YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]
1–10 of 125 posts
Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]
#2For the convenience of those who can't conveniently read a PDF on their current device:
> The role that YouTube and its behind-the-scenes recommendation algorithm plays in encouraging online radicalization has been suggested by both journalists and academics alike. This study directly quantifies these claims by examining the role that YouTubes algorithm plays in suggesting radicalized content. After categorizing nearly 800 political channels, we were able to differentiate between political schemas in order to analyze the algorithm traffic flows out and between each group.
> After conducting a detailed analysis of recommendations received by each channel type, we refute the popular radicalization claims. To the contrary, these data suggest that YouTubes recommendation algorithm actively discourages viewers from visiting radicalizing or extremist content. Instead, the algorithm is shown to favor mainstream media and cable news content over independent YouTube channels with slant towards left-leaning or politically neutral channels. Our study thus suggests that YouTubes recommendation algorithm fails to promote inflammatory or radicalized content, as previously claimed by several outlets.
Tweet from the author:
https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743168246771716
> It turns out the late 2019 algorithm DESTROYS conspiracy theorists, provocateurs and white identitarians
> Helps partisans
> Hurts almost everyone else.
Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]
#3It should be noted that this research was likely published with a specific agenda in mind: https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743217982803970?...
> My new article explains in detail. It takes aim at the NYT (in particular, @kevinroose) who have been on myth-filled crusade vs social media. We should start questioning the authoritative status of outlets that have soiled themselves with agendas.
From the linked Medium article:
> These events, along with the promotion of the now-debunked YouTube “rabbit hole” theory, reveal what many suspect — that old media titans, presenting themselves as non-partisan and authoritative, are in fact trapped in echo chambers of their own creation, and are no more incentivized to report the truth than YouTube grifters.
The paper itself makes a fundamental flaw of using logged out recommendations and attempts to disprove 2018 algos even after substantial changes since, which invalidates the research entirely.
Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]
#4This is a pretty clever way to identify natural recommendation levels. I wish the authors had given a bit more justification of why net impression flows are a good metric, but I don't want to quibble too much, because it seems pretty reasonable and it's certainly a vast improvement over what I was afraid I'd find going in.
> However, it seems that the company will have to decide first if the platform is meant for independent YouTubers or if it is just another outlet for mainstream media.
Come on, authors, save it for the blog post.
Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]
#5It should be noted that this research was likely published with a specific agenda in mind: https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743217982803970?... > My new article explains in detail. It takes aim at the NYT (in particular, @kevinroose) who have been on myth-filled crusade vs social media. We should start questioning the authoritative status of outlets that have soiled themselves with agendas. From the linked…
Less of an agenda than the aforementioned NYT article.
Sure, this research doesn't use 2018 algos, because it's 2019. I guess the NYT and others should've done the research in the first place then. It certainly doesn't invalidate the research - it shows that the claims made by others are probably not accurate in 2019 on YT.
Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]
#6It should be noted that this research was likely published with a specific agenda in mind: https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743217982803970?... > My new article explains in detail. It takes aim at the NYT (in particular, @kevinroose) who have been on myth-filled crusade vs social media. We should start questioning the authoritative status of outlets that have soiled themselves with agendas. From the linked…
Less of an agenda than the aforementioned NYT article. Sure, this research doesn't use 2018 algos, because it's 2019. I guess the NYT and others should've done the research in the first place then. It certainly doesn't invalidate the research - it shows that the claims made by others are probably not accurate in 2019 on YT.
> maybe the NYT should have done some research
Wow, never heard that one before.
Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]
#7It should be noted that this research was likely published with a specific agenda in mind: https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743217982803970?... > My new article explains in detail. It takes aim at the NYT (in particular, @kevinroose) who have been on myth-filled crusade vs social media. We should start questioning the authoritative status of outlets that have soiled themselves with agendas. From the linked…
It makes me wonder how one would research Youtube algorithms from the outside.
Perhaps freshly imaged computers in random geographical locations periodically running selenium or other browser automation software, recording which recommendations are made for various viewing preferences?
The problem is A) the study could be invalidated by basic bot prevention (from identifying Selenium, identifying fresh accounts, etc) and B) Youtube actively preventing such research with "new" accounts and C) lack of sufficient scale could skew the results.
Ideally Youtube would partner with a transparent auditor and have internal teams work with the auditors, but there's no way Google agrees to that because it could potentially unearth some very bad practices by the Youtube team (if they do exist...).
Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]
#8It should be noted that this research was likely published with a specific agenda in mind: https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743217982803970?... > My new article explains in detail. It takes aim at the NYT (in particular, @kevinroose) who have been on myth-filled crusade vs social media. We should start questioning the authoritative status of outlets that have soiled themselves with agendas. From the linked…
Less of an agenda than the aforementioned NYT article. Sure, this research doesn't use 2018 algos, because it's 2019. I guess the NYT and others should've done the research in the first place then. It certainly doesn't invalidate the research - it shows that the claims made by others are probably not accurate in 2019 on YT.
[deleted]
Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]
#9For the convenience of those who can't conveniently read a PDF on their current device: > The role that YouTube and its behind-the-scenes recommendation algorithm plays in encouraging online radicalization has been suggested by both journalists and academics alike. This study directly quantifies these claims by examining the role that YouTubes algorithm plays in suggesting radicalized content. After categorizing near…
> Our study thus suggests that YouTubes recommendation algorithm fails to promote inflammatory or radicalized content
Asserting that "mainstream media and cable news content" is neither inflammatory nor radicalized. I'm not sure how accurate this statement is today.
Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]
#10It should be noted that this research was likely published with a specific agenda in mind: https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743217982803970?... > My new article explains in detail. It takes aim at the NYT (in particular, @kevinroose) who have been on myth-filled crusade vs social media. We should start questioning the authoritative status of outlets that have soiled themselves with agendas. From the linked…
It makes me wonder how one would research Youtube algorithms from the outside. Perhaps freshly imaged computers in random geographical locations periodically running selenium or other browser automation software, recording which recommendations are made for various viewing preferences? The problem is A) the study could be invalidated by basic bot prevention (from identifying Selenium, identifying fresh accounts, etc)…
I helped contribute to YouTube algorithm research for BuzzFeed News in January: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/down-y...