YouTube’s Rabbit Hole of Radicalization [pdf]

Post by ravenstine » Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 5:50 AM UTC

elfexec wrote: post #22

minimaxir wrote: post #3

It 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 should be noted that this research was likely published with a specific agenda in mind: Just like the previous "study" which claimed everybody not part of the corporate media were alt-right. These types of "research" are funded and run solely for an agenda. Primarily to push social media platforms to direct traffic to corporate media. Also, radicalized is such an interesting word. If the saudis ran the exact sam…

Post by rapnie » Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 6:06 AM UTC

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…

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 6:23 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #42

motohagiography wrote: post #12

Does Youtube radicalize? Edward Snowden made an observation during his Joe Rogan interview that compartmentalization within the CIA is necessary so that no person can see all the bad stuff at once and freak out at its total enormity. As a sysadmin, he was in effect radicalized by seeing the bigger picture at NSA that wasn't visible to other analysts. I think Youtube shows you an analogous bigger picture that makes th…

FWIW, I'd note that Snowden was a CIA contractor, not operative or spy, so his understanding of why compartmentalization is done should maybe be taken with a grain of salt. (For example, another---and if I understand correctly, the main---reason compartmentalization is done is so a single compromised agent can't give "the whole farm" to an enemy intelligence organization. It's not about protecting agents from 'the re…

Post by chillwaves » Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 7:11 AM UTC

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…

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 7:15 AM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #40

falcolas wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?