YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#241

Post by yesenadam » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 10:37 PM UTC

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #198

yesenadam wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people need to surround themselves with those who hold their opinions more lightly and who avoid moralizing. When people acknowledge that their opinions are simply their personal preferences... Well, that sure sounds like 'moralizing' to me, and I don't think you realize it. If you don't care much about anything, well ok. But that's no virtue. It sounds close to the relativism that talks of "true for me" and "true fo…

I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply. And here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used, and indeed is used, to justify the most heinous of ideologies. There are millions of people, and nations, that still believe as a moral absolute that a person ought be killed for behaviors such as apostasy, homosexualit…

Hi, thanks, very interesting.

I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply.

such a view - What 'view' are you taking me to hold? You can with some precision tell what is a 'logical extrapolation' of it or not? I'm not sure what you mean here. (Except I suspect you mean something like Kant's categorical imperative.) Sorry. I'm unable to see what view of mine you've extracted and then extrapolated.

And here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used, and indeed is used, to justify the most heinous of ideologies.

Which argument? Saying you must certainly realize that your argument seems just a condescending bluff. No....well, I'm not sure, I don't know what you are calling 'my argument'. Maybe if you filled in the dots here a bit; I don't know what you mean. (You know nothing about me. I'm a huge fan of Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape. I say that because going by what you're saying about my 'view'/argument, you've put me in the opposite camp to that.)

Ultimately,

It's fascinating what that word's doing. (I'm not sure exactly) Sandwiched as it is between 'moral self assuredness' and 'moral absolute'..

most people look through a revisionist lens of times, both past and present

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

The thing you won't find is slavery persisting in areas where it became uneconomical.

Is that at all surprising?

Well, I don't remember any abolitionists in ancient Greek, Rome etc. It was just the natural order of things, an accepted part of life, necessary to civilization.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#242

Post by slig » Sat, Sep 08, 2018, 11:03 PM UTC

dprescott wrote: post #53

I was a casual youtube watcher. I am talking 2012 style fail videos, music videos, and broad areas of interest. Now I can not stand YT. 1st, they have clearly decided that they want to compete with IG as their 'Trending' section is nothing more than influencers. 2nd, it is likely the case but the 'Trending' section is always loaded with liberal, nonsensical, click bait videos, and artist of no interest to me. I am cl…

Their trending section is much like TV: content build for the masses. Log in and like videos that you enjoy, and you'll have a personalized recommendation page that excellent, in my opinion.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#243

Post by wu-ikkyu » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 1:04 AM UTC

close04 wrote: post #173

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the US government in the 1960's conceding to civil rights demands in order to avoid a violent revolution?

Are you saying that the people who were fighting for civil rights actually deserved to lose because they were willing to... fight to get them?

No.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#244

Post by qubax » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 1:09 AM UTC

What is politically extreme? Would a company that hires someone like sarah jeong be viewed as politically extreme?

The problem isn't youtube. The problem is the news. The news has become politically extreme and that has seeped into youtube.

And it's a bit hypocritical of the nytimes to whine about youtube when they pressured Alphabet ( youtube and google ) to give them priority status on both platforms.

Anyone else getting sick of the news media attacking social media for all the ills they themselves created and are creating even further? Youtube, and social media in general, has become politically extreme because the news industry ( in particular CNN, Washingtonpost and the NYTimes ) has been pressuring it relentlessly to push their content on social media. And since they are so politically extreme, it creates an extreme backlash against it.

Lets not forget that their political extremeness is why fox news was created and why fox news is so popular. If news media companies were a tiny bit honest and objective and fair, we wouldn't be having this problem. But these people running these companies surround themselves with sycophants and create such an impregnable bubble that they can't see how extreme they have become.

Get off your high horse already. You are the problem, not youtube.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#245

Post by ericdykstra » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 1:40 AM UTC

ethiclub wrote: post #228

ericdykstra wrote: post #57

This article seems a bit sensationalized. The examples they give are a single video with 500,000 views, and a couple of channels whose views average 20-30k. If YouTube is recommending "extreme" channels so often, why aren't they getting more views? > “Lies, propaganda and manipulation are harmful for society, but on their own are not illegal — and so our hands are often tied,” said Mr. Ipsen, of the government-linked…

>Good. I think it's insane that the German government is even trying to establish a Ministry of Truth. What is the alternative (if you or anyone is able and comfortable in answering)? Option 1: Let the free market regulate itself. Option 2: Let government govern - And have the state regulate the free market. Option 1 depends on demand from the consumer being ethically driven (rather than purely financial / selfish).…

Government's primary job is to protect liberty, so I would be in favor of legislation that is strictly anti-censorship (such as Social Media Anti-Censorship Act, check #SMACA on Twitter for the outline).

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#246

Post by retox » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 2:28 AM UTC

darepublic wrote: post #219

AJ007 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elon Musk and Nick Bostrom were mocked for warning about the dangers of powerful future AI. I've said this here before, the primary use cases of machine learning right now, today, are hostile. That does not bode well for our future. We have very manipulative advertising, mass surveillance used to put ethnic and religious minorities in concentration camps in China, and in YouTube's case, recommending a lot of totally…

There has always been junk info floating around. What truly scares me are people lIke the new York times who want to censor anyone they disagree with: to the point of wanting youtube to only show political and scientific videos that they personally agree with. Sometimes on YouTube I watch junk science because I'm bored. I know it's bullshit. What I like about he platform is it represents a diverse range of ideas and…

Over unity or other 'zero point' energy videos are fun to watch even if you think they are bullshit, same for a lot of the UFO videos. I thought the flat earth videos might be similarly entertaining but they I have found one that is. I used to read Rense.com for a giggle.

If someone doesn't have the cognitive abilities to consider the veracity of a video that's on them. Let me watch what I want.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#247

Post by TangoTrotFox » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 5:34 AM UTC

yesenadam wrote: post #241

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply. And here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used, and indeed is used, to justify the most heinous of ideologies. There are millions of people, and nations, that still believe as a moral absolute that a person ought be killed for behaviors such as apostasy, homosexualit…

Hi, thanks, very interesting. I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply. such a view - What 'view' are you taking me to hold? You can with some precision tell what is a 'logical extrapolation' of it or not? I'm not sure what you mean here. (Except I suspect you mean something like Kant's categorical imperative.) Sorry. I'm unabl…

What I am referring to is your suggestion that that views based more on moral perspective, rather than rational logic, ought be able to, at least in some cases, be used as imperatives in and of themselves. For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then we'd see substantial harm to society? By contrast we do have some laws based almost exclusively on morals, which are generally based on religion, such as prohibitions against prostitution. In my opinion, the ideal legal system is one in which laws are cast around a lens of ensuring maximal freedom for all of society with restrictions only being when the logical consequence of such prohibited action would lead to 'reasonably clear' harm to society.

There indeed were absolutely abolitionists even as far back as Ancient Greece. I've no doubt the view even predates written language. Check out this writing from Aristotle [1]: "Others affirm that the rule of a master over slaves is contrary to nature, and that the distinction between slave and freeman exists by law only, and not by nature; and being an interference with nature is therefore unjust." It's even interesting that he also rather directly alluded to the exact logic I laid out above, "..if, in like manner, the shuttle would weave and the plectrum touch the lyre without a hand to guide them, chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves.." Reading the classics is always surprising that such wisdom and clarity could be had by a people thousands of years past. At times it seems much more so than even modern man. Perhaps division and diversion are not conducive to the development of sound reasoning abilities.

[1] - http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#248

Post by InfiniteBeing » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 7:35 AM UTC

close04 wrote: post #166

tmorton wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For a lot of social issues, being given the midpoint solution is like being given half a baby. I think this cuts to the heart of the issue - and demonstrates the problem with this line of thinking. I also think you're missing the point of the Solomon story. When Solomon proposed that solution, one woman said "No, no - give her the baby." That woman was willing to compromise. She was willing to compromise all the wa…

In the Solomon story one woman was 100% right and one was 100% wrong. Are there many social issues where the 2 sides that meed this criterion? I think a better visualization of the problem is "you can't cross a canyon in less than a single bound". Sometimes there is no meeting half way. Last but not least, compromising is sometimes not an option. It's like the paradox of tolerance where the only thing you have to be…

Groups of people tend to label the speech of their opponents as "hate speech." It seems like more and more speech today is being labeled as "violent" speech.

For any mass murder you can find people blaming some ideology or another as being the root cause.

It's a dangerous path to follow when a party in power wholly believes in jailing people for "hate speech" as they will be silencing and jailing their ideological opponents.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#249

Post by pjc50 » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 9:01 AM UTC

InfiniteBeing wrote: post #248

close04 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Solomon story one woman was 100% right and one was 100% wrong. Are there many social issues where the 2 sides that meed this criterion? I think a better visualization of the problem is "you can't cross a canyon in less than a single bound". Sometimes there is no meeting half way. Last but not least, compromising is sometimes not an option. It's like the paradox of tolerance where the only thing you have to be…

Groups of people tend to label the speech of their opponents as "hate speech." It seems like more and more speech today is being labeled as "violent" speech. For any mass murder you can find people blaming some ideology or another as being the root cause. It's a dangerous path to follow when a party in power wholly believes in jailing people for "hate speech" as they will be silencing and jailing their ideological op…

> For any mass murder you can find people blaming some ideology or another as being the root cause

Yes, there nearly always is an ideological "cause" or justification for mass murder? That's why everyone's so concerned about it in the first place, it's both a warning sign and a facilitator of genocide.

Re: YouTube's tendency to push everyday users toward politically extreme content

#250

Post by yesenadam » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 9:55 AM UTC

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #247

yesenadam wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, thanks, very interesting. I think a good litmus test for an argument is whether you approve of things that such a view can be logically extrapolated to imply. such a view - What 'view' are you taking me to hold? You can with some precision tell what is a 'logical extrapolation' of it or not? I'm not sure what you mean here. (Except I suspect you mean something like Kant's categorical imperative.) Sorry. I'm unabl…

What I am referring to is your suggestion that that views based more on moral perspective, rather than rational logic, ought be able to, at least in some cases, be used as imperatives in and of themselves. For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then we'd see substantial harm to…

Hi. It's not easy to talk about this stuff! Ok, you've retracted the here you must certainly realize that your argument can be used talk. I was mostly distracted by your loose use of terms, as if they don't have to be used carefully.

For instance do we have a rule that people ought not steal because it's amoral to take that which is the property of another without their agreement, or because if theft was legal then we'd see substantial harm to society? ..That's an instance of my suggestion? Are you asking that or..

your suggestion that that views based more on moral perspective, rather than rational logic, ought be able to, at least in some cases, be used as imperatives in and of themselves. I don't think I suggested that; but that's how it sounds to you, ok. I'm not sure what based more on moral perspective means exactly.

Talking about your first paragraph: Rational logic seems a very strange term to use in this (or any) context. Reason, I guess you mean. Oh, so for you, ethics are based either on reason, or some mystical/religious thing. And I'm in the second camp? Your In my opinion sentence sounds exactly like Mill's On Liberty. You're talking purely about law, where the discussion was about ethics, I thought.

My motivation to write in this thread initially was objecting to the suggestion that it's better to say "I prefer to avoid eating meat" versus "Eating meat is wrong". It sounded like 'tone policing' - it's easy to insist people remain calm when you're fine with the way things are. And that "preferring" in its vague mildness, like preferring one restaurant over another, scarcely captures how I feel about such things. It would sound bizarre to say that you prefer not to be murdered, to be tortured, to be a slave etc. Probably I misunderstood the guy I first responded to, then you misunderstood me etc.

It sounds like we are in agreement, far as I can tell. I don't believe in the kind of 'moral absolute' people get from their holy book/religion. However, plain utilitarianism doesn't fit our moral intuitions either etc etc.. I'm vegan because I don't want to be killed, abused, eaten, and I figure animals don't either. And I can very easily avoid that, so I do. But I don't just prefer that; I think everyone should. It's only from habit/custom that the reality of the situation hasn't dawned on most people yet. Well, the 'consensus' seem to be today, dogs and cats deserve ethical consideration, but not cows, pigs, sheep, fish etc. There's nothing reasonable about that. It's all-too-human to think only white people matter, when you're white, or that only humans matter, when you're human. Like The Moral Landscape says, the origin of most moral/religious/ethical feelings, customs etc is that they produce better outcomes, a better world, for people, than their contrary. And whether they actually do that, can be determined a lot more often than people think; some beliefs, customs can be said to be objectively bad. Thanks.