Always be weary of people/institutions using words like "harmful content" and "extremist."
Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels
31–40 of 49 posts
Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels
#32Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels
#33I sometimes see the default YT homepage outside of my personal controlled usage (for example, on work laptop, or on a friend's chromecast). I am always shocked how many of the default suggestions are straight up rightwing nationalists and the like. I understand 'outrage' or reality-tv esqe topics always get attention, but there's difference between "Youtubers drama" and "Only people of $religion should exist in $coun…
That homepage is personalize to you or your defined segment.
I see science/pop culture.
Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> who got to decide what is extremist or as the study also put it "alternative"? That's explained in the paper: > Our list of extremist channels consists of those labeled as white identitarian by Ledwich and Zaitsev (26) (30 channels), white supremacist by Charles (45) (23 channels), alt-right by Ribeiro et al. (24) (37 channels), extremist or hateful by the Center on Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League (16 chann…
Unfortunately I'm not surprised. The SPLC are the Fox News of declaring everyone they don't like hate groups, and the ADL do a lot of the same, in addition to finding excuses for actual hate when it's the types they like
I've seen a lot of people say the SPLC is a total sham, but I haven't seen anyone explain why or give examples, and in my experience they've been reliable.
Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels
#35Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels
#36Wow! You discovered YouTube will recommend videos from the same channels being watched. Beyond the brain-dead obviousness of this, who got to decide what is extremist or as the study also put it "alternative"? Since when is alternative media a bad thing? This watering down of the concept of extremism is the dangerous part. YouTube doesn't host ISIS or KKK content. Videos from the opposite of your position on the poli…
Ending your post with “church of science” makes you appear to be extreme. It appears to me that you are an extremist and are lashing out because you feel this research is an attack on you personally. It is best to judge research as dispassionately as possible.
Any research focusing on subjective terms such as 'extremist' or 'misinformation' is likely to be contaminated by an element of activism.
Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels
#37Reminder: Adblocking is considered an extremist activity.
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSVUwlTGIywV...
Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
ADL and SPLC are not serious organizations. They're closer to circus shows. The rest reek of DC think-tank elitism and I'm unsure why I should care about their opinions.
Can you specify which of the 23 white supremacist channels are DC think-tank elitism?
Can you reread my post?
Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels
#39Interesting how they neglected to discuss their methodology for determining what was “extremist” material.
Deviation from the Party Platform.
Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ending your post with “church of science” makes you appear to be extreme. It appears to me that you are an extremist and are lashing out because you feel this research is an attack on you personally. It is best to judge research as dispassionately as possible.
Any research focusing on subjective terms such as 'extremist' or 'misinformation' is likely to be contaminated by an element of activism.
How do you know this? It sounds plausible and may seem intuitively obvious but many intuitively obvious 'facts' have turned out to be wrong.
It is good to be skeptical of an individual piece of research. The objections to a piece of research ought to be about how the authors went did their research. Or critique their specific methodology or their use of statistics. Critique their conclusion by showing it doesn't follow from their reported findings.
What one should not do, which is what the person I responded to seems to have done, is say that research in this area is likely to be contaminated by too much bias and thus disregard it. That is an intellectually lazy response and fraught with too much bias on the part of the person in engaging in such reasoning.