Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 272 posts

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#261

Post by dang »

atlantic wrote: post #189
close04 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Solomon story one woman was 100% right and one was 100% wrong. Are there many social issues where the 2 sides that meed this criterion? I think a better visualization of the problem is "you can't cross a canyon in less than a single bound". Sometimes there is no meeting half way. Last but not least, compromising is sometimes not an option. It's like the paradox of tolerance where the only thing you have to be…

> Hate speech is not free speech any more than contract killing is just a financial transaction. Personal anecdote. When I moved to the UK in the 1970, there was a little platform in Hyde Park called Speaker's Corner. Anyone could step onto it and make a speech about anything, anything at all; they could do so in the strongest terms, without being bothered; there was always a small audience standing around, and often…

> people of your ilk

Unfortunately you set off a flamewar with that personal swipe. Please don't do that. Your comment would have been great without that bit, and there would have been no need for the nasty tit-for-tat of the below.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#262

Post by dang »

close04 wrote: post #260
atlantic wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speech is like a weapon. They're not prohibited, and you're free to use them any way you see fit but you have to bear the consequences of misuse. Agreed. And there are laws on the books for this; there always have been. The more recent concept of "hate speech" (to return to your original post) is entirely redundant, unless its intended use is censorship.

That's pretty simple: hate speech is that speech that you think you're free to make and should get away with it but you actually shouldn't. If the fact that something is "a recent concept" made it wrong we wouldn't really have concepts, would we? Hate speech and hate crimes are pretty clearly defined. See what I was saying about that good use of the internet? You'd rather be here trying to prove me wrong rather that…

Can you please not do flamewars on HN? They break the guidelines and lead other people to post worse. We're trying to avoid that downward spiral.

I realize you didn't start it, but guilt amortizes out pretty evenly once people start going at it like this.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#263

Post by yesenadam »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #256
yesenadam wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi. It's not easy to talk about this stuff! Ok, you've retracted the here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used talk. I was mostly distracted by your loose use of terms, as if they don't have to be used carefully. For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then w…

I'm going to try to rephrase what I said above with a bit more context I as agree with you we're having a failure of communication somewhere. The distinction and issue I am considering is between those imperatives we ought desire to encode into law as opposed to personal beliefs or opinions that ought remain something executed only at an individual level. What I've proposed is that unless an act can be shown to be un…

Ah ok, thanks for persevering.

What about if if society ate meat? There's no clear argument against it

So I think you're saying things like this because you're only considering humans (and I guess cats and dogs). The whole thing about 'ethical vegetarians' or whatever you want to call them, is they are people who don't just consider humans and nothing else when thinking about who is harmed (or rather, not just humans, cats and dogs). It seems entirely arbitrary to draw that line at the exact point between humans and everything else. At least, it's not easy to think of a reason to do this, except we are humans or I was brought up doing it this way etc, which aren't very good reasons. Whatever particular quality you choose, the line isn't there. Intelligence? Some animals are smarter than some humans, etc. For me and a lot of people, being able to feel pain, suffering, is a good line to draw. Anyway, I'm no expert, I haven't read or thought about this stuff for decades, there's a large literature on the subject, which it sounds like you don't know about, and shouldn't be saying things like "There's no clear argument against it" when you have no idea whether there is or not. (Christians think there's no clear argument against their god or their ridiculous mythology, well, it's clear enough if you aren't already a believer.) But from the evidence, it seems reasonable that animals deserve ethical consideration, not just treated like, well, like slaves, like pieces of 'meat' waiting to be exploited by humans. There's no clear argument they don't, I'd say. Although there's no clear argument is an unfortunate phrase, being so subjective.

It's why I think slavery is a useful comparison - they're not just ethical questions, but questions about who is to be even included in the ethical circle, who is worthy of consideration, respect, decent treatment. Before even considering whether they're getting it.

Also, I don't think I've heard the term moral views used like that before, it's sad that it's such a bad phrase for you. Although I'm in Australia, the country isn't full of religious people running around proclaiming their insane god-given morality unlike some, e.g. the USA.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#264

Post by grkvlt »

atlantic wrote: post #257
close04 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people of your ilk I think the conclusion can be drawn even without the rest of the comment. There will always be some bigot dying a little inside seeing the world is evolving and they're left behind. Spewing out some hate for a couple of other bigots is not that much of a big deal. But today's "Speaker's Corner" has an audience of (tens of) millions. And the bigot doesn't stand up in front of anyone, they do it fr…

> Draw your own conclusions. I would conclude that you don't know how to argue, and that's why you prefer to take away your opponents' right to express themselves. On the flimsiest of evidence, you label me with a number of repugnant attributes (bigot, sexagenarian, left behind, stupid, hateful, KKK), and then, having established guilt by association, you politely suggest I shut up. I could demonstrate to you my poli…

> repugnant attributes [...] sexagenarian

You do realise that a sexagenarian[0] is just someone in their sixties, right?

0. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexagenarian

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#265

Post by bufferoverflow »

pjc50 wrote: post #119
b0rsuk wrote: post #23

This was addressed more broadly in "We're building a dystopia just to make people click on ads" by Zeynep Tufekci on TED. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15891014 She remarked that Youtube's recommendation system invariably pushes people towards more extreme views on anything , not just politics. Interested in vegetarianism? Here's something about veganism. She has a hypothesis it works this way because the goal…

As has been pointed out, in lots of areas a "balanced" view doesn't make sense. I'm reminded of the judgement of Solomon dictating that, to settle a dispute between two women as to whom a baby belonged to, it should be cut in half and they be given half each. For a lot of social issues, being given the midpoint solution is like being given half a baby. "All humans are created equal and endowed with rights" is a radic…

> "All humans are created equal and endowed with rights"

All humans aren't created equal, not even close. A 4 foot tall person without arms will never play basketball as well as a healthy 6 foot tall person.

Even if you meant to say "all humans should be treated equally", it's still a ridiculous proposition, because people are different, and thus should be treated differently. Will you let a person with the history of child abuse to babysit your children? I know I wouldn't, no matter how much they tell me they had changed.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#266

Post by bufferoverflow »

close04 wrote: post #166
tmorton wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a lot of social issues, being given the midpoint solution is like being given half a baby. I think this cuts to the heart of the issue - and demonstrates the problem with this line of thinking. I also think you're missing the point of the Solomon story. When Solomon proposed that solution, one woman said "No, no - give her the baby." That woman was willing to compromise. She was willing to compromise all the wa…

In the Solomon story one woman was 100% right and one was 100% wrong. Are there many social issues where the 2 sides that meed this criterion? I think a better visualization of the problem is "you can't cross a canyon in less than a single bound". Sometimes there is no meeting half way. Last but not least, compromising is sometimes not an option. It's like the paradox of tolerance where the only thing you have to be…

You're confusing speech and actions. Contract killing is bad not because of speech (after all, the contracting can be done in complete silence), but because of someone actually doing the killing.

Another problem, a much bigger one, is most of what people claim to be "hate speech" these days simply isn't. Post certain factual stats on race or Islam on HN, and you will get banned for hate speech. It's hurt feelings, and they often clash with reality.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#267

Post by TangoTrotFox »

yesenadam wrote: post #263
TangoTrotFox wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to try to rephrase what I said above with a bit more context I as agree with you we're having a failure of communication somewhere. The distinction and issue I am considering is between those imperatives we ought desire to encode into law as opposed to personal beliefs or opinions that ought remain something executed only at an individual level. What I've proposed is that unless an act can be shown to be un…

Ah ok, thanks for persevering. What about if if society ate meat? There's no clear argument against it So I think you're saying things like this because you're only considering humans (and I guess cats and dogs). The whole thing about 'ethical vegetarians' or whatever you want to call them, is they are people who don't just consider humans and nothing else when thinking about who is harmed (or rather, not just humans…

Again, I'm not sure you're seeing the distinction between rational law and moral law. You are arguing that people ought not be carnivores or omnivores because of moral views. The people that argue for things like execution for atheists or homosexuals do so under the exact same perspective. By contrast, rational laws can be derived with absolutely no notion or appeal to morality whatsoever. And once again, if you start to accept morality as the basis for an imperative you're suddenly creating a far more arbitrary line that you claim to be protesting here as you want the morality of your worldview to be seen as an imperative, but not the morality of another individual's worldview to be seen as an imperative.

As a simple test here you can envision a thought experiment. Take two of the most extremely amoral individuals who disagree on everything subjective except for their own desire for self preservation and growth. And of course we have to assume they'll always tell the truth when answering these questions, and also know the other person is also telling the truth. Any law you can get these individuals to agree upon is like to be a rational law. And you'd find they would agree to not kill each other, to not steal from one another, and so forth and so on. The things they would disagree upon would be moral laws -- eating meat, belief in a god, sexual behavior, usury, relationship views, etc.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#268

Post by yesenadam »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #267
yesenadam wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah ok, thanks for persevering. What about if if society ate meat? There's no clear argument against it So I think you're saying things like this because you're only considering humans (and I guess cats and dogs). The whole thing about 'ethical vegetarians' or whatever you want to call them, is they are people who don't just consider humans and nothing else when thinking about who is harmed (or rather, not just humans…

Again, I'm not sure you're seeing the distinction between rational law and moral law. You are arguing that people ought not be carnivores or omnivores because of moral views. The people that argue for things like execution for atheists or homosexuals do so under the exact same perspective. By contrast, rational laws can be derived with absolutely no notion or appeal to morality whatsoever. And once again, if you star…

The metaphor of me not being able to see something that you can see clearly isn't a helpful one.

You are arguing that people ought not be carnivores or omnivores because of moral views.

I've tried to understand what you mean by the term moral views, which I've never come across before. I've tried to explain the reasons behind my thinking that people shouldn't eat animals. Given the reality and the science, it seems the most reasonable position to me. You just seem to ignore all that each time and reiterate exactly the same claim, that I have no reasons at all, that it's identical to people arguing for execution for homosexuals with no good reason at all except god says so. I don't at all buy the way you talk or think about this stuff. I don't think there's much point continuing. Thank you very much for being so civil and patient, I appreciate it! The last time I tried understanding someone's unusual views about ethics/morality on here, the guy ended it with "You sound like a retard." haha.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#269

Post by TangoTrotFox »

yesenadam wrote: post #268
TangoTrotFox wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I'm not sure you're seeing the distinction between rational law and moral law. You are arguing that people ought not be carnivores or omnivores because of moral views. The people that argue for things like execution for atheists or homosexuals do so under the exact same perspective. By contrast, rational laws can be derived with absolutely no notion or appeal to morality whatsoever. And once again, if you star…

The metaphor of me not being able to see something that you can see clearly isn't a helpful one. You are arguing that people ought not be carnivores or omnivores because of moral views. I've tried to understand what you mean by the term moral views , which I've never come across before. I've tried to explain the reasons behind my thinking that people shouldn't eat animals. Given the reality and the science, it seems…

Morals are concerned with the subjective goodness or badness of an action. Rationality is not concerned with the nature of an action, but only with its ultimate consequences.

I've never said you have no reasons. I've said that your reasons are moralistic in nature. In other words arguing that stealing is unlawful because is stealing is bad, as opposed to arguing that stealing is unlawful because of the predictable cause and effect sequence of events that would lead to chaos and likely the very literal destruction of modern society if it were legal. Arguing based on morals is a concept that inherently feels right, as one takes a stand for what they feel is just and right. Yet it's the very sort of behavior that stands to regress and undermine the very nature of modern free and liberal societies.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#270

Post by Jordrok »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #143
tmorton wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a lot of social issues, being given the midpoint solution is like being given half a baby. I think this cuts to the heart of the issue - and demonstrates the problem with this line of thinking. I also think you're missing the point of the Solomon story. When Solomon proposed that solution, one woman said "No, no - give her the baby." That woman was willing to compromise. She was willing to compromise all the wa…

Can you provide a specific example(s) of a side sacrificing a deeper issue in order to win, in recent history? I'm having trouble coming up with examples.

Two words: Donald Trump
Post reply on HN