Subscriptions and external links help drive users to extremist YouTube channels (opens in new tab)

They're basically just saying the algorithm isn't driving extremist content, the users are just watching what they want to watch, which makes total sense.

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.

> Do online platforms facilitate the consumption of potentially harmful content? Using paired behavioral and survey data provided by participants recruited from a representative sample in 2020 (n = 1181)

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.

Always be weary of people/institutions using words like "harmful content" and "extremist."

Reminder: Adblocking is considered an extremist activity.

https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vSVUwlTGIywV...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akeRz7ouICQ

'Extermist' videos were watched most often from external links and those led to channel subscriptions. Seems like the right balance to me.

It's easy to get those numbers up when parents who disagree with schoolboards and people that merely identify as conservative are labeled as extremists. And I don't trust any study that seriously thinks there's a non-negligible "white nationalist" problem, since that's proven to be a boogeyman time and time again as of late.

Wow! You discovered YouTube will recommend videos from the same channels being watched. Beyond the brain-dead obviousness of this, who got to decide what is extremist or as the study also put it "alternative"? Since when is alternative media a bad thing?

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.

Interesting how they neglected to discuss their methodology for determining what was “extremist” material.

Looks to me that right from the start the study has a fatal flaw and it's clearly biased.

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.

Is there any actual extremist content even left on youtube? There's a TOS more restrictive than the actual law and a reporting mechanism to remove content that violates the law/TOS and many, many channels have left to bitchute/rumble/etc that were often outside the TOS but not outside the law. I really worry about this kind of rhetoric because it seems to be more accurate to say "views I don't like" or "people I can smear with association with genuinely bad views but who I primarily don't like because they are expressing dissent against a seperate view that I hold"

"Harmful content."

Harmful to the interests of the elite.

I sometimes see the default YT homepage outside of my personal controlled usage (for example, on work laptop, or on a friend's chromecast). I am always shocked how many of the default suggestions are straight up rightwing nationalists and the like. I understand 'outrage' or reality-tv esqe topics always get attention, but there's difference between "Youtubers drama" and "Only people of $religion should exist in $country"?

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?

Gun control gets liberals writing checks. Abortion bans get conservatives doing the same.

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.