Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–49 of 49 posts

Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels

#41

Post by the_third_wave »

mikewhy wrote: post #26
baggy_trough wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were any communist or socialist channels included?

Are any of them associated with domestic terrorism?

Parents who do not want their children to be indoctrinated by "gender ideologues" were labelled as "domestic terrorists" by the Attorney General [1] so the term does not seem to mean what most people think it does.

Having said that Antifa comes to mind as do a number of similar groups, past and present. As to whether you call these "communist" or not does not really matter as political terminology is intentionally vague - anything to the right of a "progressive" soon becomes "extreme-right/fascist/nazi/...", anything to the left of a "hard-line conservative" soon becomes "communist/socialist/anarchist/...".

So yes, there is plenty of violence on the left side of the political spectrum, probably more than there is on the right side of the spectrum. Take e.g. the 2020 BLM riots as an example for what this looks like. The media tends to tone down their reporting when it comes to the former which lead to terms like "fiery bur mostly peaceful protests" [2,3] while exaggerating the latter but the facts speak for themselves.

Violence is violence no matter whether it comes from the right, the centre of the left. A rock thrown by a Muslim does as much damage as one thrown by an atheist or a flag-waving "patriot".

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/about-those-domestic-terrorists...

[2] https://thecritic.co.uk/the-myth-behind-blms-peaceful-protes...

[3] https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513902-cnn-ridiculed-for-...

Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels

#42

Post by cocoricamo »

Looks to me that right from the start the study has a fatal flaw and it's clearly biased.

Just looking at their channel selection is clear that they consider extremist only some forms extremism. Particularly those often considered as aligned with right wing politics.

From the Ledwich and Zaitsev paper they reference only the "white identitarian", "anti-sjw" and "men rights activism" categories are selected. But there are more categories that could be considered extremist at a glance like "revolutionary" and "anti-whiteness".

Other categories in Ledwich and Zaitsev's paper: Conspiracy, Libertarian, Anti-SJW, Social Justice, White Identitarian, Partisan Left, Partisan Right, Anti-theist, Religious Conservative, Socialist (Anti-Capitalist), Revolutionary, Provocateur, MRA (Mens Rights Activist), Missing Link Media, State Funded Channels, Anti-Whiteness. Some channels in other categories could be considered extremist but would require a nuanced analysis.

About the other lists or what actual channels they looked into I can't really say because I can't seem to find the actual list they used. If someone has the full list and categories they used please link it.

While it could be possible to analyze the behavior of extremism using only right leaning extremism, it is possible that this pattern does not apply to other forms or ideologies.

Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels

#43

Post by cocoricamo »

aarond0623 wrote: post #5
macinjosh wrote: post #2

Wow! 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…

> 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…

Would be nice to be able to review the actual lists that they used.

Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels

#44

Post by cocoricamo »

a_shovel wrote: post #34
didntcheck wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Easiest example is defending antifa as just "wrongheaded" for using violence and attempting to suppress free speech and not a hate group while easily listing any other organization that opposes their political views as hate groups.

If you're claiming to fight extremism you should also fight extremists that support your political views.

Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels

#46

Post by snapplebobapple »

Is there any actual extremist content even left on youtube? There's a TOS more restrictive than the actual law and a reporting mechanism to remove content that violates the law/TOS and many, many channels have left to bitchute/rumble/etc that were often outside the TOS but not outside the law. I really worry about this kind of rhetoric because it seems to be more accurate to say "views I don't like" or "people I can smear with association with genuinely bad views but who I primarily don't like because they are expressing dissent against a seperate view that I hold"

Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels

#47

Post by snapplebobapple »

a_shovel wrote: post #34
didntcheck wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k41PI54ExFc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsX7mO4Iu_k https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/17/southern-p... https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/years-of-turmo... https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/17/12-ways-southern-povert... https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/09/10/southern-... https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109266/documents/...

I can go on, the google results are quite numerous on this issue....

Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels

#48

Post by dragonwriter »

a_shovel wrote: post #34
didntcheck wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I've seen a lot of people say the SPLC is a total sham

Hate groups have been saying it the whole time the SPLC has been around (and especially since it started tracking hate groups, but even when it was just doing pro-civik-rights legal work for 20 years before that) and the US has lots of hate groups.

Its become more current in the broader American Right as quiet-part-out-loud groups have moved from the margins since Trump became a leading figure.

Re: Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels

#49

Post by dragonwriter »

cocoricamo wrote: post #44
a_shovel wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Easiest example is defending antifa as just "wrongheaded" for using violence and attempting to suppress free speech and not a hate group while easily listing any other organization that opposes their political views as hate groups. If you're claiming to fight extremism you should also fight extremists that support your political views.

> Easiest example is defending antifa as just "wrongheaded" for using violence and attempting to suppress free speech

Yeah, its always easiest to just make up an example that never happened. SPLC didn't defend Antifa as just wrongheaded.

It just doesn’t designate them a hate group because they, whatever else they might be, aren’t about the kind of discrimination that SPLC uses to define a hate group (nor, despite sometimes being at odds with government, are they centered on the kind of anti-government ideology that SPLC defines its catalog of anti-government extremist groups with.)

Ironically, what SPLC is beinf criticized for with Antifa is actually having specific meanings for its designations rather than arbitrarily applying them to everyone it disagrees with.

> If you're claiming to fight extremism you should also fight extremists that support your political views.

The SPLC does not now, and never has, claimed to be a force of generic moderation fighting generic “extremism”; its mission has always been to fight for racial justice and specifically against white supremacy. (It has since 1990 tracked hate groups and antigovernment extremist groups, two sets which overlap and which it has observed are influential in the issues it fights against, but the definitions used and purposes of that have always been, quite openly, shaped by and in service to it's primary mission, not orthogonal to it.)

And, having said that, they do include in their catalogs grouos meeting their definition that purport to be aligned against the same things as SPLC, like the New Black Panther Party (which is both listed by them as an “anti-government extremist” group and a “designated hate group” by SPLC.)

Post reply on HN