18 ms·

Putting aside recent allegations, it's disappointing what has happened to Russell Brand's YouTube channel. I watched some of his videos a few years ago and they

Putting aside recent allegations, it's disappointing what has happened to Russell Brand's YouTube channel. I watched some of his videos a few years ago and they were interesting discussions of the news with a particular emphasis on questioning everything which I see as a healthy habit. Inevitably though, the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. He probably saw that outrage-bait videos were getting double the views. YouTube's algorithm plays a massive part in what goes into people's heads and they should be held more accountable.

wilg 3y ago
Is it even "the algorithm" or is it simply just how people prefer to click crazy shit? We see it with news and pretty much anything else where clicks equal money.
- HenryBemis 3y ago
  "The algorithm" and/or the people behind it noticed that if User1 watches VideoA and then we show him B-C-D, he stays on the platform for 10 minutes. BUT when we showed a User2 the videos X-Y-Z (after videoA), then User2 stayed "engaged" for 3 hours. And the new sequence was just established. The 'machine' is constantly doing A/B and other tests, and it learns, adapts, and continues. The machine just learns what people like and feeds it to them. We can't blame the machine for giving the users what they want.. can we? :)
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    Some of "the algorithm" is a person at youtube making a concious decision to make "the algorithm" prioritise, for example, longer videos.
- josefx 3y ago
  I think the algorithm simply suffers the same problem as googles search algorithm: it was gamed years ago. I usually have to block a dozen or so of crazy or low effort content farms for every type of content I watch on youtube and after that the recommendations seem mostly acceptable.
rcxdude 3y ago
The difference between questioning everything and rejecting everything from the mainstream is an important one which Brand and many others seem not to understand.
- breakingrules 3y ago
  if you have a modern bar for accuracy, you require evidence. when you require evidence, because you've spotted a ton of lies in the media, most of it gets rejected. we did not ask for untrustworthy media, algorithms, exploitation and bribery dictate that.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Oh, I think he understands. Constantly criticizing mainstream media for low standards while having far lower standards yourself is the kind of thing that you have to put significant ongoing effort into rationalizing. Consumers of alt media can do it thoughtlessly. Producers? I'm not convinced.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    > ... having far lower standards yourself ... How are we measuring that? Firstly, as a nitpick, the mainstream media these days is Russel Brand. He has an audience comparable to a group like CNN. Possibly slightly larger. Secondly, the quality of the podcasters is generally better on net than the big media companies. They tend not to be gung-ho all-weather war supporters for example. People like Brand might get a lot of details wrong but have more coherent takes on big issues. Thirdly, and related to secondly, the podcasters tend to take less money from big entrenched interests in the military-industrial complex or big pharma. They rely less on being spoon fed access to powerful people. It is easier to follow their incentives and style than work out what a media company is trying to push this week.
    - cgio 3y ago
      I would question your third point in the spirit of doubting narratives. This is the podcasters' narrative, but intuitively a podcaster has less scale and therefore is much cheaper to be incentivised towards specific narratives.
CWuestefeld 3y ago
the algorithm steered the videos More accurately, the algorithm gave Brand incentive to change his videos. "The algorithm" can't steer the video directly; it needs to influence the content creators. It's the conscious decision, following incentives, of these people to change their content. And while we can understand why they may have done it, that doesn't make them blameless.
- tommica 3y ago
  Does the creator influence their audience, or does the audience influence the creator?
mrtksn 3y ago
Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist, has been writing about this issue since half a decade now: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-po...
grecy 3y ago
> the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. He probably saw that outrage-bait videos were getting double the views. YouTube's algorithm plays a massive part in what goes into people's heads and they should be held more accountable. I'm a YouTuber, and I want to be very clear on the above. I know I would get way more views (and subscribers, and money) if I did more stupid clickbait stuff. But I don't want to, that doesn't make me happy. Also, professionals should not do that out of being professional. A house painter would make more money if he did a rush job, and a TV reporter would get in the news more if he told blatant lies on live national TV. Just because a person can make more money short term doing something, it doesn't mean they should not take 100% of the blame for doing it. I could very easily make videos of doing highly illegal stuff, which would likely get a zillion views. Am I then less responsible for doing it?
- 0xfae 3y ago
  I see what your saying, but your examples don't quite work. A reporter telling lies would presumable be called into their managers office and told to shape up or be fired. A painter doing rush jobs would get bad reviews and no referrals, and eventually stop getting jobs. Those behaviors are not incentivized. A youtube creator milking the algorithm is rewarded for this behavior, with more views, more ad money, etc. Are we really surprised that people are doing what they are incentivized to do?
  - grecy 3y ago
    I think my examples do actually work well, in that the painter and the TV reporter ARE incentivized, short term to do those clickbait things, in exactly the same way YouTube creators are. In all cases, reality will catch up to them, and in the long term they will be punished for what they did in the name of short term gains.
    - lukev 3y ago
      What's the long-term reality catch-up mechanism in the social media space?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
itsoktocry 3y ago
Can say the same thing about Jordan Peterson, no? Content from 5-10 years ago was interesting. Now I have him muted on X.
- c7DJTLrn 3y ago
  I'm convinced that these platforms are a huge driver, if not the main driver of social and political polarisation.
  - erickhill 3y ago
    24/7 365 "Breaking News" TV - AKA spin factories - complete with scrolling tickers and a combative talking head format (with programs that may or may not have actual trained journalists, but so-called experts at expressing their biased opinions) is the other huge driver.
  - internet101010 3y ago
    That's pretty well understood though, right? If love and fear are primary drivers of engagement and fear is a stronger emotion than love then steering viewers to view things that upset them is in the best interest of the company that earns its revenue from keeping them engaged.
  - pfannkuchen 3y ago
    Rapid moral change is the main driver, but internet platforms may have accelerated that.
  - serf 3y ago
    the money/power/fame are the drivers, the social media platforms open up the search for those things to a much wider audience while espousing the importance. that is to say : social media isn't innocent, but it's a co-factor in the larger human-dominating infinite search for power and fame.
- iamacyborg 3y ago
  I think both Peterson and Brand were always these people, social media just allows them to monetise it.
gonehome 3y ago
Audience capture is a scary thing: https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/the-perils-of-audience-capt... (a particularly sad and grotesque example). I think it's something we're all vulnerable too. It's important to be aware of the incentives you're allowing yourself to operate under. A little tangential maybe, but it reminds me of this book review I really liked: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/books/review/herman-wouk-winds-of-war-war-and-remembrance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/books/review/herman-wouk-...
madeofpalk 3y ago
> the algorithm steered He steered. We should not remove his agency for the content he wrote, said, recorded, and uploaded.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  Google engineers steer the algorythm, which steers Russel Brand, which steers his followers, which steer.. Google in return?
- randomdata 3y ago
  No, the algorithm (more accurately, the audience) did the steering. His agency did allow him to reject the direction.
jmfldn 3y ago
His decent into outrage-bait, alt-right friendly nonsense struck me as abrupt. One minute his channel was reasonable enough, the next it was totally nuts. Part of me wonders whether this was calculated once he knew that a major expose was circling. I have zero evidence for this, but you can see the logic. Court a following that is sceptical of everything, and that will see an investigation by the 'mainstream media' as obvious evidence of some deep state conspiracy. You now have an army of cheerleaders, and an alternative renevue source, ready to wage war with.
- 0xDEF 3y ago
  He pulled an Elon. Elon Musk also came out as an alt-right troll when he was tipped that an expose about sexual harassment of a flight attendant was coming his way.
  - Danjoe4 3y ago
    Elon Musk has greatly accelerated green energy innovation through EVs, battery technology, and solar. Are these actions appropriately described as "alt-right"?
    - 0xDEF 3y ago
      When people today talk about Elon Musk's political views they mean his sudden right-wing radicalization in 2022 that happened exactly when he was tipped off about sexual harassment allegations coming his way.
      - wmf 3y ago
        Nah, it was caused by his kid turning trans.
        vuln 3y ago
        Yup it was the ultimate _red pill_. There have been many such cases none ever so public.
CydeWeys 3y ago
> Inevitably though, the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. "The algorithm" didn't force him to go off the crazy deep end. He chose to do this himself. Don't absolve him or that decision. I think it's more like, he knew this was coming out and it was going to make him look bad, so he preemptively decided to modify his audience to consist of people less likely to leave him once the news did break.
- gerdesj 3y ago
  "I think it's more like, he knew this was coming out and it was going to make him look bad, so he preemptively decided to modify his audience to consist of people less likely to leave him once the news did break." The accusations mainly seem to be from around a decade ago (give or take). How long do you have him down "modifying" his audience? I personally think ... well I don't know the bloke at all, only his public persona. However we are seeing an outrageous pseudo trial by media (all of them) and ill-informed public "opinion" before he is even in the dock facing his accusers. How on earth can he face 12 unbiased jurors with this bloody nonsense going on? Perhaps we should adopt a professional approach to trying crime, involving trained magistrates instead of the old school "12 men and true" bollocks. The jury system doesn't really cut it these days in the face of your and other shrill accusations. I gather that the Netherlands does that, for example.
  - CydeWeys 3y ago
    The accusations are older, but they picked up a lot of steam recently to the point I'm sure he got a bunch of media inquiries asking for comment. That's what tipped him off that it was about to become a big deal and triggered his rightward shift (the accusations had never previously been a big deal affecting him).
agentgumshoe 3y ago
I think he just found it harder to draw the line at where the lies end and real lies begin..
suyash 3y ago
It's time to end the YouTube monopoly, too much of this nonsense we have seen in the last few years, it's nothing but virtue signalling and pandering to one side without ascertaining facts.

wilg 3y ago

Is it even "the algorithm" or is it simply just how people prefer to click crazy shit? We see it with news and pretty much anything else where clicks equal money.

HenryBemis 3y ago
"The algorithm" and/or the people behind it noticed that if User1 watches VideoA and then we show him B-C-D, he stays on the platform for 10 minutes. BUT when we showed a User2 the videos X-Y-Z (after videoA), then User2 stayed "engaged" for 3 hours. And the new sequence was just established. The 'machine' is constantly doing A/B and other tests, and it learns, adapts, and continues. The machine just learns what people like and feeds it to them. We can't blame the machine for giving the users what they want.. can we? :)
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Some of "the algorithm" is a person at youtube making a concious decision to make "the algorithm" prioritise, for example, longer videos.
josefx 3y ago
I think the algorithm simply suffers the same problem as googles search algorithm: it was gamed years ago. I usually have to block a dozen or so of crazy or low effort content farms for every type of content I watch on youtube and after that the recommendations seem mostly acceptable.

rcxdude 3y ago

The difference between questioning everything and rejecting everything from the mainstream is an important one which Brand and many others seem not to understand.

breakingrules 3y ago
if you have a modern bar for accuracy, you require evidence. when you require evidence, because you've spotted a ton of lies in the media, most of it gets rejected. we did not ask for untrustworthy media, algorithms, exploitation and bribery dictate that.
jjoonathan 3y ago
Oh, I think he understands. Constantly criticizing mainstream media for low standards while having far lower standards yourself is the kind of thing that you have to put significant ongoing effort into rationalizing. Consumers of alt media can do it thoughtlessly. Producers? I'm not convinced.
- roenxi 3y ago
  > ... having far lower standards yourself ... How are we measuring that? Firstly, as a nitpick, the mainstream media these days is Russel Brand. He has an audience comparable to a group like CNN. Possibly slightly larger. Secondly, the quality of the podcasters is generally better on net than the big media companies. They tend not to be gung-ho all-weather war supporters for example. People like Brand might get a lot of details wrong but have more coherent takes on big issues. Thirdly, and related to secondly, the podcasters tend to take less money from big entrenched interests in the military-industrial complex or big pharma. They rely less on being spoon fed access to powerful people. It is easier to follow their incentives and style than work out what a media company is trying to push this week.
  - cgio 3y ago
    I would question your third point in the spirit of doubting narratives. This is the podcasters' narrative, but intuitively a podcaster has less scale and therefore is much cheaper to be incentivised towards specific narratives.

CWuestefeld 3y ago

the algorithm steered the videos More accurately, the algorithm gave Brand incentive to change his videos. "The algorithm" can't steer the video directly; it needs to influence the content creators. It's the conscious decision, following incentives, of these people to change their content. And while we can understand why they may have done it, that doesn't make them blameless.

tommica 3y ago
Does the creator influence their audience, or does the audience influence the creator?

mrtksn 3y ago

Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist, has been writing about this issue since half a decade now: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-po...

grecy 3y ago

> the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. He probably saw that outrage-bait videos were getting double the views. YouTube's algorithm plays a massive part in what goes into people's heads and they should be held more accountable. I'm a YouTuber, and I want to be very clear on the above. I know I would get way more views (and subscribers, and money) if I did more stupid clickbait stuff. But I don't want to, that doesn't make me happy. Also, professionals should not do that out of being professional. A house painter would make more money if he did a rush job, and a TV reporter would get in the news more if he told blatant lies on live national TV. Just because a person can make more money short term doing something, it doesn't mean they should not take 100% of the blame for doing it. I could very easily make videos of doing highly illegal stuff, which would likely get a zillion views. Am I then less responsible for doing it?

0xfae 3y ago
I see what your saying, but your examples don't quite work. A reporter telling lies would presumable be called into their managers office and told to shape up or be fired. A painter doing rush jobs would get bad reviews and no referrals, and eventually stop getting jobs. Those behaviors are not incentivized. A youtube creator milking the algorithm is rewarded for this behavior, with more views, more ad money, etc. Are we really surprised that people are doing what they are incentivized to do?
- grecy 3y ago
  I think my examples do actually work well, in that the painter and the TV reporter ARE incentivized, short term to do those clickbait things, in exactly the same way YouTube creators are. In all cases, reality will catch up to them, and in the long term they will be punished for what they did in the name of short term gains.
  - lukev 3y ago
    What's the long-term reality catch-up mechanism in the social media space?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

itsoktocry 3y ago

Can say the same thing about Jordan Peterson, no? Content from 5-10 years ago was interesting. Now I have him muted on X.

c7DJTLrn 3y ago
I'm convinced that these platforms are a huge driver, if not the main driver of social and political polarisation.
- erickhill 3y ago
  24/7 365 "Breaking News" TV - AKA spin factories - complete with scrolling tickers and a combative talking head format (with programs that may or may not have actual trained journalists, but so-called experts at expressing their biased opinions) is the other huge driver.
- internet101010 3y ago
  That's pretty well understood though, right? If love and fear are primary drivers of engagement and fear is a stronger emotion than love then steering viewers to view things that upset them is in the best interest of the company that earns its revenue from keeping them engaged.
- pfannkuchen 3y ago
  Rapid moral change is the main driver, but internet platforms may have accelerated that.
- serf 3y ago
  the money/power/fame are the drivers, the social media platforms open up the search for those things to a much wider audience while espousing the importance. that is to say : social media isn't innocent, but it's a co-factor in the larger human-dominating infinite search for power and fame.
iamacyborg 3y ago
I think both Peterson and Brand were always these people, social media just allows them to monetise it.

gonehome 3y ago

Audience capture is a scary thing: https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/the-perils-of-audience-capture https://gurwinder.substack.com/p/the-perils-of-audience-capt... (a particularly sad and grotesque example). I think it's something we're all vulnerable too. It's important to be aware of the incentives you're allowing yourself to operate under. A little tangential maybe, but it reminds me of this book review I really liked: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/books/review/herman-wouk-winds-of-war-war-and-remembrance.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/books/review/herman-wouk-...

madeofpalk 3y ago

> the algorithm steered He steered. We should not remove his agency for the content he wrote, said, recorded, and uploaded.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
Google engineers steer the algorythm, which steers Russel Brand, which steers his followers, which steer.. Google in return?
randomdata 3y ago
No, the algorithm (more accurately, the audience) did the steering. His agency did allow him to reject the direction.

jmfldn 3y ago

His decent into outrage-bait, alt-right friendly nonsense struck me as abrupt. One minute his channel was reasonable enough, the next it was totally nuts. Part of me wonders whether this was calculated once he knew that a major expose was circling. I have zero evidence for this, but you can see the logic. Court a following that is sceptical of everything, and that will see an investigation by the 'mainstream media' as obvious evidence of some deep state conspiracy. You now have an army of cheerleaders, and an alternative renevue source, ready to wage war with.

0xDEF 3y ago
He pulled an Elon. Elon Musk also came out as an alt-right troll when he was tipped that an expose about sexual harassment of a flight attendant was coming his way.
- Danjoe4 3y ago
  Elon Musk has greatly accelerated green energy innovation through EVs, battery technology, and solar. Are these actions appropriately described as "alt-right"?
  - 0xDEF 3y ago
    When people today talk about Elon Musk's political views they mean his sudden right-wing radicalization in 2022 that happened exactly when he was tipped off about sexual harassment allegations coming his way.
    - wmf 3y ago
      Nah, it was caused by his kid turning trans.
      - vuln 3y ago
        Yup it was the ultimate _red pill_. There have been many such cases none ever so public.

CydeWeys 3y ago

> Inevitably though, the algorithm steered the videos to become more clickbaity, divisive, and frankly crazy. "The algorithm" didn't force him to go off the crazy deep end. He chose to do this himself. Don't absolve him or that decision. I think it's more like, he knew this was coming out and it was going to make him look bad, so he preemptively decided to modify his audience to consist of people less likely to leave him once the news did break.

gerdesj 3y ago
"I think it's more like, he knew this was coming out and it was going to make him look bad, so he preemptively decided to modify his audience to consist of people less likely to leave him once the news did break." The accusations mainly seem to be from around a decade ago (give or take). How long do you have him down "modifying" his audience? I personally think ... well I don't know the bloke at all, only his public persona. However we are seeing an outrageous pseudo trial by media (all of them) and ill-informed public "opinion" before he is even in the dock facing his accusers. How on earth can he face 12 unbiased jurors with this bloody nonsense going on? Perhaps we should adopt a professional approach to trying crime, involving trained magistrates instead of the old school "12 men and true" bollocks. The jury system doesn't really cut it these days in the face of your and other shrill accusations. I gather that the Netherlands does that, for example.
- CydeWeys 3y ago
  The accusations are older, but they picked up a lot of steam recently to the point I'm sure he got a bunch of media inquiries asking for comment. That's what tipped him off that it was about to become a big deal and triggered his rightward shift (the accusations had never previously been a big deal affecting him).

agentgumshoe 3y ago

I think he just found it harder to draw the line at where the lies end and real lies begin..

suyash 3y ago

It's time to end the YouTube monopoly, too much of this nonsense we have seen in the last few years, it's nothing but virtue signalling and pandering to one side without ascertaining facts.