Guardian writer Paul Lewis is convinced Youtube's algorithms for promoting and sorting videos are biased in favor of Trump, conservatives, and whoever else dissents from their worldviews >Over the last 18 months, Chaslot has used the program to explore bias in YouTube content promoted during the French, British and German elections, global warming and mass shootings, and published his findings on his website, Algotransparency.org. Each study finds something different, but the research suggests YouTube systematically amplifies videos that are divisive, sensational and conspiratorial. >most of the recommended videos said she “is a man”. More than 80% of the YouTube-recommended videos about the pope detected by his program described the Catholic leader as “evil”, “satanic”, or “the anti-Christ" >the impact of YouTube’s recommendation algorithm was not neutral during the presidential race: it was pushing videos that were, in the main, helpful to Trump and damaging to Hillary Clinton… “Wherever you started, whether it was from a Trump search or a Clinton search, the recommendation algorithm was much more likely to push you in a pro-Trump direction.” > we found, the database contained far more YouTube-recommended speeches by Trump than Clinton. >There were dozens of clips stating Clinton had had a mental breakdown, reporting she had syphilis or Parkinson’s disease, accusing her of having secret sexual relationships, including with Yoko Ono. Many were even darker, fabricating the contents of WikiLeaks disclosures to make unfounded claims, accusing Clinton of involvement in murders or connecting her to satanic and paedophilic cults. In the top 1000 recommended videos about the election, 551 were favorable to Trunpagainst 92 favorable to Clinton >we focused on 1,000 of the top-recommended videos. We sifted through them one by one to determine whether the content was likely to have benefited Trump or Clinton. Just over a third of the videos were either unrelated to the election or contained content that was broadly neutral or even-handed. Of the remaining 643 videos, 551 were videos favouring Trump, while only only 92 favoured the Clinton campaign. And so they are convinced this proves bias in the YouTube algorithm >The sample we had looked at suggested Chaslot’s conclusion was correct: YouTube was six times more likely to recommend videos that aided Trump than his adversary. YouTube presumably never programmed its algorithm to benefit one candidate over another. But based on this evidence, at least, that is exactly what happened.
And the algorithm leads people down "hateful rabbit holes" >“The question before us is the ethics of leading people down hateful rabbit holes full of misinformation and lies at scale just because it works to increase the time people spend on the site – and it does work.” http://archive.is/RBsxS
>>126830 Actually, it looks like they're probably right, for the simple reason that "controversial" videos get more clicks, so are algorithmically promoted more, and right-wing videos are more controversial. That's essentially what they're saying.
There's a huge difference between what they're saying and saying that YouTube censorship is biased against leftists.
>>126831 >There's a huge difference between what they're saying and saying that YouTube censorship is biased against leftists. You know they won't care and don't care, and will still spin it like that because it supports their paper-thin narrative.
>>126836 I haven't even clicked the video yet, and I still know the Pope (the current one, at least) is evil just from how he's promoting immigration from non-Christian countries.
Anything "clickbaity" gets more views, that's how it works. Experienced content producers recognize this and make their thumbnails and titles more interesting. Leftist media remains disassociated from the public and will not do this, instead preferring to complain.
Youtube has always been a harbor and launching pad for controversial opinions (which tend to be right-wing, because of how left the Overton window is). We all know this will be an excuse for Google to (((shut it down))).
>>126841 The media ''did'' help Thrackerzod ascend to the presidency. Eyeballs are power, and the media conspired to keep Thrackerzod in the headlines over the irreverent shit he said, rather than having a public, serious discussion of policy. Because you know, the only policy that's going to ameliorate things now is
>>126841 >That reminds me of when I heard butthurt liberals crying about how the media helped Trump too much during the election. Complete cognitive dissonance. Leftist will always choose to believe whatever that fits their narrative at the moment regardless of truth.
Time and time again, AI left to its own devices sees through the forced memes now used by the democrats, and it sees that the opposing side is the more reasonable/goes organically viral.
Nobody watches Clinton speeches because they're shit. Trump rallies are captivating, and the algorithm notices people are captivated by it, which is something it likes to promote.
The difference is that while the algorithms don't really promote the correct narrative, the moderators still have a power to intervene by marking certain videos or channels to get promoted, while suppressing or outright deleting others.
What's even more interesting is that the streisand effect is doubly effective with such an AI curator, not only will the people be looking for it by themselves, any hits that aren't deleted will get the traffic for the hits that did get deleted. The AI will take notice of the increasing traffic and promote it further.