Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, every time I hear an argument along these lines, that any attempt at moderating content will inevitably devolve into 1984 style censorship because all terms are arbitrary and "what even is x?", it becomes less convincing. Unless the US government bans all sites except google and turns Youtube into a direct propaganda tool and declares that publishing any unauthorized content is a crime, then the worst that…
You say "a single platform" as though there is another viable platform. Someone tried to set one up. It's called BitChute. All the payment processors blocked it. The reality is that YouTube is not just "a single platform", it's THE platform. It's owned by a megacorporation with extreme political leanings. It's incredibly influential on votes and opinions globally. It's run with zero transparency, by a small unidentif…
Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube
101–110 of 311 posts
Re: Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conspiracy theories are, for the most part, a right-wing thing. Unless you can give me examples of conspiracy theories and their peddlers on level of Alex Jones for the far left.
The anti-vaxers are from all over the political spectrum I am sad to say.
Though it's true that the anti-GMO and even anti-Nuclear sentiments I see accross the spectrum but those differ a bit from conspiracy theories in that it stems from junk science, rather than a belief in a hidden government or group wanting to personally change you.
Re: Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube
#103What really bugs me is when a video literally has "Episode 18" in the name, but somehow the recommendation list on the right side fails to find the one with "Episode 19". But if I want to go watch Episode 5 again or jump ahead to Episode 26, it's happy to help. Awesome.
I wish they would fix their iPad app. I'm learning to play guitar with the JustingGuitar channel. Justin has created playlists that match his book that I bought. But as soon as I play a video from that list, it seems to lose that context. Plus, on the iOS app there's no way to search within a channel or playlist. If I want to find Justin's lessons on a Nirvana song I have to search "justin guitar nirvana" rather than…
Re: Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube
#104Why take moral positions on the content of the videos? Why be the arbiter of what people should watch? Why censor?
Re: Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube
#105These algorithms are based on what people watch based on prior history. As outsiders, we can't know exactly how it works, but it seems like it would be some mix of the video you are currently watching and other videos in your watch/search history, which then feed into a model that considers all users' behaviors and produces probabilistic relationships between videos. This is a fairly standard way for how recommendations work, and it is reasonable. As others have pointed out, there are also many anecdotes of YouTube recommendations working great - for example with discovery of music. But we should keep in mind that the same recommendations engine supports those same positive anecdotes.
For a lot of users, the recommendations some are labeling as incorrect, radicalizing, etcetera are actually the recommendations they want and enjoy. Why should other users or YouTube intervene if that's what user behavior supports? Clearly, the reason is that these other users want to constrain access to views they don't share - which is just another way of saying they support censorship when it applies to others. There is a dangerous concept creep in Google's blog post:
> We’ll continue that work this year, including taking a closer look at how we can reduce the spread of content that comes close to—but doesn’t quite cross the line of—violating our Community Guidelines.
This is really the first step in expanding their guidelines, and if they cave to either internal political activism or the complaints coming from the outside (a group with very uniform views aligning with the political left), it is a risk for public discourse. This is in part because there are very few alternatives to Google in general, and that applies to YouTube as well. As others have pointed out, BitChute was blackballed by payment processors. Any constraint on free exchange of information on YouTube is dangerous because so much of online discourse is under Google's control, on their platforms.
I can't help but think that the BuzzFeed article and others are basically cherry-picked hitjobs to create a false narrative that something more nefarious is going on beyond YouTube simply respecting user behaviors. The impetus to say something is wrong here seems to be based entirely on personal political biases. For example, some people here are bemoaning the fact that watching Joe Rogan's podcasts (which are less political) lead you to watch Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro. If that's the behavior other users who watch a Joe Rogan video are exhibiting, I don't see anything wrong with that recommendation. And if you dislike it, consider that this might be the exposure to different views that people often pay lip service to.
Some of the other annoyances outlined by commenters are less related to specific content and more like general usability concerns. A summary:
- It is no longer possible to see recommendations based on just the current video. I agree this is poor design. It seems at some point YouTube switched the recommendations feed from being centered on whatever content you are currently seeking (which the currently playing video would be an input for), to just showing recommendations based on everything you've ever done. I think there is a place for the current set of recommendations but it should not be the sole set. Having a "Based on this video" section of recommendations and a "More for you" section of recommendations would solve this problem.
- User feedback saying you don't want to watch something is not immediately respected. Other users say that it is respected, if you provide the feedback multiple times. The latter may be appropriate, since a single dislike is likely best interpreted not as an absolute, but a signal that gets ingested into the algorithm and weighted appropriately.
- People want to be able to watch a video and not have it feed into their recommendations. This is currently possible by pausing watch history or search history, but that's deep in the settings and much harder to find. I agree, YOuTube should make a privacy mode toggle that is available right next to the video.
- Sometimes videos that were already watched are recommended. I'm split on this one - I've certainly seen times they recommend a previously-watched video where I don't think it would make sense to rewatch it. But that is likely based on user behavior as well. And if there are enough users watching some video repeatedly, it might be a fair and correct prediction to suggest it to me. When you click the 'Not Interested' link beneath a video, you can also click 'Tell Us Why' and select the option 'I already watched it' to give them that hint. But the interface is a bit cumbersome, certainly.
Re: Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be even better is if they had somewhere that you could just specify what episode it is in a series rather than it try to guess based on titles
Youtube creators already have the ability to create series inside playlists. Example: The Slow Mo Guys channel has a "Planet Slow Mo" series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbIZ6k-SE9Shmj0Uvxtrv...
It's not even subscriber gated or verified channel gated, it's someone at youtube for some reason flicked the switch on for this channel gated
Re: Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube
#107"To that end, we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11." Why take moral positions on the content of the videos? Why be the arbiter of what people should watch? Why censor?
Re: Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube
#108Specifically, I notice more of:
* Subjects I haven't watched in a while, but went through a period of watching. This is especially useful if it's a recent update or revival of a particular topic.
* Content from channels that are actually similar to what I often watch, and not just clickbait stuff. Occasionally there's actual valuable discovery in the recs.
* Videos that I very much would normally watch from sub'd channels, but missed for whatever reason. The recs are actually helping remind me to watch things I want to watch.
It's still the minority of recommendations, but I have to agree that the system is actually improving.
Re: Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube
#109I like to watch spiritual and metaphysical talks, Papaji, Eckhart Tolle, Conscious TV, Rupert Spira and the like.
I don't want someone to tell me what's "true" or what's "real" by refering me to the so called "facts".
Sounds like a slippery slope to me...
There sure is a lot of drivel on YouTube.. much of it like content farms playing search engines, is driven by the ad revenue. I find this empty / mindless content far more distracting than "false claims".
Re: Continuing our work to improve recommendations on YouTube
#110We currently don't allow our son to watch anything on youtube, simply because it's a cesspool of horrible videos for children. You're always almost one click away from some violent video where cartoon characters are getting their limbs chopped off, etc. And it's sickening that Google's done nothing about it. Secondly, I can't watch any video without it taking over my recommendations. Alex Jones for example. I still h…