If you don't allow people to direct link or watch the programs they want to watch, they'll just watch those programs on another platform that's easier to use that will probably recommend more extremist content.
I'm not sure that this research is something that should be acted on. Not actively recommending the content seems like the right balance to me. Not sure why they phrase this in such a backwards way. They shouldn't use platforms to brainwash people to their point of view.
I question the value of any sociological research done in 2020, due to the extenuating circumstances that pervaded the lives of almost everyone in 2020, it's a bit like trying to do studies of population dynamics during the middle of a large scale war, there's a significant possible confounding factor in anything you measure.
https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSVUwlTGIywV...
This watering down of the concept of extremism is the dangerous part. YouTube doesn't host ISIS or KKK content. Videos from the opposite of your position on the political spectrum is not extremism.
The data comes from a survey and automated observation of just ~1,100 people. Super controlled, high quality, reliable source. /s
This is simple the Church of Science pulling its weight for the government that funds them.
That's explained in the paper:
> Our list of extremist channels consists of those labeled as white identitarian by Ledwich and Zaitsev (26) (30 channels), white supremacist by Charles (45) (23 channels), alt-right by Ribeiro et al. (24) (37 channels), extremist or hateful by the Center on Extremism at the Anti-Defamation League (16 channels), and those compiled by journalist Aaron Sankin from lists curated by the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, the Counter Extremism Project, and the white supremacist website Stormfront (157 channels) (46).
2. Declare certain things "extremism" based on subjective criteria that totally have nothing to do with whether or not they agree with you
3. ??????
4. Your opinion is declared scientific truth
Just looking at their channel selection is clear that they consider extremist only some forms extremism. Particularly those often considered as aligned with right wing politics.
From the Ledwich and Zaitsev paper they reference only the "white identitarian", "anti-sjw" and "men rights activism" categories are selected. But there are more categories that could be considered extremist at a glance like "revolutionary" and "anti-whiteness".
Other categories in Ledwich and Zaitsev's paper: Conspiracy, Libertarian, Anti-SJW, Social Justice, White Identitarian, Partisan Left, Partisan Right, Anti-theist, Religious Conservative, Socialist (Anti-Capitalist), Revolutionary, Provocateur, MRA (Mens Rights Activist), Missing Link Media, State Funded Channels, Anti-Whiteness. Some channels in other categories could be considered extremist but would require a nuanced analysis.
About the other lists or what actual channels they looked into I can't really say because I can't seem to find the actual list they used. If someone has the full list and categories they used please link it.
While it could be possible to analyze the behavior of extremism using only right leaning extremism, it is possible that this pattern does not apply to other forms or ideologies.
Harmful to the interests of the elite.
Is YT simply asleep at the wheel? Are revenue people sitting in high offices simply too far away from social realities? Surely the money they're getting cannot be that much worth it?
I see science/pop culture.
Advertisers know this. So unless you are going to abandon YouTube because you see recommendations you don't like (and the fact that your comment is here shows that you aren't) there is no revenue impact to YouTube.
The skirmish lines move back and forth but they never really change ( oh yes they do! shout the stirrers of pots ).
Our society is akin to rats in a shadow box. We are poked and prodded to act as the minders see best for themselves.