SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the nielson-smielson-ratings-mean-nothing-except-to-a-reality-tv-show-president dept.
YouTube Recommendations for 'Alt-Right' Videos have Dropped Dramatically, Study Shows:
Google has made "major changes" to its recommendations system on YouTube that have reduced the amount of "alt-right" videos recommended to users, according to a study led by Nicolas Suzor, an associate professor at Queensland University of Technology.
During the first two weeks of February, alt-right videos appeared in YouTube's "Up Next" recommendations sidebar 7.8 percent of the time (roughly one in 13). From Feb. 15 onward, that number dropped to 0.4 percent (roughly one in 250).
Suzor's study took random samples of 3.6 million videos, and used 81 channels listed on a recent study by Rebecca Lewis [.pdf] as a starting point. That list includes voices like Richard Spencer, an American white supremacist, but also includes more mainstream voices like Joe Rogan, who does not self-identify as alt-right but often plays host to more extremist voices on his podcast (including alt-right figures such as Alex Jones).
The drop appears significant, but it's difficult to figure precisely how that drop occurred. We don't know if YouTube is targeting 'alt-right' videos specifically or if the drop off is part of broader changes to YouTube's recommendation system.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Immerman on Friday March 15 2019, @07:15PM (2 children)
It might be a step in the right direction if we were to extend anti-libel laws to include provably false information that doesn't specifically target an individual.
Of course we'd probably still be running into the same problems with standing and proof-of-harm that makes it basically impossible to (for example) sue the government to get an unconstitutional law repealed before you've actually been materially harmed by the enforcement of that law. But that weakness could be repaired, if we cared to.
Plus, many churches would be up in arms about having to include "scientific evidence refutes this" disclaimers on so very much of their material.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday March 15 2019, @09:08PM (1 child)
Since religions have been around for so long, and are so widespread, maybe that falls into a different category.
But then, Santa Claus might also be a problem.
So maybe some things are grandfathered in. (Like how alcohol or aspirin would never be allowed to be legalized today.)
Or maybe what you really go after is information that can clearly cause actual harm. Like "I do not believe cigarettes cause lung cancer" CEOs. Or anti-vaxxers which I think science could make a good argument. But what about conspiracy theories like Chemtrails? Or Flat Earthers? I suppose it can be argued that Flat Earth is provably wrong. As for Climate Change Deniers, or many other topics, it is easy to manufacture controversy. Our court system has taught us how to do this, because every expert has an equal and opposite expert whose ignorant opinion is just as valid. We've been too willing to listen to utter nonsense and give it more consideration than it is due.
That's the problem that scoundrels exploit. It can be hard to define a line of what speech should be ignored -- and if we don't exclude it -- many innocent people are just too dumb to know better. Which is a failing of our education system. Which is perpetuated by dumb adults not recognizing that society could fall apart if they don't adequately fund education, which leads to underfunding, which leads to more failing education system.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday March 16 2019, @12:00AM
I could well see an exception being carved for religion, just because of the combined political sway they hold. (and the fact that it's virtually impossible for a proclaimed atheist to get elected) Get Christian, Jews, and Muslims united in their opposition to something, and it's going to have a rough time.
I don't see how Santa Clause would be a problem though - he's pretty much only "published" in two forms: obviously fictional entertainment, which would obviously have to be exempt, and Christmas advertisements, which the world would be better off without (but I'm sure could be just as ruthlessly manipulative without involving Santa)
Conspiracy theories are another realm altogether, not least of which because it's naive to imagine that there *aren't* countless major conspiracies amongst those at the highest levels of power, and it's important that the media (both organized and, especially, independent) remain free to expose them. How to tackle the total wackjob ones though? I really don't know. There's proof of falseness, but conclusively disproving chemtrails could get really expensive fast, and we know from declassified documents the US government has in fact done similarly abhorrent experiments on unsuspecting citizens in the past, so it's hardly intellectually honest to try to simply dismiss such claims as preposterous. That's a tough one - I'm not sure there's an answer. The tough thing about conspiracies is that by definition we only know about the characteristics of the ones that were eventually exposed.
As for something like global warming - you're right, it's easy to generate controversy over something important that most people can barely understand. However, when scientific facts are at the foundation of a controversy, it seems not unreasonable to ask a simple question: is there a consensus (overwhelming majority agreement) about the facts among the actual experts in the field. And if there is then to avoid being sued anyone publishing something that disagrees with those facts always must include a prominent disclaimer that ""The overwhelming majority of experts say I'm wrong about this". That's not going to dissuade the people who've already gone down the rabbit hole, but for people just reading/watching interesting stories in their facebook feed? You're a lot less likely to get sucked in by a manufactured "controversy" when one side has to start out every argument with "The overwhelming majority of experts say I'm wrong about this, but..."