I'm not sure what you think the significance of that fact is. YouTube's recommendation system is specifically trying to maximize time spent by users watching videos, and what's turned out to be the case is that sensationalistic, politically polarizing, conspiratorial, etc. videos are excellent for promoting engagement.
It sounds as if you're saying that because such extremist content exists and engages people in other media, there's no real significance to the fact that YouTube's recommendation system creates a feedback loop for this content. But YouTube most definitely has agency there: First, promoting videos to users isn't just holding up a mirror to reality, but is an overt act. Second, the design of the recommendation system--what aspects of user behavior to cue off of and what metrics to optimize--reflects decisions on YouTube's part; they don't fall out of the sky.
Which of course is what you get from blind correlation driven user feedback - "did you like this?" - if I'm not sure because I'm now exploring outside my comfort zone then that goes back into the algorithm as "no".
No. Both the right wing and left wing are prone to conspiracies about people, events and institutions. The right wing sees conspiracies in institutions like the UN, EU, etc. The left wing sees conspiracies in people like Trump.
They are both the same. 10 years ago, it was the right wing claiming the saudis got obama elected. Now, it's the left wing claiming the russians got trump elected. 10 years ago, the right wingers claimed obama was born in kenya and serving the saudis. Now, the left wingers are claiming trump is working for putin and the russians.
> The article also mentions Trump speeches were more recommended. There's an innocent recommendation: people find Trump more engaging.
This is so funny. 10 years ago, mccain supporters were claiming that youtube was biased towards obama. And the media mocked mccain, palin and their supporters for being paranoid. Now it's the left wing media claiming youtube was biased towards trump. The hypocrisy of the media.
It's amazing how things flipped in a matter of a few years. 10 years ago, it was foxnews and the tea party ranting and raving about obama. Now it's the left leaning media ranting and raving about trump and social media.
The algorithm likely shows controversial content for the same reason we rarely see good news on TV: Dramatic, sensational and outrageous content is simply much more appealing and entertaining to a large audience (which doesn't necessarily mean that they agree with it).
100% this. There seems a to be a presupposition in the 'fake news' debate that somehow there are right and a wrong choices in politics and anyone making the 'wrong' choice must be re-educated by the powers that be.
I still recall the NSA scandal where it turned out they were indeed spying on everyone; that would undoubtedly have been branded 'fake news' pre-Snowden. One can easily imagine a world where a presidential candidate in favour of winding back the NSA apparatus was shut down, with videos talking about overreach being condemned as conspiracy theories.
The only solutions here are communication and engagement of people with different ideas. Trying to police the truth will not end well; somebody will end up corrupting the systems in ways that end badly.
YouTube's recommendation policy is currently, to a zeroth-order approximation, "push content that gets people riled up". Trying to get them to not follow that policy isn't policing truth; it's asking them to refrain from an affirmative act.
The Clintons have been the subject of conspiracy theories since the 90s at least. So, it's not surprising that this would extend on to Youtube.
(I haven't made an extensive study of this, but my impression is that the American right wing is prone to conspiracies about people or events, whereas the left wing is prone to conspiracies about institutions.)
The article also mentions Trump speeches were more recommended. There's an innocent recommendation: people find Trump more engaging. Of the two candidates, Clinton was far less charismatic - she even admitted she wasn't a natural like Bill Clinton was. So, it's not exactly surprising that Trump was more recommended and more watched.
This isn't to take away from the broader thesis. The recommendation algorithm is certainly worthy of study. And the fact that the algorithm quickly moves from normal to polarizing is disconcerting.
But, it does seem as though the recommendation algorithm to some extent mirrors what we see in talk radio and other media segments in America.