> Err, how do you know that the algorithm does this?

Youtube optimizes for watch time. Most people don't want to spend their afternoons having their views challenged.

Any algorithm that properly optimizes for watch time of the masses will learn to validate views.

Somewhat tangential, but unless you have a goal of using a product as much as possible, any algo that optimizes engagement is not your friend. It's like a waiter who always wants you to order more food.

Right, we can all speculate. I'm asking for some objective proof, if any such is available. We can only propose a solution if we first demonstrate that the problem is real.

I don't want to assume bad faith, but I have the impression that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

What about my statement is speculation?

• Youtube themselves state that they optimize for watch time.

• I don't want to go and search for papers on this, but I don't think the idea that people prefer to have their views validated instead of challenged is in any way controversial or speculation.

• It's also not speculation to state that people want to spend their time doing things that gives them positive emotions.

You clearly won't get "objective proof" on this, because the only way to actually proof this would be to do a formal study on it. And why would anyone to a study on such an obvious non-controversial topic?

Maybe it seems confrontational to you but, I don't think "how do you know this" is the same as "can you make a reasonable guess". I don't want to have a personal back and forth with you on this, because it doesn't serve any purpose.

I agree with the other commentator. You seem to be posting pointless confrontational messages that you know there’s no complete proof for, but if you were discussing in good faith, you wouldn’t have posted your messages questioning Google’s YouTube algo.

Parent made broad claims without evidence. Maybe those convinced you. They did not convince me. If you cannot respect that then what is the point of a discussion?

Also, I said I want "some objective proof". You twisted that into "complete proof". Its funny that you are doing the exact thing you're accusing me of.

I didn’t do the same thing at all. You’re seemingly continuing the same trend. There have been multiple people now all claiming the same thing about Youtube’s algo. Of course nothing convinced me because I already knew. It’s an obvious thing to many people who use YouTube to a certain degree. So did other people here.

I didn’t do the same thing as you because I didn’t post around multiple times asking for the same thing from multiple people and acting sort of obtuse like they are saying something isolated.

'Oops, my bad' would have been a nice reply, but oh well. Anyway, have a nice day.

Keep up your passive aggressive persona. Have a nice day!

I assume based on my own use of it and pretty much all the memes and anecdotes from everyone. I make no assumptions about what people are exposed to outside of YouTube. It’s not the platforms job to challenge one’s views, rather one’s views are naturally challenged when in an open marketplace of ideas. YouTube isn’t an open marketplace of ideas. It is effectively a curated presentation of ideas, customized to each individual by the platform. For the economic profit of the platform, at the expense of community goods such as civil discourse. Your snark didn’t add anything to your argument, btw.

>I assume based on my own use of it and pretty much all the memes and anecdotes from everyone.

Well, now that its clear that it is simply an assumption/speculation, then I have no problem with anything you say. Your original comment seemed to imply that this is a demonstrable fact.

>It’s not the platforms job to challenge one’s views, rather one’s views are naturally challenged when in an open marketplace of ideas.

And you counter extreme ideas, with better ideas of your own - in this same open marketplace of ideas.

>YouTube isn’t an open marketplace of ideas.

Right, because YouTube seems to think that some ideas are verboten, and simply should not exist which is why they are removing those videos. Are you in favor of removing these videos?

I cannot speak to “these videos” as I do not know their exact content for each video. I’m against removing content because it is “extreme” or objectionable or even abhorrent. I am pro free speech and willing to pay the cost of allowing speech I disagree with so long as it is “protected” speech.

Okay, then we really don't have any point to disagree on. Have a nice day!

It might not be the job of an entertainment platform to challenge views, per se, but you can argue that it is its job to make sure that their profit-maximising algorithms do not devolve into steering users down a rabbit hole of ever more extreme and dishonest content within an information bubble.

Or, at any rate, if that's the outcome, then it might be time to regulate said platform.

The thing is that those definitions aren't unambiguously definable to humans let alone machines which can't tell. Who defines extreme? Who defines dishonest? Not to mention context and satire. If I suggest killing all the lawyers am I quoting Shakespeare, joking, or trying to incite violence?

Anyone capable of doing so is clearly capable of heading a Unicorn start up which isn't overvalued.

Large tech companies frequently receive demands for the literally impossible like backdoors which don't compromise security.

If I choose to only buy magazines with racist/extreme/violent content, its on me. But if I watch it on YouTube its on them? I don't understand how using the magic word "algorithm" immediately implies that there is zero volition from the part of the user. Is it scary to think that people actually want to watch these videos, even if the algorithm didn't exist?