was recommended a strange video that was somehow policy-breaking. The YouTube algorithm is clearly very self-reinforcing. I suppose if the volunteers were actively searching YouTube for "regret" videos that broke policy then it's likely that the recommendation engine would be triggered into serving up more, similar videos. That's obviously not a valid representation of the typical user experience, though.

ABCLAW 5y ago
>I stream YouTube in the background while working on projects around the house and I can't recall the last time I was recommended a strange video that was somehow policy-breaking. I have a fairly curated stream of videos due to years of Youtube use. I never see objectionable content in my recommended segment. I mostly have videos related to my career area and a few creators who focus on games I play. However, I've logged in on other computers, or via VPNs on different devices and found that if I just started with a random folksy video (let's say a bandsaw restoration), I would be recommended objectionable (overtly anti-black or anti-Semitic material) very rapidly. What's more, this random walk would then seed my recommended videos with a high proportion of similar videos. I'm not sure how much directed viewing would need to occur to re-adjust the recommendations. This was such a large issue that at certain offices I worked at, I'd pre-seed my youtube history with a few 'chill cafe background music' videos first to prevent a re-occurrence of the time when I walked away from my computer after logging onto a new terminal and opening up what I figured was some decent background noise, then coming back to a pro-hitler historical documentary. This may be because of my location, demographic, activity on the network or the selection of initial videos. My experience is nothing more than an anecdote, but it leads me to think that extreme content does well with respect to engagement, and accordingly is promoted by an engagement focused process. Is this correct? I don't know. I just know it isn't far fetched.
Tainnor 5y ago
> There's a growing perception, verging on conspiracy theory, that big social media companies are deliberately tuning their recommendation engines to promote this misinformation while publicly claiming to do the opposite. I don't think that this is the perception of many people. I think that many people think (and I think so too) that social networks maximise for engagement quite deliberately. Content that is very engaging can be very good (amazing educational resources) or relatively harmless (cat videos). But, due to human nature, "engaging" videos also include divisive content, propaganda, conspiracy theories, group-think or even just stuff that is highly addictive. The complaint, therefore, is not that YouTube etc. are actively pushing conspiracy theories—it wouldn't be in their interest to do so necessarily. The issue is that, by trying to maximise engagement, they very deliberately push all the subconscious buttons that may make us behave in irrational ways without caring for the psychological and social cost that this implies, and that any attempt of those networks to curtail the spread of problematic content will never be adequate as long as those underlying mechanisms are still the same.

ABCLAW 5y ago

>I stream YouTube in the background while working on projects around the house and I can't recall the last time I was recommended a strange video that was somehow policy-breaking. I have a fairly curated stream of videos due to years of Youtube use. I never see objectionable content in my recommended segment. I mostly have videos related to my career area and a few creators who focus on games I play. However, I've logged in on other computers, or via VPNs on different devices and found that if I just started with a random folksy video (let's say a bandsaw restoration), I would be recommended objectionable (overtly anti-black or anti-Semitic material) very rapidly. What's more, this random walk would then seed my recommended videos with a high proportion of similar videos. I'm not sure how much directed viewing would need to occur to re-adjust the recommendations. This was such a large issue that at certain offices I worked at, I'd pre-seed my youtube history with a few 'chill cafe background music' videos first to prevent a re-occurrence of the time when I walked away from my computer after logging onto a new terminal and opening up what I figured was some decent background noise, then coming back to a pro-hitler historical documentary. This may be because of my location, demographic, activity on the network or the selection of initial videos. My experience is nothing more than an anecdote, but it leads me to think that extreme content does well with respect to engagement, and accordingly is promoted by an engagement focused process. Is this correct? I don't know. I just know it isn't far fetched.

Tainnor 5y ago

> There's a growing perception, verging on conspiracy theory, that big social media companies are deliberately tuning their recommendation engines to promote this misinformation while publicly claiming to do the opposite. I don't think that this is the perception of many people. I think that many people think (and I think so too) that social networks maximise for engagement quite deliberately. Content that is very engaging can be very good (amazing educational resources) or relatively harmless (cat videos). But, due to human nature, "engaging" videos also include divisive content, propaganda, conspiracy theories, group-think or even just stuff that is highly addictive. The complaint, therefore, is not that YouTube etc. are actively pushing conspiracy theories—it wouldn't be in their interest to do so necessarily. The issue is that, by trying to maximise engagement, they very deliberately push all the subconscious buttons that may make us behave in irrational ways without caring for the psychological and social cost that this implies, and that any attempt of those networks to curtail the spread of problematic content will never be adequate as long as those underlying mechanisms are still the same.