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) 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..."