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

#251

Post by repolfx » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 10:18 AM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #222

sureaboutthis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More and more I find people who have done what I do; I don't watch TV "news" anymore and ignore almost every "news" article or posting online. Unless the headline might be a topic I'm specifically interested in and think it affects me I don't give it the time.

I’ve gotten to that point too. Even before things got so much worse in the last two years I had already mostly tuned out of news because it stopped being journalism. I would 100% tune out near the end of election cycles. So much of it is just straight reporting. “X said this, Y said that.” No analysis, no critical thought as to whether any of those few points worth presenting at all. Just clips of people’s claims, to…

Seems everyone is tuning out but for different reasons.

I still read a lot of news, but I don't like the dish I'm being served, exactly because it is not just straight reporting but rather is a non-stop stream of journalists' personal political opinions masquerading as analysis and news. I actually would prefer to just read their press releases unfiltered, if there was an organisation that aggregated the ones I'd happen to be interested in, in a trustworthy way.

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

#252

Post by repolfx » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 10:21 AM UTC

finnthehuman wrote: post #132

dragonwriter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She has a hypothesis it works this way because the goal is to make people spend as much time on a site as possible, and feeding people progressively more extreme content works for that. While I understand the attractiveness of conspiratorial hypotheses, I think there is a simple explanation that applies to recommendation systems generally: such systems are designed, overtly, to identify content the user is likely t…

So, rather than being a deliberate choice of Google, it's simply an emergent phenomenon of a system Google expressly designed to manipulate people? How is it not a hundred times more terrifying than the conspiracy theory, that google chooses to keep such a system online?

Google didn't "expressly design" YouTube to manipulate people, come on, that's a wildly uncharitable view. Virtually all popular content hosting sites have some form of recommendation system - because people like them. Claiming it's all a conspiracy to manipulate people is the same school of thought that says all advertising is manipulation, all businesses are run by psychopaths, etc. It's fairytale stuff.

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

#253

Post by repolfx » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 10:31 AM UTC

anonymfus wrote: post #75

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…

>They also didn't mention that Guttenberg was the only one trying to approach Kavanaugh, or that Kavanaugh's kids were removed from the room for safety concerns shortly prior. That seems like manipulation to me. They didn't mention fake news? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaughs-children-...

That article doesn't seem to indicate it's "fake news". Snopes says there's no definitive answer as to why they left, and that different sources give conflicting information. I'm not sure that level of uncertainty rises to the level of stating it's "fake news".

At any rate, there are plenty of clearer examples of CNN reporting things that are false. Glenn Greenwald writes a lot on this topic. See the articles he's written about CNN, MSBC, retracted coverage of Russia etc:

https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/

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

#254

Post by sureaboutthis » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 10:42 AM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #251

MBCook wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve gotten to that point too. Even before things got so much worse in the last two years I had already mostly tuned out of news because it stopped being journalism. I would 100% tune out near the end of election cycles. So much of it is just straight reporting. “X said this, Y said that.” No analysis, no critical thought as to whether any of those few points worth presenting at all. Just clips of people’s claims, to…

Seems everyone is tuning out but for different reasons. I still read a lot of news, but I don't like the dish I'm being served, exactly because it is not just straight reporting but rather is a non-stop stream of journalists' personal political opinions masquerading as analysis and news. I actually would prefer to just read their press releases unfiltered, if there was an organisation that aggregated the ones I'd hap…

TV "news" people interviewing themselves.

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

#255

Post by ericdykstra » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 2:30 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #253

anonymfus wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They also didn't mention that Guttenberg was the only one trying to approach Kavanaugh, or that Kavanaugh's kids were removed from the room for safety concerns shortly prior. That seems like manipulation to me. They didn't mention fake news? https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/brett-kavanaughs-children-...

That article doesn't seem to indicate it's "fake news". Snopes says there's no definitive answer as to why they left, and that different sources give conflicting information. I'm not sure that level of uncertainty rises to the level of stating it's "fake news". At any rate, there are plenty of clearer examples of CNN reporting things that are false. Glenn Greenwald writes a lot on this topic. See the articles he's wr…

Yeah, there are many, many examples. I just took an extremely biased article from very recent memory to show I wasn't cherrypicking. That's a great resource, though, thanks for the link.

You can also use a site like http://newsdiffs.org/ to see when publications retract statements or change headlines quietly.

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

#256

Post by TangoTrotFox » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 3:30 PM UTC

yesenadam wrote: post #250

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I'm going to try to rephrase what I said above with a bit more context I as agree with you we're having a failure of communication somewhere.

The distinction and issue I am considering is between those imperatives we ought desire to encode into law as opposed to personal beliefs or opinions that ought remain something executed only at an individual level. What I've proposed is that unless an act can be shown to be unambiguously and directly harmful to a society, it ought be considered an opinion, rather than an imperative or something that is wrong enough to justify its prohibition by law. So again using the same example, would the existence of legal theft cause a clear and imminent harm to society? There would be nobody, excepting perhaps the insane, that would argue that it wouldn't. What about if if society ate meat? There's no clear argument against it without major appeals to moral views, which should relegate it to the realm of an opinion.

To go in the opposite direction, if we accept the idea of creating imperatives or laws based on moral views, it can rapidly lead to endorsing very absurd notions. For instance the countries and individuals that believe individuals should be executed for being atheist, or homosexual, or engaging in perceived blasphemy against their god or gods do so while appealing to moral views. Such actions cannot be argued to be causing directly harm to society, but they can be argued to be harming the 'moral fiber' of a society from some group's subjective perspective. These are the sort of views that ought remain subjective opinions, instead of legal and enforceable imperatives.

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

#257

Post by atlantic » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 4:19 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #235

atlantic wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hate speech is not free speech any more than contract killing is just a financial transaction. Personal anecdote. When I moved to the UK in the 1970, there was a little platform in Hyde Park called Speaker's Corner. Anyone could step onto it and make a speech about anything, anything at all; they could do so in the strongest terms, without being bothered; there was always a small audience standing around, and often…

> people of your ilk I think the conclusion can be drawn even without the rest of the comment. There will always be some bigot dying a little inside seeing the world is evolving and they're left behind. Spewing out some hate for a couple of other bigots is not that much of a big deal. But today's "Speaker's Corner" has an audience of (tens of) millions. And the bigot doesn't stand up in front of anyone, they do it fr…

> Draw your own conclusions.

I would conclude that you don't know how to argue, and that's why you prefer to take away your opponents' right to express themselves.

On the flimsiest of evidence, you label me with a number of repugnant attributes (bigot, sexagenarian, left behind, stupid, hateful, KKK), and then, having established guilt by association, you politely suggest I shut up.

I could demonstrate to you my political positions are actually further left than yours, but I won't bother, because in a discussion, what counts is the strength of the arguments themselves, not the identities and group affiliations of the speakers.

My identity, my convictions, are irrelevant. My arguments are what matters. And you haven't engaged with the central argument: that democracy cannot function without unrestricted free speech.

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

#258

Post by close04 » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 6:39 PM UTC

atlantic wrote: post #257

close04 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people of your ilk I think the conclusion can be drawn even without the rest of the comment. There will always be some bigot dying a little inside seeing the world is evolving and they're left behind. Spewing out some hate for a couple of other bigots is not that much of a big deal. But today's "Speaker's Corner" has an audience of (tens of) millions. And the bigot doesn't stand up in front of anyone, they do it fr…

> Draw your own conclusions. I would conclude that you don't know how to argue, and that's why you prefer to take away your opponents' right to express themselves. On the flimsiest of evidence, you label me with a number of repugnant attributes (bigot, sexagenarian, left behind, stupid, hateful, KKK), and then, having established guilt by association, you politely suggest I shut up. I could demonstrate to you my poli…

> I would conclude that you don't know how to argue, and that's why you prefer to take away your opponents' right to express themselves

And I would conclude that you believe actions have no consequences when it comes to whatever you like to do. That being free to say or do something means being free to get away with anything that comes out of that. The political position is relevant, this is a combination of character traits and education. Or lack of. You all google "free speech" and only bother to read the first line. Just like the other hicks who think democracy is the right to do whatever the heck they want. You're free to call for violence against others just as you're free to be punished for the consequences of that call.

Well guess what, freedom of speech also considers the harm principle. This is further down the page, too much for most of those people to absorb. [1] "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else".

Speech is like a weapon. They're not prohibited, and you're free to use them any way you see fit but you have to bear the consequences of misuse.

But the further you go towards the extremes (left or right) you find that people are having a harder and harder time understanding this concept of consequences. It's in perfect correlation with the drop in education and usefulness to society. Low education, low income, spineless, always blaming someone else, and running from the consequences of their own actions.

You're here to "negotiate" something that is already law and principles already accepted by many for centuries. To give a nice shine to something every person with the least bit of decency and education knows is wrong. You even have a hard time understanding the difference between not having your actions censored and not suffering the consequences for those actions. You have no arguments, you have a keyboard and an internet connection, and you don't even take full and productive use of those.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

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

#259

Post by atlantic » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 7:08 PM UTC

close04 wrote: post #258

atlantic wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Draw your own conclusions. I would conclude that you don't know how to argue, and that's why you prefer to take away your opponents' right to express themselves. On the flimsiest of evidence, you label me with a number of repugnant attributes (bigot, sexagenarian, left behind, stupid, hateful, KKK), and then, having established guilt by association, you politely suggest I shut up. I could demonstrate to you my poli…

> I would conclude that you don't know how to argue, and that's why you prefer to take away your opponents' right to express themselves And I would conclude that you believe actions have no consequences when it comes to whatever you like to do. That being free to say or do something means being free to get away with anything that comes out of that. The political position is relevant, this is a combination of characte…

> Speech is like a weapon. They're not prohibited, and you're free to use them any way you see fit but you have to bear the consequences of misuse.

Agreed. And there are laws on the books for this; there always have been. The more recent concept of "hate speech" (to return to your original post) is entirely redundant, unless its intended use is censorship.

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

#260

Post by close04 » Sun, Sep 09, 2018, 7:17 PM UTC

atlantic wrote: post #259

close04 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would conclude that you don't know how to argue, and that's why you prefer to take away your opponents' right to express themselves And I would conclude that you believe actions have no consequences when it comes to whatever you like to do. That being free to say or do something means being free to get away with anything that comes out of that. The political position is relevant, this is a combination of characte…

> Speech is like a weapon. They're not prohibited, and you're free to use them any way you see fit but you have to bear the consequences of misuse. Agreed. And there are laws on the books for this; there always have been. The more recent concept of "hate speech" (to return to your original post) is entirely redundant, unless its intended use is censorship.

That's pretty simple: hate speech is that speech that you think you're free to make and should get away with it but you actually shouldn't.

If the fact that something is "a recent concept" made it wrong we wouldn't really have concepts, would we? Hate speech and hate crimes are pretty clearly defined.

See what I was saying about that good use of the internet? You'd rather be here trying to prove me wrong rather that spending the time by yourself finding out why you're wrong.