4 ms·

So there's two things to consider: 1) Everything is political, and so are search results and suggestions 2) Personalized results/suggestions, moreover, tend t

So there's two things to consider: 1) Everything is political, and so are search results and suggestions 2) Personalized results/suggestions, moreover, tend to fit the perceived political views of the user (from the algorithm's perspective) Google and Youtube (like many others) are well-known to have pushed neo-fascist and conspirationist propaganda to random bystanders (Alex Jones or Trump in the USA, Dieudonné or Soral in France) because their "controversial" viewpoints generate more user engagement. Likewise, Google search often promotes white/christian-supremacist "news" websites like FDeSouche in the top5 results for random queries. Then, there's personalized recommendations. Once you've clicked one of these results, Google's algos will deem you interested in that kind of content, and suddenly it's impossible to avoid that bubble. It will keep recommending the same sites/channels everywhere you go, for months. That's why clicking "critically" on a link because you're curious what an "opposite side" has to say is a dangerous enterprise with recommendation algos: you'll be subtly yet persistently exposed to their propaganda ecosystem as a result. I would personally welcome "Goggles" as a positive change. I often know precisely what i'm looking for (an article i saw a few years back), but stupid ranking algorithms make it impossible to find in the stream of information. There's not a one-size-fits-all algo that's going to please everyone: decentralizing this power is the only suitable way, in my humble opinion.

cpr 5y ago
Google and Youtube (like many others) are well-known to have pushed neo-fascist and conspirationist propaganda to random bystanders (Alex Jones or Trump in the USA, Dieudonné or Soral in France) because their "controversial" viewpoints generate more user engagement. Right up until they ban them entirely.
- NoraCodes 5y ago
  I wonder what the intended tone is here. I would argue that you're exactly right. Google wants to have their cake and eat it too - they want engagement through rage and unreality, but they don't want to be seen as enabling that kind of thing, so they do performative and largely useless measures like banning people who have large following elsewhere and putting Wikipedia links under Flat Earth articles, but don't actually address the core problem: that they make more money when people get angry for no reason, and thus they have to incentivize that kind of art and "journalism" on their platform. We see this from the other side every year come Pride; companies put rainbow shit all over their sites while maintaining LGBTQ+ exclusive practices because they don't want to lose their bigoted customers.

cpr 5y ago

Google and Youtube (like many others) are well-known to have pushed neo-fascist and conspirationist propaganda to random bystanders (Alex Jones or Trump in the USA, Dieudonné or Soral in France) because their "controversial" viewpoints generate more user engagement. Right up until they ban them entirely.

NoraCodes 5y ago
I wonder what the intended tone is here. I would argue that you're exactly right. Google wants to have their cake and eat it too - they want engagement through rage and unreality, but they don't want to be seen as enabling that kind of thing, so they do performative and largely useless measures like banning people who have large following elsewhere and putting Wikipedia links under Flat Earth articles, but don't actually address the core problem: that they make more money when people get angry for no reason, and thus they have to incentivize that kind of art and "journalism" on their platform. We see this from the other side every year come Pride; companies put rainbow shit all over their sites while maintaining LGBTQ+ exclusive practices because they don't want to lose their bigoted customers.