> Our study thus suggests that YouTubes recommendation algorithm fails to promote inflammatory or radicalized content

Asserting that "mainstream media and cable news content" is neither inflammatory nor radicalized. I'm not sure how accurate this statement is today.

I believe it is generally accepted definitionally that "mainstream" isn't radicalized (i.e. mainstream is defined as "not the radical fringe"). Can you think of an example of why that definitional assertion should be discarded?

I don't think it matches modern usage. I regularly see complaints about how suchandsuch politician with mainstream support has a "radical agenda" or is "radicalizing" their followers.

If we insist on the definitional assertion, it becomes a lot less obvious why we should care about the original claim. Is it even a problem for Youtube to promote "radical" content if "radical" just means "different than what mainstream news channels say"?

what spicylemon pointed out, and I find many 'mainstream' news shows to be radical and not fringe.

Sometimes it's little slants added by hosts around facts.. sometimes it's hosts adding in little details to what interviewees have said - once you start to see it, it becomes sadly obvious that it's radical bias, and yet looking at the polls or seeing other people's fbook feeds, and such - it's not fringe.

Sometimes it's fact being left out, sometimes it's only reported what can be shown as bad.. or good - and avoiding showing other details. I must say 'mainstream' news both right and left has been radical in their support or resistance of certain narratives.

True or not, this isn't what they were referring to.

Whether it works one way or the other, I find what it recommends to me very disturbing.

Example: I'm a former rock climber and am very interested in knot and knot-tying. I watched some vids on hemp ropes, including "braiding" strands of rope. That points me to a video on hair braiding, which I watch as I do find it mildly interesting, a knot system that won't bind into a mess. Now youtube is recommending me very odd videos of little girls doing makeup and gymnastics. And all the static ads are suddenly only dating aps, "find flirty women in your area" junk.

What do I need to watch to get out of this inappropriate category?

I think your Google account has a page where it tells you what it thinks your interested in and lets you opt out of mistakes. Not used it in a while so it may have changed.

> What do I need to watch to get out of this inappropriate category

Nothing, just tap the three dots on wrongly recommended videos and then "not interested" or "don't recommend channel". The recommendation algorithm might need more than one data point but it will catch on eventually.

The recommendation algorithm can be really bad at taking negative feedback. It'll sometimes stop recommending videos from a specific source when you give negative feedback, but once it's decided you might be interested in a topic, getting it to stop recommending videos related to that topic feels impossible.

The only reliable way to get it to stop recommending inappropriate content is to delete the videos that triggered those recommendations from your viewing history.

Perhaps removing it from your watch history? There should be some ui somewhere on yt to do this, or at the very least there used to be.

Personally, Youtube seems to only recommend me mainstream media now (CNN, MSNBC, even The Daily Show). It's better than pushing me towards right wing independent media like Sargon and Ben Shapiro, which is what it used to do every chance it got, but I very much don't want to watch either option. As a Bernie Sanders supporter, I'm not exactly wanting what either of them are pushing. It's not that I want an echochamber, but it'd be nice to have political commentary which did not try to either obviously lie, or selectively tell the truth in order to paint a false narrative.

Anyone who regularly browses their Youtube recommendations knows that the algorithm changed dramatically a few months ago.

They pretty much nerfed it entirely. At least to my eyes, it seems to only "recommend" more videos of exactly the same topic from the same channels more often than not. It used to show videos that were along the same lines as the ones I watched but not necessarily exactly the same topic. It seemed to be better about following somewhat tenuous links between videos that ofter turned up new and interesting channels and related information.

It seems they're trying to play it safe by strictly showing the same thing you just watched. The bias seems to be heavily towards your recent watch history. You can actually see this in action if you go through your subscribed channels and watch a few videos from channels that you haven't visited recently. The change to your feed is immediately apparent.

I've also noticed that they seem to have blacklisted or at least severely downranked some channels even when you are subscribed so they rarely show up in recommendations. These aren't even controversial channels but they don't squarely fit into a category either. Overall it feels like they've shackled a previously good recommendation engine in order to appease their loud critics. I'm really hoping someone can create a viable competitor soon, I'll abandon YouTube in a heartbeat once there's another option.

I honestly think it's designed for infants and toddlers who watch the same videos hundreds of times.

Almost every child I've seen in the past 5 years has had YouTube in their hands.

I would expect all their data points to the idea they should suggest the same video over and over again.

I've also noticed the infants of my friends don't know how and have no interest in skipping the ads.

So long as Google can continue to plausibly claim it's women in their 30s-40s watching the nursery rhyme video (because that's who's logged in), they can continue to rake in the more expensive advertising associated with that demographic.

> So long as Google can continue to plausibly claim it's women in their 30s-40s watching the nursery rhyme video (because that's who's logged in), they can continue to rake in the more expensive advertising associated with that demographic.

That stops working when the advertisers realize they aren’t making any sales from those ads.

True, but ads dont just sell products, they also sell ways of thinking by frame.

You also have to think about the people who use Youtube to listen to musics. I assume music tastes don't differ that much.

But honestly, the moment they decide to make arbitrary decisions about what videos should be played next they are going to make some miscalculations. Some times they just made worst calculations than average.

> I assume music tastes don't differ that much.

I wouldn't make that assumption. Personally, I have a wide range of musical genres that I listen to and those tastes change over time, even month to month depending on how I'm feeling. I've met enough people that say similar things to think this isn't uncommon.

It's not like they announced this. I suppose they're always tuning it against spammers.

I haven't realized :/.

Do you have some examples ?

Now that I think about it, I distinctly remember is that at some point Youtube started throwing lots of "it's always sunny in philadelphia" scenes at my face.

I am not even angry, I discovered my favorite show this way.

I used to see a heavy dose of my subscribed channels in my recommendations, now only a fraction of them are represented. We're talking channels where I watch nearly every video they post but they won't show up in my recommendations. There's clearly stuff Youtube "likes" and even a naive recommendation engine would perform better.

Same here. That's why I changed a couple of subscribed channels to send me notifications, it puts updates of these channels in the notifications area and sends me an email for every update. The June 2019 change of algorithm was that big and hostile that I had to turn on notifications.

interesting, there must be some variation in the algorithm.

I have just loaded Youtube and in the 8 recommendations above the fold :

- 4 of them are from my subscriptions

- 1 is the last published in a series of videos I have been watching, published 2 hours ago

- 1 is from a channel I have never watched AFAIK, but contains a sketch from a comic duo I watched often on Youtube

- leaving 2 lectures that don't come directly from what I watched recently.

If anything, I would prefer if Youtube was pushing way more original topics.

One thing I have remarked is that their algorithm is very "grippy". Once it identifies a topic you might be interested in, it makes sure to find other videos on the same topic.

As an example I stumbled on a beautiful video about what life is like for an man with autism. The next day Youtube recommended me a video where women with autism talk about their lives (actually I remember having already watched that video several years ago, so a meh recommendation). Today Youtube wants me to watch a video about autistic children in China.

Also, with the magic of A/B groups, we might be running on 2 very different algorithms for all we know.

> even a naive recommendation engine would perform better.

I think you are underestimating the complexity of the problem :)

> over independent YouTube channels with slant towards left-leaning or politically neutral channels.

Why were they explicitly listing this channel types not including right-leaning? From what I heard there indeed is no problem with left radicalization but with right radicalization and mind fuckery through conspiracie channels and similar.

I guess I have to read that article

I think you've mis-parsed.

The algorithm itself (as opposed to the independent channels) is "with [a] slant towards left-leaning or politically neutral channels." i.e, it recommends channels which are slightly left-of-center.

I don't entirely understand the linked chart here.

But best I can make of it, has 1/4 the # of impressions as MSM and almost half the impressions for either partisan left or right.

This is a minor issue that is showing impression numbers the equivalent of entire media organizations. How is this evidence that Youtube's algorithm does not promote radicalized content?

This should be the top comment of the thread.