There could be Loyalist programmers employed by YouTube who are still holding out digitally against the rebel colonists.
Can anyone explain, please?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Goddard_...
This right leaning resource summarizes that point of view:
" the New York Times Magazine’s 1619 Project ... attempts to reframe our understanding of American history by alleging the central event in the founding of the United States was the first importation of enslaved Africans to Virginia in 1619 and not the Declaration of Independence in 1776." [1]
[1] https://capitalresearch.org/article/architects-of-woke-the-1...
The counterpoint stated allows the situation to be a dog whistle. It's a regrettable situation. (caveat, our personal beliefs don't matter here, they are not the reason why this issue is back into the popular culture. I'm trying to keep my commentary objective regarding the popular culture, these statements do not reflect my views nor a judgement of yours).
So... it's a pretty stark contrast to respond to one commission viewing American history through the lens of when slavery started with another commission that emphasizes freedom and independence (and significantly full freedom and independence only for white land-owning males).
Now, my brother, I assume nothing about you - please don't take the above to be any type of commentary about you, your opinions or your compatriots. I believe what you say at face value. Though, your counterpoint very concisely underscored why this is in the popular culture.
There is a gate-keeping mechanism at play here. If a person can't reasonably think such a (racist) contrast exists, and anyone who does think that contrast is racist is not a patriot and does not also love America - that seems to be gate keeping of who can be a patriot. It's concerning.
No doubt there are many long time lovers of history, of America, of 1776, but to those voices now are those who speak the very same words but as a dog whistle. Hence, it's more of a thing than it was, and why it's now more salient in the popular culture than before.
I think this back-and-forth highlights the very subtle details behind this issue, and in sum is a very complete answer to the question of why Americans are now generally (as far as the pop culture goes) so concerned about 1776. It's to an extent become a new litmus test for tribal identity, whether you are a patriot or not, part of the in-group or out-group. To those that are neutral on that litmus test, that feel they have other points of view, it is a disservice. So, just all in all a really good example of how Americans are becoming really divided for no good reason...
If this were true, YouTube could simply black-hole the more specific keyword, i.e. "1776 Moment" instead of "1776".
For example, the search string "where to buy" has many completions, but "where to buy guns" has none.
* It seems to be sending mixed messages that content is so "problematic" that it cannot be recommended by YouTube, yet not "problematic" enough to be banned by YouTube.
* It seems odd that Google, with all of their algorithm geniuses, can't work out a system to not recommend "problematic" content for generic 1776 keywords. Aren't there hundreds of reputable channels that deal with pure history stuff? Aren't there maybe thousands of history videos on the Revolutionary War that have no connection to present day politics that can be linked to?
* Google's algorithm seems incredibly stupid if they're recommending more than an infinitesimal percentage of 1776 keywords to "alt-right" content. Recognizing 1776 as a very important historical year has been done in American schools forever. It's up there with 1492 with random years that kids are taught about remembering. The overwhelming majority of anything ever created with 1776 as a keyword is not about January 6.
So even Google fails to avoid the Scunthorpe problem.
Matching strings like this seems like a solution that an average high-school programmer would find some question marks with.
> It seems to be sending mixed messages that content is so "problematic" that it cannot be recommended by YouTube, yet not "problematic" enough to be banned by YouTube.
Not really - it shows nuanced understanding that some content by itself / with a small audience doesn't cause harm, but the company doesn't not want to amplify it. Protects peoples speech but also declines to promote them to a bigger audience.
> It seems odd that Google, with all of their algorithm geniuses, can't work out a system to not recommend "problematic" content for generic 1776 keywords. Aren't there hundreds of reputable channels that deal with pure history stuff? Aren't there maybe thousands of history videos on the Revolutionary War that have no connection to present day politics that can be linked to?
Not a justification, but a reason: big tech focuses on scale. Employees are generally discouraged from doing something for 1 specific area. Also, it appears the problematic content moves KPIs, so the general system is designed to promote that stuff. Once you start carving out exceptions, it compromises the whole system and velocity of the team. (Again, not a justification for this specific instance, which I agree should be a carve out - but it does require a deviance from normal business, which means it's less likely to happen)
Putting aside the issue of what specific content causes harm or not (which is a very contentious issue), my issue with this kind of justification is that it puts mega-corporations in a position to have their cake and eat it too.
With a straight face, depending on their audience, Google can claim to both not be censoring content at the same time as they're claiming to be censoring content. This feels like they're putting themselves in a position to walk a legal tightrope on what they're actually doing and flout any laws they want.
For instance if I was running a photo collection site (I used to) I would not accept any erotic photos at all because that way I won't have to deal with "is this CSAM?" or "is this revenge porn?"
They are already doing it with myriad other combinations of search terms. If your hypothesis was correct, you would think they would be censoring the search string "January 6th 2021", yet even it has suggested completions. "July 4th, 1776" is a much more historically important date than that, and it has none.
YouTube has to deal with issues of disproportionate volume. I would not be surprised if it were a 100:1 ratio of proud boy type of content compared to AP US history content. If so, in effect, you won't be able to find any history of 1776 anyways, drowned out, a DDOS of the information space
These curation activities by YouTube are not necessarily nefarious, but illustrates an implicit trust we need to have (without even necessarily knowing, and large corporations are not inherently trustworthy). If their content were not curated, then volume is going to win the day. Considering SEO is something of an adversarial battle, these types of activity are in a way necessary to some degree. If anyone can flood results by making a 1000 videos, then the system is easily gamed.
Transparency into those processes to curate results would be nice, but unlikely since we would see the real nefarious stuff of showing ads and engagement over quality.
Naturally a successful revolution will be a powerful symbol to folks who want a revolution. That's not at issue. What's it issue is whether the usage of the symbol by a small number of 'undesirable' people should be interpreted as rendering the symbol itself as 'undesirable', such that even auto-completing it is considered 'problematic'.
> I would not be surprised if it were a 100:1 ratio of proud boy type of content compared to AP US history content... If their content were not curated, then volume is going to win the day.
The topic isn't really about search results, but about which search terms YouTube refuses to acknowledge/auto-complete. Still, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that search results are determined by the quantity of videos are served up based on the number of videos on the same topic? In my experience the search results on YT are determined by the popularity/trending status of a given video, and somewhat by the user's viewing preferences. When I search for (non-auto-completed) 1776, I see nothing but American Revolution content. This is the case even when I'm logged in (and with YouTube presumably aware of my right-wing politics).
> These curation activities by YouTube are not necessarily nefarious...
Sure, 'nefarious' is a strong word, but it is certainly bizarre and a cause for concern that an American company (which has no problem auto-completing 'November Revolution' or 'Mein Kampf') is somehow concerned with the implications of autocompleting '1776'.
We don't know what the auto-complete would be. It's hard to know how problematic those auto-complete suggestions are.
> Are you suggesting that search results are determined by the quantity of videos are served up based on the number of videos on the same topic?
Not quite. Though I do really appreciate the clarifying question =D
To clarify what I'm trying to convey, as a premise - SEO rankings can be an adversarial game. Auto-complete and search results are a pretty similar side to the same coin.
As an example, I once worked for an online retailer that sold shoes (a lot of them). 80% of those shoes were Crocs! If you searched by "popular", without any curation then the first 200 results would have been the various styles and different colors of crocs. Nobody really wants this, so the algorithm was tweaked (to include manual weights) to not give undue visibility to that excess volume. That same kind of tweaking happens all over the place by google. In part, Google does that to improve results, to reduce "noise". That is a very subjective activity, one persons 'noise' is another persons censorship.
Further, SEO can be an adversarial game. Lots of AI generated videos are being pushed with various networks to up-vote those videos and then give them undue weight. That is to say, curation activities are a necessity (and how that curation is done is not transparent, which is concerning!)
Thus, Google has clearly decided that the auto-complete for 1776 results is problematic, perhaps leading to what they would consider "fringe" videos. I suspect the actual search results have a lot of manual weights added to them as well so that they display as they do.
My point is that kind of activity, with manual weights, is intrinsic to a search engine. At the same time it is also subjective - and in the case of Google, opaque.
They don't want to signal boost it because it leads to news stories about how YT is a dangerous place and how the algorithm leads people into alt-right rabbitholes.
Not really that bizarre. Change in meaning has happened with plenty of things over time. Be it with word meanings ("gay"), or with the exact scenario you described (the swastika).
For example, if I type "July 4 177" it shows "July 4 1774" and "July 4 1775", but not "July 4 1776".
This obviously is intentional, but why? Searching for 1776 still produces results, but why censor the auto-complete?
I find if I type some other obviously controversial phrases, it auto-completes for them. (Edit: not that I think 1776 is controversial personally, but I am assuming someone at Google does)
We got rid of the pesky colonies that didn't appreciate tea, so all in all it was a good year.
I'd blame the french.
"Blame Canada! Blame Canada!"
[Continues humming tune.]
1776cc vw engine
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=1776cc+vw+engin...
which is 100% not related to my search history (scrubbed cookies, weekly VM reset, no particular interest in cars or engine blocks).
There are many history and controversy related suggested completions for "1788".
If it's locale related, it seems to make less sense to black-hole it from within the US, as it is a central year in American history.
For contrast I tried "1788" as that is an Australian year with similar type and amount of associated drama here .. Google AU seems fine coughing up both sides links.
Not that I can tell, full list of relevant auto-complete for that keyword.
It’s because 1776 is a dog whistle for a second American revolution. If you dig, I suspect you’ll find the term associated with some violent alt-right groups calling for armed revolution. Google is doing what it does around calls for violence. Deprioritizing, and generally refusing to broadcast and amplify it.
[] While not outright banning said content.
Slava Ukrainia!