8 ms·

Wow! You discovered YouTube will recommend videos from the same channels being watched. Beyond the brain-dead obviousness of this, who got to decide what is ext

Wow! You discovered YouTube will recommend videos from the same channels being watched. Beyond the brain-dead obviousness of this, who got to decide what is extremist or as the study also put it "alternative"? Since when is alternative media a bad thing? This watering down of the concept of extremism is the dangerous part. YouTube doesn't host ISIS or KKK content. Videos from the opposite of your position on the political spectrum is not extremism. The data comes from a survey and automated observation of just ~1,100 people. Super controlled, high quality, reliable source. /s This is simple the Church of Science pulling its weight for the government that funds them.

Covzire 3y ago
"oh no, the peasants are learning to read and think for themselves!" The current paradigm of what SV wants everyone to think should be acceptable free speech is psychotic.
- fallingknife 3y ago
  They need more "education" to teach them "critical thinking" so they won't believe this heresy... I mean "misinformation"
aarond0623 3y ago
> who got to decide what is extremist or as the study also put it "alternative"? That's explained in the paper: > Our list of extremist channels consists of those labeled as white identitarian by Ledwich and Zaitsev (26) (30 channels), white supremacist by Charles (45) (23 channels), alt-right by Ribeiro et al. (24) (37 channels), extremist or hateful by the Center on Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League (16 channels), and those compiled by journalist Aaron Sankin from lists curated by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, the Counter Extremism Project, and the white supremacist website Stormfront (157 channels) (46).
- didntcheck 3y ago
  Unfortunately I'm not surprised. The SPLC are the Fox News of declaring everyone they don't like hate groups, and the ADL do a lot of the same, in addition to finding excuses for actual hate when it's the types they like
  - a_shovel 3y ago
    I've seen a lot of people say the SPLC is a total sham, but I haven't seen anyone explain why or give examples, and in my experience they've been reliable.
    - cocoricamo 3y ago
      Easiest example is defending antifa as just "wrongheaded" for using violence and attempting to suppress free speech and not a hate group while easily listing any other organization that opposes their political views as hate groups. If you're claiming to fight extremism you should also fight extremists that support your political views.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Easiest example is defending antifa as just "wrongheaded" for using violence and attempting to suppress free speech Yeah, its always easiest to just make up an example that never happened. SPLC didn't defend Antifa as just wrongheaded. It just doesn’t designate them a hate group because they, whatever else they might be, aren’t about the kind of discrimination that SPLC uses to define a hate group (nor, despite sometimes being at odds with government, are they centered on the kind of anti-government ideology that SPLC defines its catalog of anti-government extremist groups with.) Ironically, what SPLC is beinf criticized for with Antifa is actually having specific meanings for its designations rather than arbitrarily applying them to everyone it disagrees with. > If you're claiming to fight extremism you should also fight extremists that support your political views. The SPLC does not now, and never has, claimed to be a force of generic moderation fighting generic “extremism”; its mission has always been to fight for racial justice and specifically against white supremacy. (It has since 1990 tracked hate groups and antigovernment extremist groups, two sets which overlap and which it has observed are influential in the issues it fights against, but the definitions used and purposes of that have always been, quite openly, shaped by and in service to it's primary mission, not orthogonal to it.) And, having said that, they do include in their catalogs grouos meeting their definition that purport to be aligned against the same things as SPLC, like the New Black Panther Party (which is both listed by them as an “anti-government extremist” group and a “designated hate group” by SPLC.)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cykotic 3y ago
Ending your post with “church of science” makes you appear to be extreme. It appears to me that you are an extremist and are lashing out because you feel this research is an attack on you personally. It is best to judge research as dispassionately as possible.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  Any research focusing on subjective terms such as 'extremist' or 'misinformation' is likely to be contaminated by an element of activism.
  - cykotic 3y ago
    How do you know this? It sounds plausible and may seem intuitively obvious but many intuitively obvious 'facts' have turned out to be wrong. It is good to be skeptical of an individual piece of research. The objections to a piece of research ought to be about how the authors went did their research. Or critique their specific methodology or their use of statistics. Critique their conclusion by showing it doesn't follow from their reported findings. What one should not do, which is what the person I responded to seems to have done, is say that research in this area is likely to be contaminated by too much bias and thus disregard it. That is an intellectually lazy response and fraught with too much bias on the part of the person in engaging in such reasoning.

Covzire 3y ago

"oh no, the peasants are learning to read and think for themselves!" The current paradigm of what SV wants everyone to think should be acceptable free speech is psychotic.

fallingknife 3y ago
They need more "education" to teach them "critical thinking" so they won't believe this heresy... I mean "misinformation"

aarond0623 3y ago

> who got to decide what is extremist or as the study also put it "alternative"? That's explained in the paper: > Our list of extremist channels consists of those labeled as white identitarian by Ledwich and Zaitsev (26) (30 channels), white supremacist by Charles (45) (23 channels), alt-right by Ribeiro et al. (24) (37 channels), extremist or hateful by the Center on Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League (16 channels), and those compiled by journalist Aaron Sankin from lists curated by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, the Counter Extremism Project, and the white supremacist website Stormfront (157 channels) (46).

didntcheck 3y ago
Unfortunately I'm not surprised. The SPLC are the Fox News of declaring everyone they don't like hate groups, and the ADL do a lot of the same, in addition to finding excuses for actual hate when it's the types they like
- a_shovel 3y ago
  I've seen a lot of people say the SPLC is a total sham, but I haven't seen anyone explain why or give examples, and in my experience they've been reliable.
  - cocoricamo 3y ago
    Easiest example is defending antifa as just "wrongheaded" for using violence and attempting to suppress free speech and not a hate group while easily listing any other organization that opposes their political views as hate groups. If you're claiming to fight extremism you should also fight extremists that support your political views.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Easiest example is defending antifa as just "wrongheaded" for using violence and attempting to suppress free speech Yeah, its always easiest to just make up an example that never happened. SPLC didn't defend Antifa as just wrongheaded. It just doesn’t designate them a hate group because they, whatever else they might be, aren’t about the kind of discrimination that SPLC uses to define a hate group (nor, despite sometimes being at odds with government, are they centered on the kind of anti-government ideology that SPLC defines its catalog of anti-government extremist groups with.) Ironically, what SPLC is beinf criticized for with Antifa is actually having specific meanings for its designations rather than arbitrarily applying them to everyone it disagrees with. > If you're claiming to fight extremism you should also fight extremists that support your political views. The SPLC does not now, and never has, claimed to be a force of generic moderation fighting generic “extremism”; its mission has always been to fight for racial justice and specifically against white supremacy. (It has since 1990 tracked hate groups and antigovernment extremist groups, two sets which overlap and which it has observed are influential in the issues it fights against, but the definitions used and purposes of that have always been, quite openly, shaped by and in service to it's primary mission, not orthogonal to it.) And, having said that, they do include in their catalogs grouos meeting their definition that purport to be aligned against the same things as SPLC, like the New Black Panther Party (which is both listed by them as an “anti-government extremist” group and a “designated hate group” by SPLC.)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cykotic 3y ago

Ending your post with “church of science” makes you appear to be extreme. It appears to me that you are an extremist and are lashing out because you feel this research is an attack on you personally. It is best to judge research as dispassionately as possible.

bluescrn 3y ago
Any research focusing on subjective terms such as 'extremist' or 'misinformation' is likely to be contaminated by an element of activism.
- cykotic 3y ago
  How do you know this? It sounds plausible and may seem intuitively obvious but many intuitively obvious 'facts' have turned out to be wrong. It is good to be skeptical of an individual piece of research. The objections to a piece of research ought to be about how the authors went did their research. Or critique their specific methodology or their use of statistics. Critique their conclusion by showing it doesn't follow from their reported findings. What one should not do, which is what the person I responded to seems to have done, is say that research in this area is likely to be contaminated by too much bias and thus disregard it. That is an intellectually lazy response and fraught with too much bias on the part of the person in engaging in such reasoning.