The Making of a YouTube Radical

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html

by viburnum • 7 years ago

65 112 7 years ago

spookyuser• 7 years ago

I love the scrolling transition at the beginning of this article. It really feels like an excellent piece of internet art.

golergka• 7 years ago

It's also a very misleading and dishonest journalism, as many of YouTubers displayed in the final stages have nothing to do with the alt-right.

dannyr• 7 years ago

I read the article and it mentioned that in the past year YouTube started recommending videos from left-leaning creators.

"IN 2018, nearly four years after Mr. Cain had begun watching right-wing YouTube videos, a new kind of video began appearing in his recommendations.

These videos were made by left-wing creators, but they mimicked the aesthetics of right-wing YouTube, down to the combative titles and the mocking use of words like “triggered” and “snowflake.”

low_poly_shiba5• 7 years ago

famous left wing youtubers are people like Hbomberguy (known for helping trans charities)

famous right wing youtubers are people like Prisonplanet (white genocide propaganda, Brexit)

there's no comparison between the two outside of rise in popularity

minimaxir• 7 years ago

Comment from the author (which is getting ratioed):

Hey, writer here. This collage is just a sample from his viewing history. Some far-right, some not.

https://twitter.com/kevinroose/status/1137392725081219073

gjsman-10008• 7 years ago

I'm not a fan of all of those YouTubers, but quite a few of the big ones (i.e. Crowder, Shapiro, Peterson) detest racism, and have openly and many times said that they do not support white supremacy and think Nazis are racist morons. Someone asked why neo-Nazis were attending one of their conferences, and the speaker (Peterson) said he had no idea and wanted them to leave for being idiots.

Doesn't change the fact that NYT still calls them "white supremacist supporting." I think the problem here is that they support some policies which white supremacists, as a group, also like supporting. Just because two groups can agree on something doesn't mean those groups are allies. Also, "white supremacist" is a great slam against someone you don't like regardless as to if it is true.

CM30• 7 years ago

Potentially legally risky as well, given a known attorney/law firm critiqued it on Twitter and said it was totally unacceptable:

https://twitter.com/morrison/status/1137401059419217921?s=11

burlesona• 7 years ago

Google Brain’s researchers wondered if they could keep YouTube users engaged for longer by steering them into different parts of YouTube, rather than feeding their existing interests. And they began testing a new algorithm that incorporated a different type of A.I., called reinforcement learning.
The new A.I., known as Reinforce, was a kind of long-term addiction machine. It was designed to maximize users’ engagement over time by predicting which recommendations would expand their tastes and get them to watch not just one more video but many more.

It saddens me that so many of our smartest engineers are working on stuff like this.

ben_jones• 7 years ago

Those aren’t the world’s smartest engineers.

Youcandothis2• 7 years ago

I don't see whats wrong about suggesting videos to users that they like to watch.

__i___ii____4• 7 years ago

Well, it catches people in thought-bubbles.

throwayEngineer• 7 years ago

Same.

There is this pessimist view that Google is evil.

In my life, Google is the single best entity I'm aware of. Incredible amounts of free stuff that makes my life better.

Any addiction to their platform has been due to bliss.

coldtea11• 7 years ago

For one, it lowers their intellectual curiosity and makes them lazy consumers in a feedback loop of their current preferences...

Second, it always adds an algorithmic/editorial spin on the suggestion, so it's worse than them picking things up for themselves...

TravHatesMe• 7 years ago

I see it from both sides. I love browsing youtube and finding relevant suggestions, I can kill hours of time clicking and watching. However I sometimes feel like a victim of some kind of manipulation. Youtube has incredible power to persuade you down certain paths (in the pursuit of maximizing # of views).

I think there is a difference here compared to other platforms: they slowly nudge you down paths of interest and you willingly oblige in watching it. And if you have lost interest in a subject, don't worry, it will pop up on your home page sooner or later, dangling it above your head "still interested? come over here, click on me!".

Sure I paint a sinister picture, perhaps it is exaggerated, but I truly believe that google knows more about me than everyone that I know personally, and maybe even myself. That is scary. If they combines all this information across their platforms, they are in possession of an incredibly accurate profile of myself. If they use this profile to suggest videos, I suppose it may not be as harmful as I have stated, but what if they were to use it for other purposes in the future? This is my greatest fear.

mixedCase• 7 years ago

It saddens me that so many of our smartest engineers are working on stuff like this.

Does it sadden you if it's instead worded as

"The entertainment platform worked on improving their promoted content selection to prevent users from getting bored".

Really, we can have a discussion about ML algorithms running wild and achieving far different results than intended, but trying to exploit every angle for the sake of the "evil, greedy people" narrative feels very dishonest.

oliveshell• 7 years ago

"The entertainment platform worked on improving their promoted content selection to prevent users from getting bored".

This summary crucially omits that the platform's goal was not to prevent users from getting bored, it was to make more money. They were optimizing for time spent watching ads, not user experience.

I'll refrain here from passing judgment either way, but it's an important clarification to make.

stcredzero2• 7 years ago

So now the idea is to make it so that the only algorithmic pathsways to information are to the sanctioned ideas? That's dangerous! Basically, in 2019, you don't have to burn books. The powers that be can bias the power of discovery and viral spread towards the ideas they like and away from the ideas they don't like. You don't have to suppress, just make the ratified ideas orders of magnitude louder. Or, that was the theory. Now they have to resort to mislabeling and mass deplatforming. This mental control scheme is failing just like the Soviet's control over official media failed: People will eventually see through the manipulation and stop believing it.

That's not to say that damage won't be done in the meantime. What's driving society crazy isn't some single percentage slice of economically disadvantaged under-educated fringers with theories just about everybody knows are crap. What's driving society crazy is the meddling in the free market of ideas. It's the breakdown of discourse itself. It's all of the perverse incentives to communication and other manipulation perpetrated by big tech firms that may or may not be monopolies. It's the meddling with people's speech by entities that aren't governments, but have more power and more tech savvy than most of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

These big media/technology companies have been amplifying outrage, amplifying outrageous behavior, bubbling people into echo chambers to further amplify the outrage, and aiding and abetting the toxic mislabeling of ordinary views and formerly protected forms of discourse -- which just adds even more amplification in the form of outrage.

The problem is not the single-percentage fringers without access to economic power, the halls of power, and the ear of those who control the newest forms of media technology. They are merely a symptom. Look instead to the politically skewed access. Remember: power corrupts!

Look at the magnitude of how crazy society's gotten in the past several years. Who has the wealth, algorithmic/technological power, and reach to do all of that? The answer's simple. Look for the tickers with the multi-billion dollar valuations!

All society needs to fix things, is to actually have Free Speech and a level, non-manipulated free marketplace of ideas.

gjsman-10008• 7 years ago

This piece of "journalism" is very biased towards the left. I have noticed that the left has increasingly declared traditional right-wing values as "extremist" or "alt-right" to attempt to whittle down what being right-wing means.

An example of this is abortion. No matter how you feel about it, saying that abortion is murder and should be banned is now, in the NYT's opinion, "alt-right" and "extremist" even though about half of America believes so and this has always been a Right-wing value.

Not only this, but this type of article is why the Right calls NYT "fake news." Not necessarily "fake," but the bias is boldly visible. It doesn't help with media credibility - and then the Left wonders why the Right doesn't take newspapers seriously. For the record, I think "Fake news" is overused - but I do understand, reading this, why the Right loves bashing NYT.

minikites• 7 years ago

this has always been a Right-wing value

No it hasn't:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-ri...

But the abortion myth quickly collapses under historical scrutiny. In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe—that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.

gjsman-10008• 7 years ago

I will admit that, I was being a little hyperbolic ("always" meaning "last 40 years or so").

Still, it was brewing, as the March for Life did occur right after Roe.

camdenlock3• 7 years ago

I was struck by the apparent bias of the article. Not until the very end did the author note that the “right-wing rabbit hole” is not the only dangerous rabbit hole to be found on YouTube.

oh_sigh3• 7 years ago

The right has always hated abortion in recent memory, but I think you've gone too far in saying that most conservatives think abortion is murder. Some of the extreme rightists, usually of the religious variety, think that abortion is murder, but rank and file conservatives will probably not tell you that they a woman who gets an abortion(even illegally) should go to prison for life for first degree murder and conspiracy(with her doctor).

JoeAltmaier• 7 years ago

Except in those states that have already voted to do so, with a mandate from their constituents. Except for those conservatives.

gjsman-10008• 7 years ago

I think very few right-wingers would agree with that (I'm talking non-religious right). However, they would agree that the abortion doctor should experience prison for being a literal serial killer.

IWeldMelons2• 7 years ago

The most interesting thing though, is that the Scandinavian Countries (the leftiest in Europe) have the toughest regulations about abortions - the cut-off term AFAIR is only 12 weeks vs 24 in USA.

0815test3• 7 years ago

It's nothing new, is it? https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage... (2014)

How many Tumblr radicals are out there? Both sides are doing it.

nootropicat• 7 years ago

The most interesting thing about the article is the admission by google that it wages an ai-powered war on humanity. Rather than paperclips, the most likely ai apocalypse scenario consists of an ai that modifies and breeds humans (what it considers humans) to do nothing but watch ads.

stcredzero2• 7 years ago

It will first breed and otherwise manipulate humans into believing only what the media tells them.

camdenlock3• 7 years ago

For much of the article, the author portrays the “left-wing” as a bastion of sanity and moral good, a place where those who have been hijacked by the “right-wing” can be rehabilitated. Only at the very end does he pay passing lip-service to the possibility that there might be danger on both sides.

Is his characterization accurate?

devin• 7 years ago

I am having trouble thinking of a way to answer this without being downvoted for either being "too left" or "too right" in my reply. Maybe I'll just try and take a side route: Ideology is one hell of a drug. I like Gary Bernhardt's talk[0] on the subject. He defines ideology as the stuff we don't know that we know. In any event, there are certainly shallow moralists on both sides.

[0] https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/ideology

gjsman-10008• 7 years ago

Quick Question: You are worried about right-ring rabbit holes, NYT.

If I watched a bunch of NYT, Vox, and other such videos, are you _sure_ I wouldn't be sucked into a Left-wing rabbit hole?

cameronbrown• 7 years ago

Sssh - they don't want you to think about these things.

runarberg2• 7 years ago

I think there is a fundamental difference though. At some point the far right will start to promote really hateful messages such as anti-gay, anti-jew, anti-woman, etc. At the far left end, on the other hand, the hate is stared at the capitalist system and public figures benefiting from it.

gjsman-10008• 7 years ago

Far left is just as dangerous as far right. Just google how many deaths can be attributed to far left ideologies (communism, marxism, etc.)

josteink2• 7 years ago

At the far left end, on the other hand, the hate is stared at the capitalist system and public figures benefiting from it.

Or violence against different thinking individuals.

Think third wave feminists. Antifa. BLM. Berkeley Riots.

Right now, the extreme left is much more dangerous than the extreme right (not to mention the similarly lumped not-so-extreme right), because people like you think they will do no “real” wrongs.

That’s a huge mistake to make.

pacala2• 7 years ago

At the far-left end:

A. Millions murdered based on class: independent farmers [0], intellectuals, defined as anyone wearing glasses [1], entrepreneurs, professionals. Generally anyone perceived as better off than their neighbor was at risk of being labeled 'enemy of the people' by said neighbour and deported overnight into the Gulag [2]. Or executed on the spot.

B. Millions deported based on ethnicity. Entire populations were moved around USSR in the '30s, including Balts, Poles, Romanians, Tatars or Koreans, based simply on their ethnicity, partly as an attempt to forcefully disassociate them from their cultural legacy.

C. Millions murdered due to breakdown of basic economic structures. The great famine of Ukraine in '32/'33, and Mao's great famine of the '59/'63 stand out as marvels of far left ideology implemented by force in the economic sphere.

All in all, an estimated 100 million people lost their lives in the name of far left ideology [6]. It is repugnant to gloss over recent history and pretend there are no hideous monsters to be found.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism#Democrati...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_in_the_Soviet_Uni...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Sov...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao%27s_Great_Famine

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...

vore• 7 years ago

You're trying to make a "both sides" argument about this: a "left-wing rabbit hole" is not equivalent to a "right-wing rabbit hole" in terms of content.

There is no cosmic balance between left-wing and right-wing. What are the consequences of the left-wing rabbit hole vs the right-wing rabbit hole? Not all viewpoints are equal or even valid.

coldtea11• 7 years ago

You're trying to make a "both sides" argument about this: a "left-wing rabbit hole" is not equivalent to a "right-wing rabbit hole" in terms of content.

Really? Why? Because conservative/right = bad, and liberal/left = good?

IWeldMelons2• 7 years ago

NYT is not a left wing outlet. Left-wing mass media, produced by a large capitalist conglomerate, if you think carefully is an oxymoron.

gamechangr2• 7 years ago

Ummm...NYT is not bi-partisan?

Would you consider New York to be left wing? I would.

deogeo2• 7 years ago

When Mr. Cain first saw these videos, he dismissed them as left-wing propaganda. But he watched more, and he started to wonder if people like Ms. Wynn had a point. Her videos persuasively used research and citations to rebut the right-wing talking points he had absorbed.

Good to know apparently none of the right-wing videos used research or citations - only 'talking points'. Or at least it wasn't mentioned.

coldtea11• 7 years ago

While there are lots of "far right" channels out there, the majority of of the channels shown as screenshots have nothing to do with the "far right" or conspiracy theories.

Looks like their main crime is being conservative.

lwelyk7• 7 years ago

I just scrolled down the screenshot section where it showed the videos he watched in one time period, are you really trying to say Stefan Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson, thunderf00t and a lady complaining about "cuckservatives" aren't "far right" or conspiracy theorists?

coldtea11• 7 years ago

I haven't watched Stefan Molyneux or thunderf00t, so can't tell.

I've watched a few Paul Joseph Watson videos. I've also watched Shapiro, Milo, and Peterson, recognized from the screenshots shown. You can agree or disagree with the positions they take (e.g. Milo plays the extravagant provocateur for laughs and money), but where are those "conspiracy theories"?

Of course in these days, everything is labeled a "conspiracy theory" too. I keep the term for things involving the illuminati and aliens.

Regular corporatist interests and politicians conspire all the time -- the more open version is called lobbying.

Heck, politics is all about conspiring (including very covertly spy-shit, Nixon-Watergate like) against other parties and ideologies...

Grue3• 7 years ago

What's wrong with thunderf00t? I only remember him for anti-creationist videos and exposing Solar Roadways. It seems he's anti-conspiracy theorist if anything.

ForHackernews2• 7 years ago

I've only seen the thunderf00t videos debunking the "hyperloop" nonsense, and they seemed pretty reasonable to me.

djflutt3rshy3• 7 years ago

A far cry from the conservatives of my time, hence the "alt" label. As the article mentions, how much discussion of a balanced budget is there in any of these videos? Do you think someone like former Senator McCain or Romney would be watching these? It's all about race and sex and identity issues.

coldtea11• 7 years ago

Well, modern progressives are a far cry from the leftists of my time too. In fact most of them would sound like lunatics back in the 70s and 80s.

josteink2• 7 years ago

It's all about race and sex and identity issues.

That would merely be response to the current leftist narrative.

Doesn’t that sound like just the debate/discussion you just asked for, in the very same post? Make up your mind.

belorn• 7 years ago

Here in Sweden we had the national election last year.

I saw exactly zero news articles which covered the budget. Not a single one. Almost every single topic that bubbled up on national news, in debates, and on social media involved identity politics. Immigration, gender, religion, and then some climate on the side. The only political party in Sweden that still talk a bit about taxes is the one furthest on the left, and that mostly because capital tax has been their consistent talking point for about as long as the party has existed.

viburnum• 7 years ago

I agree, ordinary bigotry is conservative.

coldtea11• 7 years ago

Oh, the irony. Saying "bigotry is conservative" - while paying billions of people (a vast right half of the political spectrum) as bigots.

And taking for granted that of course progressives can't be bigots.

There weren't for example any massive pogroms against Jews under Stalin, or the destroying of thousands of years of historical treasures (not to mention millions of people) under Mao. Progressives never call whole swaths of people "white trash" or "deplorables". Leftist students never prevent people who doesn't share their views from speaking, and so on...

__i___ii____4• 7 years ago

I closed out of the article at the suggestion that the likes of Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and Dave Rubin are "radicalizing" anyone. The New York times is such unbelievable garbage.

djflutt3rshy3• 7 years ago

So long as advertising revenue rules everything around me, I don't see this problem going away. Whether it's addictive right-wing videos or addictive left-wing videos, websites like YouTube will always prioritize "engagement" and adviews over safe and neutral and boring and reliable. Good times...

malicioususer11• 7 years ago

personally, i can relate. but where are the Facts? :)

jl2718• 7 years ago

The author of this article and the YouTube creators he maligns, are both engaged in what Naval Ravikant describes as a “negative-sum prestige game”. The wealth benefits are nearly zero, and the fame is all negative. Stay in the positive-sum wealth game, fellow hackers; build, create, form meaningful life-long relationships.

TomMckenny• 7 years ago

It's going to be hard to discuss the problem here if just mentioning it draws such a vast quantities of spam from the other Caleb Cains of the world.

rjf72• 7 years ago

This article just included Milton Friedman in a collage that seems to imply he was a conspiratorial, racist, misogynist? For those who might not know who he was, here is is Wiki entry. [1] He's a nobel prize winning economist and more or less critical reading to understand the logic behind much of our current economic processes, without casting judgement on the rightness or wrongness of said systems. He died 13 years ago. I am, for once, at a loss for words. That is just so unbelievably idiotic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman

razius4• 7 years ago

Yes, most likely they are trying to label him as far-right as well. Remember they support Marxism which is against a free economy.

busymom0• 7 years ago

That along with them including Philip DeFranco (even though he's not mentioned in the article) made me lose interest in whatever they were trying to say through the article. I don't want to get on a political debate here on HN but Phil is more left leaning or at least that's the impression almost entirety of his audience gets from watching his videos.

I honestly think that this article is more about trying to take down independent but huge following journalists/creators than it's about shining light on radicalization. This could be because of these independent creators are taking away too much of these huge media company/newspaper's profits.

philshem• 7 years ago

Lots of grey text in these comments.

RandomInteger4• 7 years ago

Why in the world is Philip DeFranco in that collage?

razius4• 7 years ago

The same as everybody else, they challenge the mainstream media view.

razius4• 7 years ago

See Tim's video https://youtu.be/ZtYle7Rqn0Q

__i___ii____4• 7 years ago

https://youtu.be/HWc5_4uKOg8

Molyneux's response to the article.

The Making of a YouTube Radical

Related Stories