The YouTube Rabbit Hole Is Nuanced
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I'm also suspicious of any study that uses YouGov, and in particular, derives it's data from a volunteer panel.
This smacks of looking for a conclusion and then building a study to find it.
If your idea loses in the marketplace of ideas, you ban the speech you dislike until your idea wins in the *marketplace of ideas.
If any group is busy saying - out loud - that they need to ban what you can see and hear, maybe we should start asking some critical questions.
But wait, you used the word free?
How is paid propaganda free?
The way astroturf is grass?
Are corporations canceling me by not sufficiently promoting my political agenda on their ad supported site, because my content makes people not want to buy anything associated with it?Just asking questions.
Given that applies to about 0% of beliefs for most people, I'd say the idea has some flaws.
If you immediately reject that, you're not very open to external ideas, are you?
If you don't immediately reject it, you see how a market can be subverted to serve purposes that it was never intended to or constructed to resist.
Either way, the idea of a marketplace of ideas is paradoxical in the extremes. And once you acknowledge the idea needs to be softened to avoid self-contradiction, you end up back at the question of what constitutes abuse. That's the exact same question people are wrestling with now. And because it's inherently an expression of a power struggle, you need to be aware of whose power you're supporting.
I recommend siding against authoritarians and fascists, but that's just my idea.
> A marketplace of ideas only works if every single idea every person has is actively chosen based on analysis of alternatives.
What is required is exposure to alternatives. It's not a perfect nor an instantaneous process, but it absolutely works. I've changed my position many times based on rational argumentation. If they are never exposed to the alternatives, the majority of people will just continue believing in what they already believe, of which the bulk comes from upbringing.
So I fully agree that "Systematic omnipresent bad-faith argument appealing to strong emotions and flat-out lying" is poison to the mind, but I think it's also reached for way too quickly and can and has been abused to silence opinions we don't like.
There were also serious people asking legitimate questions, but those got much less media-circus attention and their commentary was much less self assured, full of caveats and explicit attention to the speculative/hypothetical nature of the claims involved. Those were part of a more scholarly/careful conversation (still ongoing) and were answered carefully and respectfully.
One of the biggest problems for anyone asking careful serious questions is the likelihood that they’d be mischaracterized and amplified by the crazies and then interpreted by the general public according to that mischaracterization and roped into some broader political fight.
> found out that it was actually more plausible than it seemed
It was always plausible, as scientists have maintained from the start. It still today (if you listen to conversations among experts and look into the details) seems unlikely, and the “natural origin” theory has somewhat more convincing evidentiary support. But the Chinese government’s reflexive secrecy has made it impossible for independent analysts to gather the information needed to prove or disprove the theory.
nah
Second, even if ideas are treated as a market, movements can have disproportionate power compared to their "market share". The level of group support required to implement a policy depends on the specific policy. If 5% of people support defecating in the local lake, and 95% of people support the idea of swimming in the lake and using indoor plumbing, the result is not a swimmable lake. In the same way, a violent movement with very low popular support is unlikely to win any elections, but can still make it entirely unsafe for that movement's targets.
Third, personal anecdote time. A few years ago after watching the "Alt-Right Playbook" [0], a YouTube series about recruitment and radicalization tactics used by the alt-right, YouTube recommended that I watch Nazi propaganda. I do not say that in any exaggeration. The video title had the phrase "The Jewish Question", and I was expecting a history on how that phrase had been used in racist fearmongering. It was instead exactly that same racist fearmongering. Even if I were to hold that all speech is permissible without repercussion, there is still a world of difference between allowing Nazi propaganda to exist, and active promotion of propaganda of that same propaganda.
TL;DR: Ideas are not a marketplace, and lack of promotion is not the same as silencing.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJA_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbAN...
Or lets ask differently: how could there ever be a neutral layout to said market place, which is without influence of the powers at play in any given situation?
Check out the translation, if you're into that.
Megalomaniacs shouldn't be involved in potential nuclear war. The US has proposed structured human-in-the-loop treaties to require that nuclear weapons not be automated, but China and Russia have both refused. A few bad cosmic bit flips and unintended nuclear war is possible. Putin's swan dive into Ukraine should underline the need for change. Humanity is toast if we're going to play stupid nuclear brinksmanship games every couple decades.
Nice, wholesome, patriotic Russian propaganda like that shouldn't be possible to post. Mandatory human review with a checklist and log should be one of many hurdles needed to post content for the kids-only content area. It should be the best guarded, most highly curated segment, but all sorts of inappropriate garbage gets through, and sticks around for weeks or months even after being reported.
Yes, its what Eli Pariser described as a Filter Bubble, first identified in Google Search results. I wonder if there has been some code sharing going on between Google and Youtube, or if team members have jumped ship?
https://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_b...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/08/eli-pariser-ac...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble
Some youtube holes can be good but considering the untapped potential of Youtube for DJ mixes as background music for coders, I find the youtube hole incredibly frustrating.
I mean I've only just found this DJ and its pretty decent mix and her previous work is quite good as well, but considering she is Ukrainian, I wonder if this is Youtube's pro Ukrainian political policy in effect? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYC8KkNIkZk
I found this decent mix (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vHRUsP20dQ) only after listening to a couple of 145bpm German Underground techno mixes.
I mean what were the algorithms thinking?
The only link I can see is its from the Boiler Room in Berlin and Berlin is where you can find some decent German underground techno, plus the time of day is a factor, ie trying to slow down someone's Dopamine stimulation at 4am in the morning?
But if you listen to some of the more established DJ's like Boris Brecha, Carl Cox, David Guetta, Adam Beyer or brands like Creamfields, Global Underground, Tomorrowland, Resistance, Transmission, Hooj Tunes, Essential Mix, you'll get stuck in youtube holes left right and centre and the quality tends to get worse the longer you listen. I mean their algorithms dont know how to curate DJ mixes, just like most people cant take people on a journey of aural delights when DJ'ing.
One other thing I have noticed with Youtube is bank holidays in the UK, they tend to promote borderline illegal car activities, things like cruises where people lose it leaving the cruise or speeding videos, more so on August bank holiday and the last May bank holiday. I'm left with the impression Youtube is trying to incite illegal car activities, so maybe the NY Times and the Guardian do have a point!?!
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.dartmouth.edu/dist/5/229...
My YouTube journey didn't start with watching 90 minute videos of some guy solving a soduku with no given digits and a knight move constraint.
I got there step by step.
https://twitter.com/theryanking/status/1514664887045091328
How can you trust a media outlet with conflict of interests? This naturally makes me question it's journalists now too.
One might associate NY Times with the city New York, the bastion of a free speech and democractic superpower. But after the facts, how can you not read NY times article without raising questions?
if you say all lives matter in nyc you will be beaten to a bloody pulp
The scary part is how many of the American population think both of them are terrifying bastions of Communist Woke Terrorism, in striking contrast to objective reality.