YouTube More Likely to Direct Election-Fraud Videos to Users Already Skeptical • Hacker News Board

Re: YouTube More Likely to Direct Election-Fraud Videos to Users Already Skeptical

#71

Post by krapp » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 1:36 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #70

mrguyorama wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "problem" (if it's real, which I think it is) is that youtube's recommendations don't show you more "skepticism" content, but will continually try to push you further down rabbit holes. It works great if you are learning and suddenly interested in woodworking, but if you don't trust government, it's just going to take you to all the crazy people saying (((they))) are trying to keep you down and that's why your li…

And it's worth noting (so I have been informed by multiple reputable sources) that the triple-parentheses construction is a common antisemitic dogwhistle—that is, the "they" there is implicitly "the Jews".

It's mostly used ironically now by Jews and allies but yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses

Re: YouTube More Likely to Direct Election-Fraud Videos to Users Already Skeptical

#72

Post by danaris » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 1:42 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #5

xenospn wrote: post #4

Recommendation engines need to have "escape hatches" to make sure society doesn't unravel at the seams.

That would be self-defeating, as the moment that the word gets out that algorithms are now intentionally manipulating away from certain content, the Streisand effect will instantly kick in. Which is already is. Plus, while I do not buy into election conspiracies, imagine if there was an actual stolen election. Getting all of the tech companies to suppress the actual evidence would be fantastic if I were a dictator in…

I think this is one of those cases where optimization on the part of self-interested actors has ruined things for the rest of us.

It used to be that if one said, "allowing people to talk about obviously ridiculous things like conspiracy theories is fine, and important actually, because it's part of free speech," that would be pretty clearly true.

But at that time, the number of people actually talking about such ridiculous things was pretty small.

Since then, the number of people talking about election-related conspiracies has gone up precipitously, largely because of Trump and his supporters. Who, it apparently bears repeating, attempted an actual violent coup to force the election results to go the way they want them to, partly due to the constant repetition of the "election fraud" Big Lie.

So no, allowing these theories to propagate is demonstrably antithetical to the continued functioning of democracy.

Re: YouTube More Likely to Direct Election-Fraud Videos to Users Already Skeptical

#73

Post by danaris » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 3:37 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #71

danaris wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it's worth noting (so I have been informed by multiple reputable sources) that the triple-parentheses construction is a common antisemitic dogwhistle—that is, the "they" there is implicitly "the Jews".

It's mostly used ironically now by Jews and allies but yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses

That....is not what I've heard from Jewish people I know (quite recently), nor what that Wikipedia article says. It says that some people have used it that way "in solidarity", but not that this has become its primary usage—and, indeed, it says that Jewish groups have officially labeled it as hate speech.

Re: YouTube More Likely to Direct Election-Fraud Videos to Users Already Skeptical

#74

Post by krapp » Fri, Sep 09, 2022, 3:45 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #73

krapp wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's mostly used ironically now by Jews and allies but yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses

That....is not what I've heard from Jewish people I know (quite recently), nor what that Wikipedia article says. It says that some people have used it that way "in solidarity", but not that this has become its primary usage—and, indeed, it says that Jewish groups have officially labeled it as hate speech.

I may have been mistaken about that, then. I thought it had been more or less mocked and false-flagged out of use by now but I guess not.

Re: YouTube More Likely to Direct Election-Fraud Videos to Users Already Skeptical

#75

Post by caycep » Sat, Sep 10, 2022, 8:01 PM UTC

saurik wrote: post #60

caycep wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends - do you feel that Proctor and Gamble are guilty of using psychologcal understanding of dopamine hits to design their Ranch flavored Doritos? In similar vein, would there be a difference in algorithm that shows you what you want, or determines which videos create the most dopamine hits and juices you in a particular direction? There may be fancier ways to describe this, but would an algorithm that merely e…

I mean, if I see someone crying while eating a giant bag of doritos because they really wish they weren't eating it but their cravings are making it hard for them to stop--and, honestly, I am pretty sure I've done exactly that in the past--and you were to tell me "Proctor and Gamble is merely giving them what they want" I'd call you, at best, a jerk. > In similar vein, would there be a difference in algorithm that sh…

My post was directed at the Robot Toaster parent of your comment, and perhaps its user error that it posted as a reply to yours instead. My questions were meant to ask if there was a distinction between the motives of the two types of algorithms, at least without (too much) predilection, and see where the answers may fall.

I happen to agree with you, actually. It's obvious to me there is a distinction between a preference-neutral recommendation algorithm vs. one juiced for corporate/profit interests. That being said, I don't appreciate personal attacks in replies and I don't think there will be any more useful comments on this matter at least on my part.