YouTube video promotion AI change is a "historic victory"

In response to the above, which I wrote in some kind of delirium but I think made some good points.

Youtube has long been an echo chamber. You watch a 9/11 conspiracy theory video and it'll suggest a tonne more. Thus confirming your belief. You watch an anti-vaxxer video and the same happens. One causes zero harm to society (there will be consequences if you go into a bar full of Afghanistan vets and spout that) but social consequences. Anti-vaxxer stuff literally threatens my life as I don't get a little ill from infections, I get carted off to resus after the paramedics have called someone who can stabilise me before moving me.

Even so, I would never, ever suppress their videos or ideas. If I was obsessed with creating an algorithm for recommending similar videos I would suppress nothing. This is wrong and the curation of information and ideas is not a decision for a private company. They may not be "deleting" or "hiding" the videos but you try and find a video on Youtube that's in a restricted state. Unless you have a direct link it may as well not exist. No search will find it and it will not appear on any feeds. It's a coward's way out so they can say "we're not deleting things" but they are just stopping anyone finding it. It's like saying "we're not burning these books" but they're locked away in an underground vault where no one will ever be able to read them unless they have a key.

The solution? Identify these "dangerous" topics (again, I want to know WHO determines they're dangerous. These Silicon Valley companies are hives of hard leftists and social justice warriors which is fine if you're on that side of things but if you're not then you'll probably find they think your content is dangerous and wrong and must be hidden) and create an algorithm to feed the opposing view to the person's feed as well. Trust the individual to absorb the information and come to a decision.

What they're saying is that people aren't capable of coming to decisions deemed rational by us, therefore we must hide any further evidence supporting their wrongthink. Y'know what'll happen? People will notice that their feeds are now devoid of what they were watching, they'll think that there's some reason for this (such as their views being right and the only way to counter them is to suppress them rather than fighting them) and it'll BREED the conspiracy theories. Because you should only need to suppress a set of ideas if they can't be fought in the open marketplace of ideas.

And yes, you're there thinking "well, it's only the anti-vaxxers, they're definitely wrong". Yep. For now. Once these systems are in place I guarantee you that 12 months from now people with perfectly reasonable ideas will have them quashed by Youtube because someone didn't agree. It happens EVERY TIME.

Freedom of speech, expression, seeking and imparting information and ideas through any form of media, regardless of frontiers has been a cornerstone of international law, starting from article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has been copied and pasted into other international laws. I hate the utter rubbish anti-vaxxers spout but I will defend their right to say it, as long as I have the right to tell them why they are wrong. That way we educate and change minds. By simply hiding things, we just give them a reason to believe they're right and we don't have the facts with which to fight them.

Change the algorithm so it ALSO (no exclusively) feeds them the alternative viewpoint. Otherwise they'll see nothing in their feed of interest and just search manually anyway.

I hate to tell you but silicon valley is not a hive of hard leftists and social justice warriors, it's a hive of businessmen and women whose goal is to make money and controversy sells, why else would this guy hail this as a "historic victory". They're not restricting what someone can view, their not locking videos away, and their not identifying what's dangerous, they're simply changing the algorithm so it doesn't keep suggesting videos that only serve to reinforce the previous video and lead people further down the rabbit hole.

I would have thought, from previous conversations we've had, that you of all people would've been in favor of presenting someone with alternative opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky34

I hate to tell you but silicon valley is not a hive of hard leftists and social justice warriors, it's a hive of businessmen and women whose goal is to make money and controversy sells, why else would this guy hail this as a "historic victory". .

---

Erm, in my experience, they're often certainly left-leaning (though not Corbyn-type socialists), often promote social justice but their their definition of what that is, and certainly (at least at senior levels) they're .... disrupters. Explicitly, overtly and deliberately distupters. It's exactly what many silicon valley business models are.

But for sure, business people too.

There being some hard leftists and social justice warriors is an entirely different thing than it being a hive though, I'm not doubting that there's undoubtedly some hard leftists and social justice warriors working for companies in silicon valley, just like there's probably some hard rightists and conservative injustice warriors, but to say it's a hive of any particular type of person would be incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky34

I hate to tell you but silicon valley is not a hive of hard leftists and social justice warriors, it's a hive of businessmen and women whose goal is to make money and controversy sells, why else would this guy hail this as a "historic victory". They're not restricting what someone can view, their not locking videos away, and their not identifying what's dangerous, they're simply changing the algorithm so it doesn't keep suggesting videos that only serve to reinforce the previous video and lead people further down the rabbit hole.

I would have thought, from previous conversations we've had, that you of all people would've been in favor of presenting someone with alternative opinions.

---

You have not watched the video of the Google meeting after Trump won the election, have you? Also, it's well known that Twitter censors conservative views whilst letting hard leftist views pass. This is well documented and there's plenty of articles (and ironically Youtube videos) covering it with plentiful evidence.

I AM in favour of alternative opinions. I am NOT in favour of suppressing opinions, however wrong they may be. This, as far as I've read it, means they'll be hiding videos from suggestions that might make them have the wrong thoughts. As determined by.... someone who does not have the right, depth or breadth of knowledge to decide. A dumb algorithm that looks at the video titles and tags and then gives you similar stuff, fine. A semi-intelligent algorithm that decides whether what you're watching is wrongthink or not and tweaks your suggestions to try and put your thinking back on the "right" track.... REALLY?! I'll choose what to put in my brain, thanks very much, I do not appreciate some software engineer deciding what I should see and what I should not. I would not accept a librarian telling me that the book I'd borrowed was too controversial and they were not going to let me browse any more books in that section.

From experience I can tell you this WILL be used in the wrong way. It's a slow creep and it will be abused. Example - someone finds Trump's wall utterly morally abhorrent. Fine, that's their view. Their view is held as strongly as my view of the anti-vaxxer crowd. They thoroughly believe that they're doing the right thing, on the same moral level, by suppressing the suggestions of the wall supporting videos as compared to suppressing the anti-vaxxer videos. It's not that this person is bad, immoral or whatever. The problem is that there IS a perfectly reasonable argument for the wall (just as there is against it), it's just this person doesn't agree with it. And so they code the algorithm to suppress recommendations for wall supporting videos and expose an entire world to adverts for videos against the wall THINKING THEY'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING. And where does it end? Creationism is probably wrong. Should we ensure that everyone who watches a creationist video then has in their recommendations all other creationist videos removed and it full of Darwinian theory? Once these people are set up in these roles, they'll have to keep going to justify their jobs and it'll creep further and further.

You tell me, given the size, scope and power of Youtube as a platform, that ANYONE has that right. There's a difference between "you like Star Trek videos, here's some more" and "you're watching material that shows mankind evolved from cats. WRONGTHINK IDENTIFIED. FEED CORRECTIVE INFORMATION."

And if you think it'll be done with groups of people - as I say, watch the Google meeting after the Trump election and tell me that their politics, moral instincts and biases aren't well aligned and likely to echo chamber into one Tower of Babel esque voice.

Facts are not liberal conspiracies.

I mean have you not thought why Google had a meeting after Trump won the election or why Twitter maybe censoring some conservative views? I assume you've done an analysis on what the percentages of 'censored' materiel on media outlets is vs the factual accuracy and where they fall on the political spectrum, or are you just basing what you've said on Youtube videos, you say this is well documented so there won't be a problem in providing citations, yes?

And even though it's been said countless times now I'll say it again, this isn't about suppressing opinions, hiding, censorship, or anyone preventing you from viewing whatever you want, it's about a change to the algorithm that makes suggestions based on your previous viewing history. If you don't like it turn off viewing history. I mean it's ridiculous (IMO) that you're seemingly so passionate about YouTube changing how a suggestion algorithm works in case it censors what videos may show up in the sidebar or after the video has ended when your (our?) governments have introduced one of the most extreme censorship regimes in the western world.

If you want to get angry about suppressing opinions and censorship, something, despite appearances, that i share with you, then there are far bigger examples to direct your ire at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky34

....I assume you've done an analysis on what the percentages of 'censored' materiel on media outlets is vs the factual accuracy and where they fall on the political spectrum, or are you just basing what you've said on Youtube videos, you say this is well documented so there won't be a problem in providing citations, yes?

---

Citations in an emotional outburst about conspiracy theories?!?

You never ask for much do you, Corky :P

The meeting wasn't about Trump. It was their regular meeting, it just turned into a whinge fest.

Whether you like it or not, when people start taking control of what information can be delivered to you, you will support it whilst it fits in with your own needs and biases. You'll start complaining when it's used against you. It happens every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philehidiot

The meeting wasn't about Trump. It was their regular meeting, it just turned into a whinge fest.

Whether you like it or not, when people start taking control of what information can be delivered to you, you will support it whilst it fits in with your own needs and biases. You'll start complaining when it's used against you. It happens every time.

---

I think you're literally missing the point here. Youtube are changing its algorithm from suggesting the same things over and over again to you (which historically has boosted their views and profits) to an algorithm that suggests some different things to you to prevent you listening to the same viewpoint over and over again (which apparently will make them less money which is why this has been so hard to get them to change). All of the information are still all available to you. For example some leftists may now get some right wing materials suggested while some rightists may get some left wing materials suggested instead of just getting the same viewpoint over and over again. Same for lizard people theories and flat or round Earth videos. If you view one it won't then suggest 10 more of the same to reinforce your view, it will now try to give you more of a balance of both. Or so it is claimed. This is not about suppressing information from you because the Youtube algorithm is already "taking control of what information can be delivered to you", they have now just tweaked it so it is a bit more fair. Or so it is claimed. At least this is what I understood from the article. Unless you want to get into another conspiracy theory...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky34

Facts are not liberal conspiracies.

I mean have you not thought why Google had a meeting after Trump won the election or why Twitter maybe censoring some conservative views? I assume you've done an analysis on what the percentages of 'censored' materiel on media outlets is vs the factual accuracy and where they fall on the political spectrum, or are you just basing what you've said on Youtube videos, you say this is well documented so there won't be a problem in providing citations, yes?

And even though it's been said countless times now I'll say it again, this isn't about suppressing opinions, hiding, censorship, or anyone preventing you from viewing whatever you want, it's about a change to the algorithm that makes suggestions based on your previous viewing history. If you don't like it turn off viewing history. I mean it's ridiculous (IMO) that you're seemingly so passionate about YouTube changing how a suggestion algorithm works in case it censors what videos may show up in the sidebar or after the video has ended when your (our?) governments have introduced one of the most extreme censorship regimes in the western world.

If you want to get angry about suppressing opinions and censorship, something, despite appearances, that i share with you, then there are far bigger examples to direct your ire at.

---

Just to be clear, I don't think this is a liberal conspiracy. A conspiracy suggests people are purposefully trying to do something malicious. I described a combination of human behaviours done with the best of intentions (perhaps with a drop of arrogance that give them the right to determine what is right and what is wrong) which culminate in the effect I described. I really do think this is being done with the best of intentions but, just like most other services like this, they want to be a publisher when it suits and a platform when it suits. Both are entirely different legal entities. I object wholeheartedly to large platforms having the arrogance to decide what perspectives I should see on an issue. You say "just turn it off" - how many people know you can do this? Dianne Abbot doesn't even know there's a simple button that would cut 90% of her hate mail. This is leading inexorably to an internet bill of rights as the companies are taking on "responsibilities" they are neither equipped or suited to deal with. A government is different in that we elect these people to positions to make these decisions. I utterly agree that the censorship in the UK is diabolical (there's a mobile app which detects network monitoring and censorship which is quite amusing to try in the UK, it's called OONI probe, I highly recommend it for both a giggle and a reason to use TOR) but this is a company that has grown so large and has such influence it needs regulation.


As for an analysis, you know full well that quantifying this kind of stuff is practically impossible, whichever person does the analysis will influence it with their biases and it'll turn out to be a waste of money. I'd much rather spend the money putting lipstick on a gorilla, showing it a mirror and seeing what happens (clue: it wipes it off, which is so damned cool). The only way you can perform an analysis of this kind of thing is to look at the extremes as everything else could easily plotted wherever you like on a scale depending on who does it. It's an exercise in statistical pointlessness. When you then see extreme communists (ANTIFA, etc) with active accounts despite complaints and then extreme conservatives (God only knows there's enough of them in America - let's take Milo), you see one lot gets away with threatening death and destruction and calling for genocide whereas the other gets banned for calling someone a mean name. You've made me wonder whether there's any real studies been done on this twitterness although I'd probably tear them to shreds. The left wing bias at Silly-con Valley (just thought that up, I'm so clever!) I've seen pretty well documented. Reason for no citations? I'm currently at work and I do not think it would be appropriate to be searching for that kind of potentially contentious material on their computers, nor would it be a good enough excuse for me to put on my cape and say "BUT SOMEONE WAS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!"

As for the off the topic "why aren't you angry about this?" (reason: it wasn't the topic of the thread but who am I to let off a captive audience so easily?)... I will absolutely agree with you that the UK censors far too much for the country that created classical liberalism and exported the values of freedom of speech around the world. Our government and courts have become absolutely over the top and self censorship for fear of getting in trouble with the cops is now a way of life.

Despite appearances, I enjoy this kind of discussion where people can freely, albeit civilly, tell me "you're wrong, you're being stupid, here's why". I do NOT understand why that is acceptable in some areas but not in others and why some subjects are now seen as taboo to have an opinion on that is other than the off the shelf morality we are issued with. It makes no sense to me.

1984 was meant as a warning, but it seems to have become the words of a Prophet.
Actually, another thing that springs to mind about social media going too far - have you seen that episode of The Orville (s01e07?) where they find the planet where the justice system is basically twitter? That was properly good and mirrors so many recent events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zhaoman

Unless you want to get into another conspiracy theory...?

---

*Stomps feet*

It wasn't a conspiracy theory!

Hrrrmph!

*Goes and stands in the corner of the playground*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philehidiot

Whether you like it or not, when people start taking control of what information can be delivered to you, you will support it whilst it fits in with your own needs and biases. You'll start complaining when it's used against you. It happens every time.

---

Not in the least, I'm very anti-censorship. The only thing i believe is acceptable to suppress or prohibit is child pornography.

The thing is this is not someone trying to take control of what information can be delivered to you, as much as you'd like to frame it that way, it's the owner of a form of online communication changing an algorithm that's used to make suggestions, if you don't like it you're free to use another means of online communication just like if you didn't like the rules that the owner of a forum imposed on you you're free to use another forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philehidiot

As for an analysis, you know full well that quantifying this kind of stuff is practically impossible....

---

I know it is, but you were the one to say companies are censoring conservative views whilst letting hard leftist views pass, that it was well documented and that there were plenty of articles (and ironically Youtube videos) covering it with plentiful evidence, i was just trying to highlight how that was probably rhetoric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philehidiot

Despite appearances, I enjoy this kind of discussion where people can freely, albeit civilly, tell me "you're wrong, you're being stupid, here's why". I do NOT understand why that is acceptable in some areas but not in others and why some subjects are now seen as taboo to have an opinion on that is other than the off the shelf morality we are issued with. It makes no sense to me.

---

I know you do but in this situation i think you maybe playing devils advocate with something that's pretty clear cut, it wasn't my intention to imply that this conversation was taboo or that i was passing any moral judgment on you so apologies that that's how it came across. :)

Y'know something, I've had a really hard day with a load of pain (second day back at work after weeks off sick and half immobilised as well as a lovely stay in hospital which ended with a grumpy self-discharge) so I am going to do the following given the level and (more importantly) type of opposition to my ranting:

1) I'm going to have an early night.
2) I'm going to come back to this thread and the original article tomorrow and see whether I'm still being reasonable in my mind or just being overly tetchy about something that really doesn't matter.

So the AI will bury debunking videos, and the actual conspiracy videos will still show up.

Oi, Corky, want a laugh?

Remember I said about the analysis on Conservative opinions being biased against on Twitter, etc was impossible?

Someone actually did a PhD on it.....

As the guy presenting says, this has got to be done on bad data. Still funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6gjkEOqgpg

He didn't do a PhD on it, he's got MA in Political Science and is studying for a PhD in the same subject (although the studying part was from 2017 so maybe he passed it by the time he published that article), it really would be funny if someone had a PhD in Twitter Conservative bias. :)

I would watch the video but as soon as i realised it was 30min of someone giving me their opinion on an article published on the internet i paused it and went to find the actual article, for some reason i can't stand opinionated monologues from people who IDK from Adam, for me to value an opinion i first have to get to know a person, like what happens on these and other forums.

Speaking of opinionated monologues i was going to launch into one but thought i could save some time by asking what your opinion is of the original article, do you think it has any flaws, is it rigorous, methodical, and unbiased, does it only concern itself with the facts and allows the reader to form their own opinion or does it attempt to sway the audience?