4 ms·

> Given the challenges of trying to characterize the content of every single video viewed, the researchers focused on the type of YouTube channels people watche

by Syonyk 2y ago

> Given the challenges of trying to characterize the content of every single video viewed, the researchers focused on the type of YouTube channels people watched. They compiled lists of channels that had been identified as alternative or extreme by journalists and academics and then examined how often a participant visited videos from those channels. > Alternative channels included content for men’s rights activists, anti-social justice warriors, and intellectual dark web material; extreme channels included white supremacist, alt-right, and extremist material. Eh... Relying on "journalists and academics disliking a channel enough to claim it's extreme," but then not bothering to actually go look at the details of the material watched, sounds pretty lazy to me if you're trying to make this sort of argument. Or to at least sample a reasonable cross section (perhaps videos that showed up in a lot of the monitored profiles) and make sure they're generally consistent with what the claimed nature of the channel is.

sien 2y ago
Yeah. Given that half of America votes for a party that many people inside the party would describe as 'anti-social justice' it's a pretty hard to guess at what is being regarded as harmful. The Intellectual Dark web includes stuff like 'Quillette' which most people would have no problem with. The bit at the start : "In 2019, YouTube announced that changes to its algorithms had reduced watch time of harmful content by 50%, with a 70% decline in watch time by nonsubscribers." Seems like a very good result for YouTube. They are funneling people away from politics unless you go out and seek it. Most people are presumably far more interested in their niche hobby YouTube videos anyway rather than politics which is often a contest of who is less awful.
- cardanome 2y ago
  > The Intellectual Dark web includes stuff like 'Quillette' which most people would have no problem with. Just checking Wikipedia: > Quillette has published articles supporting the "human biodiversity movement" (HBM),which attempts to reintroduce ideas from eugenics and scientific racism into the mainstream. > HBM refers to beliefs that human behaviors are impacted by inherited genes, and certain predispositions are unique to certain ethnic groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quillette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quillette I sure hope most people would have a problem with that crap.
  - snapplebobapple 2y ago
    You sir, are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
  - Syonyk 2y ago
    They have thousands of articles written by a range of authors. How many of "that crap" is enough to discard the entire publication as extreme? Quillette stands out as a place where you can read about almost anything. You may disagree with articles - good! That's worth something these days.
    - cardanome 2y ago
      You think it is good that people have a platform where they can spread racism? I am German, I have visited the concentration camps. You can not tolerate people like this. They can not have any right to speak. After all they are not going to tolerate mine once they gain power. People wanting to murder me is not a matter of opinion. You might think I am dramatic but that is because you might be (for now) sheltered from the consequences, asylum seekers having their accommodations burned down, trans people being murdered, black people being shot by the police, women dying because doctors are too scared of anti-abortion laws are not so lucky.
      - Syonyk 2y ago
        I'm American. I prefer to err on the side of free speech, versus over-aggressive censoring of what can be written/thought/etc. Quite honestly, I've never seen anything "racist" on Quillette, and I've read them for some while in the past. There are certainly a wide range of positions held by the assorted authors, and it's one of few sites that hadn't (at least a few years ago when I was reading it more regularly) fallen to "We cannot so much as think anything that does not align to our political orthodoxy." "A Wikipedia article stating that a site at some point had some articles on an topic many find offensive" is not enough for me to classify a platform as a racist platform.

by Syonyk 2y ago

sien 2y ago

Yeah. Given that half of America votes for a party that many people inside the party would describe as 'anti-social justice' it's a pretty hard to guess at what is being regarded as harmful. The Intellectual Dark web includes stuff like 'Quillette' which most people would have no problem with. The bit at the start : "In 2019, YouTube announced that changes to its algorithms had reduced watch time of harmful content by 50%, with a 70% decline in watch time by nonsubscribers." Seems like a very good result for YouTube. They are funneling people away from politics unless you go out and seek it. Most people are presumably far more interested in their niche hobby YouTube videos anyway rather than politics which is often a contest of who is less awful.

cardanome 2y ago
> The Intellectual Dark web includes stuff like 'Quillette' which most people would have no problem with. Just checking Wikipedia: > Quillette has published articles supporting the "human biodiversity movement" (HBM),which attempts to reintroduce ideas from eugenics and scientific racism into the mainstream. > HBM refers to beliefs that human behaviors are impacted by inherited genes, and certain predispositions are unique to certain ethnic groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quillette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quillette I sure hope most people would have a problem with that crap.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago
  You sir, are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
- Syonyk 2y ago
  They have thousands of articles written by a range of authors. How many of "that crap" is enough to discard the entire publication as extreme? Quillette stands out as a place where you can read about almost anything. You may disagree with articles - good! That's worth something these days.
  - cardanome 2y ago
    You think it is good that people have a platform where they can spread racism? I am German, I have visited the concentration camps. You can not tolerate people like this. They can not have any right to speak. After all they are not going to tolerate mine once they gain power. People wanting to murder me is not a matter of opinion. You might think I am dramatic but that is because you might be (for now) sheltered from the consequences, asylum seekers having their accommodations burned down, trans people being murdered, black people being shot by the police, women dying because doctors are too scared of anti-abortion laws are not so lucky.
    - Syonyk 2y ago
      I'm American. I prefer to err on the side of free speech, versus over-aggressive censoring of what can be written/thought/etc. Quite honestly, I've never seen anything "racist" on Quillette, and I've read them for some while in the past. There are certainly a wide range of positions held by the assorted authors, and it's one of few sites that hadn't (at least a few years ago when I was reading it more regularly) fallen to "We cannot so much as think anything that does not align to our political orthodoxy." "A Wikipedia article stating that a site at some point had some articles on an topic many find offensive" is not enough for me to classify a platform as a racist platform.