It's repeatedly emphasized in the article that the recommendations algorithm gives viewers "what they want to see" and what has high engagement. Unfortunately it looks like these criteria seem to push towards fringe and extreme content because that's what evokes people are interested in watching and causes them to react. YouTube, on its part, probably does not intend for it to be this way, but seeing as its goals are…
They have to play with the control variables producing the feedback loops.
People and content creators are influenced by the view/like/dislike count. Instant feedback through these counts produces all kinds of unintended consequences.
Instant feedback is overrated and unnecessary. It's like constantly getting a live upvote/downvote from your spouse or boss or prof on everything you do. What kind of behaviour does anyone think this produces? In such real time conditioning environment ppl turn into rats in a B F Skinner experiment.
The Russians or any bad actor don't have to create content anymore. Just find a lunatic and encourage/prop them up with views and upvotes. YouTube will then take care of distribution triggered by the view and like counts.
Hide or delay the counts to both the creator and viewer and the world changes over night.
The experiment can be run on HN. Hide the upvotes on certain controversial threads and see what kind of conversations happen.