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

YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 125 posts

Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

#31

Post by nothingtos33 »

XPKBandMaidCzun wrote: post #25

I see the term radicalization is being brought up, do we serve ourselves by focusing on superficial presentations that won't be the same in 10 years rather than how similar everyone is: Feeling enlightened, competitive and lack consideration that their perceived "ideological adversary" is every bit vulnerable, needy, and scared as themselves? How is this different from couple's therapy, just at long distances w/ grou…

Youtube recommended this to my son: https://youtube.com/watch?v=4LfJnj66HVQ

Please watch it and tell me what you think of it.

Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

#32

Post by war1025 »

Thorentis wrote: post #29
faizshah wrote: post #23

Difficult to take this analysis seriously when CNN is categorized with The Young Turks as “Partisan Left.” Regardless of what you think of either channel the programming of these two channels is dramatically different. The fact that the tags were manually created by the experimenters and were manually assigned by the experimenters throws the results even more into question.

CNN and TYT are both partisan left. They both published content showing extreme dismay at the election of Trump. That's fine, they're allowed to do that. This just shows their political bias. The same way Fox was airing pro-Trump things at the same time. This isn't a dispute over whether they are right, just over what type of content they publish. I see no problem putting CNN and TYT on the same side of the political…

I've found the downvotes tend to come from those who believe "reality leans left."

I.e. there is no "left" content, because that content is just the truth. And any "right" content should in their view be properly labeled as "wrong" content.

Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

#33

Post by faizshah »

datashow wrote: post #28
faizshah wrote: post #23

Difficult to take this analysis seriously when CNN is categorized with The Young Turks as “Partisan Left.” Regardless of what you think of either channel the programming of these two channels is dramatically different. The fact that the tags were manually created by the experimenters and were manually assigned by the experimenters throws the results even more into question.

I don't follow your logic. Yes, CNN and TYT are very different. This only means they can be tagged differently, but it doesn't mean they cannot be tagged under same category. For example, The Selfish Gene and Advanced Algebra are two very different books, but they can be both categorized as nonfiction. Maybe you are right with the conclusion, i.e. CNN or TYT should not be both categorized as “Partisan Left,” but you…

In my view it’s a good example of why the manual labeling is flawed as CNN regularly criticizes progressives and airs republican views that TYT then responds to and criticizes CNN for.

To categorize them both as “Partisan Left Focused on politics and exclusively critical of Republicans” is a stark example of why manual labeling of these channels, especially by the two authors and some unnamed person the authors trusted (pg. 4), cannot be unbiased and a survey methodology or topic model would produce more persuasive results.

Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

#34

Post by baking »

dfabulich wrote: post #2

For 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…

Anyone who regularly browses their Youtube recommendations knows that the algorithm changed dramatically a few months ago.

Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

#35

Post by ceejayoz »

Thorentis wrote: post #29
faizshah wrote: post #23

Difficult to take this analysis seriously when CNN is categorized with The Young Turks as “Partisan Left.” Regardless of what you think of either channel the programming of these two channels is dramatically different. The fact that the tags were manually created by the experimenters and were manually assigned by the experimenters throws the results even more into question.

CNN and TYT are both partisan left. They both published content showing extreme dismay at the election of Trump. That's fine, they're allowed to do that. This just shows their political bias. The same way Fox was airing pro-Trump things at the same time. This isn't a dispute over whether they are right, just over what type of content they publish. I see no problem putting CNN and TYT on the same side of the political…

> They both published content showing extreme dismay at the election of Trump.

So did the National Review (https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/donald-trump-conserva...), but they're hardly left.

Same for George Will (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-spiraling-presid...). Again, hardly left.

Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

#36

Post by soulofmischief »

Thorentis wrote: post #29
faizshah wrote: post #23

Difficult to take this analysis seriously when CNN is categorized with The Young Turks as “Partisan Left.” Regardless of what you think of either channel the programming of these two channels is dramatically different. The fact that the tags were manually created by the experimenters and were manually assigned by the experimenters throws the results even more into question.

CNN and TYT are both partisan left. They both published content showing extreme dismay at the election of Trump. That's fine, they're allowed to do that. This just shows their political bias. The same way Fox was airing pro-Trump things at the same time. This isn't a dispute over whether they are right, just over what type of content they publish. I see no problem putting CNN and TYT on the same side of the political…

I'm not partisan left and I shared content showing extreme dismay at the imbecile running my country, too.

Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

#37

Post by iudqnolq »

Thorentis wrote: post #29
faizshah wrote: post #23

Difficult to take this analysis seriously when CNN is categorized with The Young Turks as “Partisan Left.” Regardless of what you think of either channel the programming of these two channels is dramatically different. The fact that the tags were manually created by the experimenters and were manually assigned by the experimenters throws the results even more into question.

CNN and TYT are both partisan left. They both published content showing extreme dismay at the election of Trump. That's fine, they're allowed to do that. This just shows their political bias. The same way Fox was airing pro-Trump things at the same time. This isn't a dispute over whether they are right, just over what type of content they publish. I see no problem putting CNN and TYT on the same side of the political…

> Downvotes? Give me a counter example that shows how TYT or CNN is not left-leaning.

Maybe downvotes are because you claim your parent claims CNN isn't left-leaning, whereas what they said was that CNN isn't "partisan left" in the same way that TYT is. You also don't address their main evidence for their claim, that they frequently attack each other.

I have no idea if you're right, because I haven't looked into the issues in enough depth. Your attack of a strawman is, however, completely unconvincing to me.

Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

#38

Post by ravenstine »

faizshah wrote: post #33
datashow wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow your logic. Yes, CNN and TYT are very different. This only means they can be tagged differently, but it doesn't mean they cannot be tagged under same category. For example, The Selfish Gene and Advanced Algebra are two very different books, but they can be both categorized as nonfiction. Maybe you are right with the conclusion, i.e. CNN or TYT should not be both categorized as “Partisan Left,” but you…

In my view it’s a good example of why the manual labeling is flawed as CNN regularly criticizes progressives and airs republican views that TYT then responds to and criticizes CNN for. To categorize them both as “Partisan Left Focused on politics and exclusively critical of Republicans ” is a stark example of why manual labeling of these channels, especially by the two authors and some unnamed person the authors trus…

Isn't that kind of like saying InfoWars isn't a conspiracy/entertainment website because it regularly posts about actual news?

Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

#39

Post by shadowgovt »

war1025 wrote: post #32
Thorentis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN and TYT are both partisan left. They both published content showing extreme dismay at the election of Trump. That's fine, they're allowed to do that. This just shows their political bias. The same way Fox was airing pro-Trump things at the same time. This isn't a dispute over whether they are right, just over what type of content they publish. I see no problem putting CNN and TYT on the same side of the political…

I've found the downvotes tend to come from those who believe "reality leans left." I.e. there is no "left" content, because that content is just the truth. And any "right" content should in their view be properly labeled as "wrong" content.

Individual HNers should lack visibility into who is downvoting them. How did you de-anonymize the downvote signal?

Re: YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

#40

Post by shadowgovt »

falcolas wrote: post #9
dfabulich wrote: post #2

For 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.

I believe it is generally accepted definitionally that "mainstream" isn't radicalized (i.e. mainstream is defined as "not the radical fringe"). Can you think of an example of why that definitional assertion should be discarded?
Post reply on HN