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).