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

111–120 of 125 posts

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

#111

Post by jakeogh »

ceejayoz wrote: post #107
jakeogh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Will and the National Review crew are neo-cons. AKA not-Conservatives. Straussians. They are the fake "right" of the modern pro-global government party. Watching people aruge over what's "left" and "right" is surreal. The real differences (if one wants to find them) are sovereignty of nation states vs a permenant ruling class that sets quazi-global policy. To anyone who thinks they are "left": Consider watchin…

> George Will and the National Review crew are neo-cons. Irrelevant. The parent comment claimed being dismayed by Trump's election makes one automatically part of the "partisan left". Neither George Will nor National Review are, by any stretch of the imagination, "partisan left", despite their being anti-Trump. They may not be the form of right-wing you like, but they're very much on the right hand side of the spectr…

That's fair. I agree. Some of Trumps most powerful political enemies are what some people would consider "right". Ryan, Mitt, (formally) McCain... the list is long. I find the conventional l/r distinction worse than useless; to the point of deliberately obfuscating intent.

Studying YT through the conventional l/r window is not going to yield useful results.

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

#112

Post by DanBC »

Kiro wrote: post #72
cirno wrote: post #67

This applies every bit as much to Google's web search as it does YouTube search. I know of many marginalized people targeted by online hate groups that have been smeared with proven-false allegations and doxxed online, and these stalking websites are consistently ranked as the top results in Google search and Google Images search results for their names. Google's AI is clearly trained to recognize and promote controv…

What applies? The submission concludes the opposite of what you're describing. > To the contrary, these data suggest that YouTubes recommendation algorithm actively discourages viewers from visiting radicalizing or extremist content.

...but only for logged out users.

They didn't test what happens for people with an account.

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

#113

Post by wcoenen »

sandworm101 wrote: post #55
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…

Whether it works one way or the other, I find what it recommends to me very disturbing. Example: I'm a former rock climber and am very interested in knot and knot-tying. I watched some vids on hemp ropes, including "braiding" strands of rope. That points me to a video on hair braiding, which I watch as I do find it mildly interesting, a knot system that won't bind into a mess. Now youtube is recommending me very odd…

> What do I need to watch to get out of this inappropriate category

Nothing, just tap the three dots on wrongly recommended videos and then "not interested" or "don't recommend channel". The recommendation algorithm might need more than one data point but it will catch on eventually.

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

#114

Post by Thorentis »

iudqnolq wrote: post #104
Thorentis wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CNN is very pro-democrat, as clearly shown in all their election coverage. This makes them partisan left. From what I've seen, CNN tends to support the favoured democrat candidate/front-runner, and TYT lean further left and often show support for somebody like Sanders, but show general support across the board. > You also don't address their main evidence What main evidence? Their main programming? The main programmi…

> > You also don't address their main evidence > What main evidence? Their main programming? The main programming of both is left leaning, and when it comes to discussing elections and US politics, is incredibly partisan. The second half of the sentence you quoted tells you exactly what main evidence. If you're going to abridge quotes to take away their key meaning and then attack them I'm not going to both doing the…

You're really grasping at straws here. There was no link or example provided in the original comment. They simply stated what they perceived the main programming to be. In one of my comments I address that by saying that the main programming on both is very pro-democrat, but with TYT leaning further left than CNN in their support of candidates that are further left than the front-runner. There is nothing else to address. If you dispute my counter-claims, please do so. Don't just say "you didn't do x" and sit back as if that's enough intelligent input to win an argument.

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

#115

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

_yid9 wrote: post #110
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, of all the different libertarian philosophies, most of them are radical, in so much as they all seek to distance the individual from systems of government and social institutions. Since those things are what most people use day to day, and in the US only one of the two political parties leans that way, it does put you in a minority camp whose views can be felt as a sort of existential threat. (And honestly, p…

Everyone is a libertarian — when it comes to their own liberties. Other ideologies vary, insofar as they devalue and restrict differing sunsets of other peoples’ liberty. So it is always strange to me that valuing other’s liberty as highly as my own is now being considered as “radical”. And, I’m always ready and willing to lay down my life to defend my liberty — and yours. I find is also strange that the political id…

It sounds a bit like you've got an axe to grind more than you want to actually discuss political philosophy, and that might be more the reason why other people don't want to discuss it. (And for what it's worth, 'radical' isn't pejorative... Pretty much anything that isn't social progressivism or social conservativism is radical in this country)

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

#116

Post by Torches66 »

pjc50 wrote: post #96
Mountain_Skies wrote: post #89

We can keep doing study after study but the kernel of all of this seems to be an inability of certain academics and tech industry titans to understand that not everyone thinks alike them or holds the same values. There is an undercurrent in all of this confusion that if we can just control what others are and hear, we can make them believe the exact same things we believe. Afterall, we are right, they are wrong, so t…

> we are right, they are wrong Vaccines work; the safety risks are minimal; there is no reliable evidence that they cause autism and the primary proponent of the theory was eventually struck off for malpractice. Getting this wrong will cause the unnecessary suffering and death of small children. The earth is spherical, and this has been known since ancient times. Some things are not a matter of opinion.

Now do racial diversity.

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

#117

Post by pjc50 »

Torches66 wrote: post #116
pjc50 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we are right, they are wrong Vaccines work; the safety risks are minimal; there is no reliable evidence that they cause autism and the primary proponent of the theory was eventually struck off for malpractice. Getting this wrong will cause the unnecessary suffering and death of small children. The earth is spherical, and this has been known since ancient times. Some things are not a matter of opinion.

Now do racial diversity.

Do what with it? What's the question to which you might want a true/false value assigned?

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

#118

Post by Torches66 »

krapp wrote: post #87
jansan wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone watches one conspiracy video, then their recommendations become all conspiracy videos which inevitably leads to them consuming more and more far right content. Just in case you didn't know, conspiracy theories aren't an exclusively right wing thing.

>Just in case you didn't know, conspiracy theories aren't an exclusively right wing thing. Exclusively, no. Primarily, yes. At the moment, right-wing extremism is enjoying a global surge in popularity, so that ideology currently dominates conspiracy narratives online, and contributes to their virality.

[flagged]

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

#119

Post by krapp »

Torches66 wrote: post #118
krapp wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Just in case you didn't know, conspiracy theories aren't an exclusively right wing thing. Exclusively, no. Primarily, yes. At the moment, right-wing extremism is enjoying a global surge in popularity, so that ideology currently dominates conspiracy narratives online, and contributes to their virality.

[flagged]

[flagged]
Post reply on HN