Maybe It's Not YouTube's Algorithm That Radicalizes People (wired.com) 341
In a new report, Penn State political scientists say that it's not the recommendation engine, but the communities that form around right-wing content. From a report: YouTube is the biggest social media platform in the country, and, perhaps, the most misunderstood. Over the past few years, the Google-owned platform has become a media powerhouse where political discussion is dominated by right-wing channels offering an ideological alternative to established news outlets. And, according to new research from Penn State University, these channels are far from fringe -- they're the new mainstream, and recently surpassed the big three US cable news networks in terms of viewership. The paper, written by Penn State political scientists Kevin Munger and Joseph Phillips, tracks the explosive growth of alternative political content on YouTube, and calls into question many of the field's established narratives. It challenges the popular school of thought that YouTube's recommendation algorithm is the central factor responsible for radicalizing users and pushing them into a far-right rabbit hole.
The authors say that thesis largely grew out of media reports, and hasn't been rigorously analyzed. The best prior studies, they say, haven't been able to prove that YouTube's algorithm has any noticeable effect. "We think this theory is incomplete, and potentially misleading," Munger and Phillips argue in the paper. "And we think that it has rapidly gained a place in the center of the study of media and politics on YouTube because it implies an obvious policy solution -- one which is flattering to the journalists and academics studying the phenomenon." Instead, the paper suggests that radicalization on YouTube stems from the same factors that persuade people to change their minds in real life -- injecting new information -- but at scale. The authors say the quantity and popularity of alternative (mostly right-wing) political media on YouTube is driven by both supply and demand. The supply has grown because YouTube appeals to right-wing content creators, with its low barrier to entry, easy way to make money, and reliance on video, which is easier to create and more impactful than text.
The authors say that thesis largely grew out of media reports, and hasn't been rigorously analyzed. The best prior studies, they say, haven't been able to prove that YouTube's algorithm has any noticeable effect. "We think this theory is incomplete, and potentially misleading," Munger and Phillips argue in the paper. "And we think that it has rapidly gained a place in the center of the study of media and politics on YouTube because it implies an obvious policy solution -- one which is flattering to the journalists and academics studying the phenomenon." Instead, the paper suggests that radicalization on YouTube stems from the same factors that persuade people to change their minds in real life -- injecting new information -- but at scale. The authors say the quantity and popularity of alternative (mostly right-wing) political media on YouTube is driven by both supply and demand. The supply has grown because YouTube appeals to right-wing content creators, with its low barrier to entry, easy way to make money, and reliance on video, which is easier to create and more impactful than text.
Ahh yes (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The old saying goes, 'Birds of a feather fly together'
Their willingness to self identify and publish to public forums is terrifically useful
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ahh yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to associate those extremists with the more moderate mainstream Democrat party is just as disingenuous as all of the idiots that want to try to associate right-wing extremism with the more moderate mainstream Republican party.
Re:Ahh yes (Score:5, Insightful)
But anyone (especially teenage boys) wearing a Red Baseball Cap are fucking Racist Nazis, right?
The issue is that people love painting in broad strokes with big brushes. Perhaps we should not assign group identity to groups, because the results are always bigoted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps not. But I'd say that depends on what the group's goals are.
As far as I can tell, the MAGA phenomenon is about:
1. Hatred of liberals.
2. Hatred of immigrants.
Now that doesn't mean all Trump supporters fit into those 2 categories. But wearing the hat probably does signal intent to convey those 2 messages. Trump fans that probably don't wear the MAGA hats also include:
a. People angry about global trade - though Trump doesn't really have any viable solutio
Re:Ahh yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Hatred of immigrants.
And that right there is where you're 100% wrong. Well, if you mean "Uphold Immigration Law" is "hate" then maybe but only for those that violate American Law. Most people I know don't hate Immigrants, who come here wanting a better life and willing to become Americans. Color, Race, Ethnicity, Religion, or otherwise doesn't matter. But you're being brainwashed by false framing that it is "Immigration" and not "Illegal Immigration" that people oppose.
Me personally, I am 100% libertarian on this issue. Let everyone in, as long as they check in at the border and register. No need to come here illegally. But that simple solution denies the Democrat their wedge conflation and floods the streets with millions of people providing cheap labor. Entitled brats everywhere would be homeless as hard working immigrants take their Barrista jobs at Starbucks.
Re: (Score:3)
Courts cases were mostly stopping enforcement of actual federal laws. Go look at the whole set of cases, it was largely prevention of enforcement of laws.
Illegal Labor is caused by stupid immigration and wage laws. We couldn't afford $15 / hr fruit. That, and the problems with getting crews is leading to more mechanization of farming, limiting the need for human labor where possible. The real sad part of that, is this is going to eventually limit food choice to those crops that are benefited with increasing
on the reasons for the popularity of MAGA (Score:3)
You underestimate the degree to which the widespread popularity of President Trump's MAGA campaign is a reaction against disastrously failed "free trade"/deindustrialization economic policies. Policies that were pushed by the bipartisan corporate stooge Establishment for several decades. Pushed hard, despite millions of jobs lost, despite millions driven to poverty and despair. Almost like immiserating the American working class and undermining our defense industrial base was the actual goal of those widely
Re:Ahh yes (Score:5, Funny)
What is the mainstream Republican Party now? Trump or someone else?
Note: This is not a troll, it's a genuine question.
Pierre Delecto?
Re:Ahh yes (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a boring jackass as always. Let's be real here, neither party likes him and he is only making the news to be the token Republican that is vocal against Trump.
Re:Ahh yes (Score:5, Interesting)
You might recall the last time the Republicans nominated a horrific sexist, racist monster. It was in 2012 and his name was Mitt Romney. The most anodyne, middle of the road Republican. So milquetoast a Republican was Romney that he was elected to the Governorship of Massachusetts. And yet the same vitriol was poured out on him that we see today. You could s/Romney/Trump/g on most mainstream news articles from 2010-2011 and they'd parse fine.
The Republican party is in complete disarray because the Republican party has been little more than Democrats about 10 years behind. Half of the country still shows up to vote for them because they can't bring themselves to vote for whatever disaster the Democrats put on their ticket. This applies equally to the Democrats, who'd rather vote for their nonsense candidate than whatever horror the Republicans nominate.
To answer your question, a mainstream Republican would be somebody who is not going to allow unlimited immigration, legal or illegal, into the US. They would be more interested in domestic industry than unrestricted free trade. They would be against spending American blood and treasure on military adventurism. Basically, they would be candidate Trump, as opposed to President Trump, who has done little to nothing of what he promised as a candidate. I say candidate Trump is mainstream because a lot of people voted for Trump who were perfectly aware that he was an unpolished huckster.
To counter this, the Democrats have decided to run the most liberal, anti-Trumpian candidates they could find. Somebody like Tulsi Gabbard, who would almost be considered a mainstream Republican, can find no traction at all.
If all that sounds grim, it is. Right now there is no topic that can be discussed without it devolving into two mobs screaming "fascist!"/"socialist!" at each other.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that's true, Romney was obviously criticised by we didn't have recordings of him talking about grabbing women by the pussy and he wasn't a habitual liar. He also didn't make immigration such a big thing in his campaign or make what are considered extreme proposals like a Muslim ban.
The stuff you are getting about Trump is mostly unique to him.
Re:Ahh yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Romney was recorded saying a perfectly true thing--"Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax"--and was lambasted for it.
The establishment Republicans don't talk that much about immigration because they, like the Democrats, are fully behind immigration. Democrats want more Democrat voters, and Republicans want more cheap labor for big business. And all rich people want more immigration because a Guatemalan nanny and a Salvadoran gardener work for cheap. It's only the middle class and lower class that have to deal with the social and economic impact of massive legal and illegal immigration.
That's a genuine concern for people. You can dismiss it as simple racism, and most left liberals do. But it's also a fact that increasing the labor supply decreases wages. It is also a fact that large numbers of immigrants impact the social order. People in Mexico are perfectly aware of this. Large numbers of US expats retire to Mexico because it's cheaper, and they turn their enclaves into Little America to the annoyance of the locals. You'd have to have deliberate tunnel vision to be unaware that the same thing happens in the US. Hell, San Franciscans would be annoyed if a few thousand Alabamans moved in and started tuning all the TVs in the vegan gastro pubs to NASCAR.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ahh yes (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
I've been around a while, and my observation is that the Democrats have accused every Republican president after Eisenhower of being a Nazi.
Re:Ahh yes (Score:4, Interesting)
What they label far right now, was only maybe slightly right of center just a decade or so ago, which was pretty close to mainstream for the majority of the US as a country.
Funny and amazing to me how quickly things have changed.
Not very long back, if you even mentioned niceties about socialism, you'd be immediately branded a radical leftist in the US.
WTF happened and how so quickly?
What was main stream is now being pushed as right and alt right.
I dunno, I don't think that is the thinking of the majority of the US still.....I think maybe it is just a VERY vocal minority of people that think it is.
If being conservative or leaning that way was so radical, I don't think you'd see the YouTube channels that follow that ideology would be so popular, or even look how Fox News trounces all the competitors on cable new tv.....
I mean, there MUST be a lot of people that watch them, you know?
But wow....this country in many ways has radically shifted in my life....some for the better, but in many ways I feel in bad ways.
We are a much more divided US than we were when I grew up. US culture used to be much more homogeneous in general, sure there were differences and they were ok...but we were US.
Now...well, just fractured and splintered into more pieces than I would have ever imagined.
Re:Ahh yes (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't say good. I'd say less bad. But at least you're understanding the problem now.
In Canada, believing in a balanced budget, helping our own countryman first, and only taking in immigrants who will integrate into society is "Far-right wing reactionary" or simply "nazi's" as seen by how leftists and even people right into the PM's office have spewed shit.
Re:Ahh yes (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the issue though. Why is it that someone with whom you disagree is "bad?" Certainly, there are fringe groups out there advocating for violence, racism, etc. I think most people would paint these folk as bad. The other folk (in the vast majority) tend to want the best for as many as possible - they simply disagree on certain aspects of "best" as well as the optimal way to get there. Somehow we got to a place where someone who wants to balance out income inequality is a "liberal commie snowflake" while someone who wants a greater percentage of take-home pay is a "Nazi." It's shutting down educated discourse and its many benefits while creating a troubling chasm across neighborhoods, families, etc. It's like everyone is applying the tactics of war propaganda; where the first step is dehumanize the enemy. That's a pretty abhorrent tactic in general, but even more troubling when applied to people with whom you live, work, and interact on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:3)
How can you blame the right wing when it was the left wing in 2014 that started locking children in cages? Remember when Obama praised it? The infamous pictures that came out that people said made Trump look bad? Those were from 2014 when Obama was our ruler. The Republicans couldn't get away with starting to do that, so unfortunately, our side started doing that and now they can't stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
The old saying goes, 'Birds of a feather fly together'
Exactly! And this is why anyone who eats cheese is a Nazi. After all, Nazi like cheese, and as you said 'Birds of a feather fly together'.
Efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
"...right-wing content."
Saved me from bothering to even read the TFS.
As if there are no left-wing discussions happening on the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is you don't see those left-wing discussions talking about how to kill Jews, murder reporters, how to bomb synagogues, mosques or temples, how anyone not white and Christian should be removed from the country, how women and Muslims are the source of all evil in this country, and so on.
That you can't, or won't, see the difference between the two speaks volumes. But go ahead and tell us how nothing I said was true and
Re:Efficiency (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, agreed, the "left-wing" and "right-wing" eventually coalesce into totalitarianism.
And, agreed, you can list me under "Christian Libertarian".
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for voicing the delusions of the 'been propagandized for so long that don't even know up from down' crowd
You can go play in the street now
Re: Efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
That is rather amusing because you can't see beyond the fishbowl. Nearly everyone in the US today believes in liberal democratic thinking.
James Burnham devised a test to distinguish liberal-progressives from conservative-reactionaries in 1965. You will find that conservatives today agree 100% with the liberal point of view on 39 of these questions. That is how successful the left has been in reshaping the values of US citizens. This wasn't true just a few generations ago.
https://www.gotoquiz.com/james... [gotoquiz.com]
Historically speaking, the political left advocated for equality. The right preferred monarchy, with a hierarchical relationship between people and classes and supported blasphemy laws.
K-12 and colleges teach the values of the age of enlightenment and the scientific revolution for the 17th-18th centuries. The same liberal values I am referring too of reason, equality, tolerance, skepticism, liberty, and progress. Thinkers like Locke, Hobbes, Rosseau are covered in education at the high school level as part of understanding how our founding documents.
Today children are taught that everyone is equal, that there are no "natural betters" (i.e nobility, the monarchy), and that this also applies to social class, as skin tone, sex, gender, and sexual preference. Today most conservatives would agree and will happily call the small minority who disagrees racist, bigoted and sexist. Most religous figures also teach the same, whereas they did not do so in the past. Hence, in the educational system, biological and genetic differences polite discourse and research are essentially taboo. They would also agree that segregation was wrong. Conservatives widely praise Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and his vision.
Today, despite most still being on the books, blasphemy laws are no longer enforced, which protected the power of religions. Most don't even understand the constitution allowed for the states of have established churches, religious restrictions on office and that states even had established churches until the 1840's, with the establishment cause's actual purpose to prevent conflict due to different established state churches. Most conservatives today would not support established churches, nor would they call for blasphemy laws to be enforced.
As strange as it sounds, left and right in the USA fundamentally agree on the basic premises because as it stands both conservatives and liberals are... liberal.
Re: Efficiency (Score:5, Interesting)
I would characterize your argument not as "Liberal vs Conservative", especially in America. Americans from the beginning shunned Monarchical rule. And that is why we had Confederate States of America (before the Constitution) which was to a fault ineffective. There were people who wanted Washington as a Monarch, but even Washington was wise enough to see the dark path that would lead.
The Constitution enshrined the great ideals (often poorly executed) of our Republic, that took the premise of "All men are created equal" and enshrined that ideal into a legal codex whose structure has been continually eroded and sometimes strengthened over the years by law and decree.
Our current political situation is the result of people who view our Constitution as too "Limiting" of control. These petty tyrants (both Right and Left) are wanting THEIR version of tyranny, but it is tyranny either way. Very few of us are actually arguing for the case of Liberty that we often sound like "radicals" for promoting it.
“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
Far too many people can't hear the music.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to asked this. Where you high when you wrote this? If you where then it's fine, but if not you need to take a class on writing comprehension.
After reading this a few times some basic corrections are needed. Where you say "right" is supporting the communist manifesto, you need to say "left." The "right" is far more supportive of freedom of speech, religion, and the press. The "right" is in support of the 2nd amendment.
It is the "left" that wants to shutdown any all opposition speech that d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points for this. ^^^+1 Insightful
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you suggest writing comprehension, when you are asking the location that someone wrote something?
Or don't you know the difference between "were" and "where"? You don't even have the excuse that they're pronounced the same ("there", "their", "they're")....
Re:Efficiency (Score:4, Insightful)
No, we are not trying to silence speech on the topics. We are trying to voice our own opinions. It is the left that want to outlaw our voices.
M
No, there are many religions. And their is right leaning politics in each of those religions. For you to even make this statements shows how much of a political/religious bigot you really are.
You mean like the left has been doing for the last couple decades against any right leaning news media? You need to look in the mirror bigot. Seriously. You are what you are complaining about. A fucking bigot.
Re:Efficiency (Score:4, Insightful)
No it hasn't. It just isn't going to pay for left wing scientific data that is staged to support the left agenda. If you can get funding from other sources then you are clearly free to research and publish your data.
It is only the left that goes out of its way to destroy the career of scientist who reaches some other conclusion that what is socially acceptable to the left. What is it called? Cancel culture. You can see it waged here on any one that doesn't support the left wing policies of certain members.
Plus I have to ask. Which side is currently holding secret meetings with a goal to unseat a lawfully elected president? Just like a certain communistic government would do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it hasn't. It just isn't going to pay for left wing scientific data that is staged to support the left agenda. If you can get funding from other sources then you are clearly free to research and publish your data.
Yes it has :
https://www.ucsusa.org/resourc... [ucsusa.org]
https://www.sciencemag.org/new... [sciencemag.org]
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]
The fact that you aren't aware of this is a BIG part of the problem. It's not opinion it's fact , and no sorry no "alternative" facts here.
It is only the left that goes out of its way to destroy the career of scientist who reaches some other conclusion that what is socially acceptable to the left. What is it called? Cancel culture. You can see it waged here on any one that doesn't support the left wing policies of certain members.
No, some of us are simply arguing on behalf of REALITY. Again, the fact that you are existing outside of reality is a very big problem. If 999 scientist agree upon results of FACTUAL data, and 1 does not, it very seldom means tha
Re: (Score:3)
a partisan inquiry in secret and deny due process that any criminal is given in the US.
Is the inquiry excluding Republicans?
Is it only Democratic members of Congress in the interviews?
From what I have read Republicans are in the interviews with witnesses and are able to ask questions if they want to.
Is that not the case?
If Republicans are present in the interviews and do know what the interviewees said and their statements, then your description of partisan is off the mark and hyperbolic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Efficiency (Score:4, Insightful)
No it hasn't. It just isn't going to pay for left wing scientific data that is staged to support the left agenda. If you can get funding from other sources then you are clearly free to research and publish your data. It is only the left that goes out of its way to destroy the career of scientist who reaches some other conclusion that what is socially acceptable to the left. What is it called? Cancel culture. You can see it waged here on any one that doesn't support the left wing policies of certain members. Plus I have to ask. Which side is currently holding secret meetings with a goal to unseat a lawfully elected president? Just like a certain communistic government would do.
See, none of this is a troll but the left can't stand to hear something that is different.
Re:Efficiency (Score:4)
An I'm fairly right, I guess, but I refuse to mod people I disagree with down. Even you. I think we disagree on virtually everything, except trains, and I refuse to mod you down because of it. I also don't equate people that disagree with me a trolls. Lately there have been a few fools, but no trolls.
I actually expected that post to be modded down. It was bait, the censorship left took it, and proved my point.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus I have to ask. Which side is currently holding secret meetings with a goal to unseat a lawfully elected president?
The side following the highest law of the land, which provides them the explicit mechanism and responsibility to unseat a lawfully elected president who is flagrantly violating the law. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, to be precise. Signed into law by President Nixon, of all people.
Section 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make-
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
See paragraph 2 in the law? Trump violated that. And proudly told all of us he did. As did his Chief of Staff. The first time he did it was just a civil violation. After he was told it was illegal, the second ti
Re: (Score:2)
Not providing funding is not silencing anything. Especially when funding can come from anywhere. I am sure you have no problem not providing funding on issues you don't agree with. Funding will just come from someplace else. Or what Gilargon, are you saying your scientific research can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> The right is the one trying to silence speech
And then came a study. [wqad.com] What will you do when you are presented with information that contradict your belief system?
One thing I found funny about that study is that women were more supportive of censorship unless it was about women being stronger leaders. lol.
It reminds me of the study showed liberals talk down to minorities [washingtontimes.com].
>news organizations the enemy of the people
So what? What should we say when news organizations push lies that take us to war and/or c
"Never seems to be advocating violence" (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for all of the left-wing sources that regularly advocate violence, like the many Antifa chapters with long-standing YouTube pages.
Re:"Never seems to be advocating violence" (Score:4, Interesting)
My granddad shot fascists, too. Then he went to Korea and shot communists.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Even if true, how is that ironic? Are antifa advocating tyranny? No? Then what's the problem? Communism without tyranny isn't wrong. And you'd be hard pressed to show evidence that, oh say Cuba, is a tyranny. I'm saying, tyranny is wrong, no matter what economic system you choose.
The US CIA helped overthrow a freely elected communist leader in Chile, Salvadore Allende, and installed a psychotic madman, Augusto Pinochet, in his place. Allende killed no one. Pinochet killed thousands. The US is, and Pinochet
Re: (Score:2)
>Are antifa advocating tyranny?
They are using political violence to deny people their rights. That is tyranny.
Re: (Score:3)
Antifa aren't anti-fascist. They are Anarcho-Communists who violently oppose anyone not like them. They are the very people they claim to be fighting, without the sense of irony needed to see this simple fact.
There is plenty of evidence of Antifa violently "protesting", causing harm to both people and property. Ignoring this proves you're not capable of understanding my first paragraph's irony.
Antifa are petty tyrants. Period.
Re: (Score:3)
You sure about that? These are just a few off the top of my head at top search results.
You sound very religious in your conviction to a bunch of thugs larping as revolutionary.
https://www.newsweek.com/viole... [newsweek.com]
https://www.thenewamerican.com... [thenewamerican.com]
https://www.frontpagemag.com/f... [frontpagemag.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
https://thefederalist.com/2019... [thefederalist.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because the left-wing would consider that "counter-revolutionary", and though it's a self-justifying fantasy rationalization of useless left politicians that we're going to have anyone attempting an armed overthrow of the U.S. government--we can just refer to actual reality in the form of history, and the left-wing's body count is easily winning and in the tens of millions of its own citizens over the last century.
That's what you should be concerned about (e.g. China), not some U.S. left politicians' absurd
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody in the American left wing advocates tyranny like China or Russia."
As soon as one says, "I have a more important priority than your individual rights", they are on the road to tyranny.
Granted, though, most who think "but not nearly to the degree as happened historically", are in the category of the "useful idiots" to be executed by the leaders of that agenda if they reach their goals. Let's hope (relatively speaking) it remains at the level of massive grifting dollars to left politicians and their p
Re: (Score:2)
> You like democracy, right?
Pure democracy is just as bad as anything else as it amounts to a mob. Mob rule is bad as it is susceptible to group think and irrationality.
That is why there was originally only half of 1 branch of the federal government to be a direct representation of the people.
Re:Efficiency (Score:4, Insightful)
but as it never seems to be advocating violence
Have you seen the blue check marks on Twitter?
The gangs destroying cities like Portland?
The celebrities calling for the death of children for wearing a hat?
Re: (Score:3)
No, perhaps you could provide a link.
Well, I saw some fake ones like Antifa Boston, but I assume you don't mean those.
Re: (Score:2)
Just keep ignoring reality. That always ends well.
Re: (Score:2)
That article illustrates the difference between left and right. We apologize when our rhetoric gets too heated. You double down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, just illustrating exactly where the goal posts are. Decent people decry violence. When they get heated and call for it, they apologize. What's so hard to understand about that? The left does not condone violence, the right does. I mean, you literally used an example where a leftist disavowed a call for violence. That it happened to be his own call for violence is beside the point, he did not double down and say "Yeah, I called for violence, what are you going to do about it, pussy?" like those on the
Re: (Score:2)
Sure there is left wing content on the Internet, but as it never seems to be advocating violence, it isn't a problem.
Um, what?
Does the phrase "see a nazi, punch a nazi" ring a bell?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you actually admitting that you are pro-Nazi in public? In my family, we used to fucking shoot Nazis, not punch them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In my family we fought Nazis, communists and other oppressive regimes.
But since you lack reading comprehension and basic reasoning skills, allow me to assist:
Are you actually admitting that you are pro-Nazi in public?
No, he was not.
Any other stupid fucking questions?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I think today's definition is "People who call themselves Nazis." It's not really fluid at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof or shut up.
Re:Efficiency (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And just because China and Russia called themselves communist, doesn't mean they were. Therefore, we can conclude the only real application of communism, Cuba, is hugely successful, even with the boycott of one of the world's superpowers.
But the proof of antifa is in the pudding. They do what they say, and nothing more. I'm not saying they are anti-fascist because they call themselves anti-fascists. I'm saying, they are anti fascist because they show up to fascist rallies and goad the fascists into punching first. Then they put the fascists down, like the heroes they are.
Amen
Re: (Score:2)
> Anyone with a heart and a shred of decency is anti-fascist
I agree we should be standing up to China.
Re: (Score:2)
Abso-fucking-lutely. You know who ISN'T standing up to China? Capitalists. They can't wait to suck Pooh-bear's fetid schlong for money.
we've had radical terrorism for decades (Score:2, Insightful)
the 90's were full of white man terrorism
Oklahoma City bombing, 1996 Olympics nail bomb, abortion clinic bombings and murders and the Unabomber
all years before YouTube and before the internet became popular
Take it you weren't alive in the 60s and 70s (Score:2)
When bombings would only be on the local news and Hijackings were kind of ho hum.
https://time.com/4501670/bombi... [time.com]
Re: (Score:2)
the 90's were full of white man terrorism
Oklahoma City bombing, 1996 Olympics nail bomb, abortion clinic bombings and murders and the Unabomber
all years before YouTube and before the internet became popular
So youtube is just the modern equivalent of the 90s gun shows? That how a lot of that spread, through gun shows selling books like the Turner Diaries or Anarchists Cookbook.
Liberal media (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, the media is objectively liberal and has failed to deliver content sought by a large part of the population, so other content creators are delivering "balance".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Obviously the multi-billion dollar companies that own all of the major news outlets all would have a liberal bias and would push that bias, profit be damned!
If you actually stop for a moment and think, does that sound remotely likely?
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe TV news and Youtube are both garbage and people should just read Slashdot all day!
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There are very few facts to be found in the news these days, no matter what network.
Anonymous Cowards like you paste this over and over and over again, but whenever I ask for examples... crickets. So let's try again, for fun.
Here are three random news articles from today.
If there are "very few facts to be found in the news these days" it should be very easy to state exactly what, in these articles, is not factual. Please be specific.
https://www.latimes.com/politi... [latimes.com]
https://www.pbs.org/new [pbs.org]
Reminder: "Loose Change" still on Youtube (Score:3)
This far-out left-wing conspiracy video has been on Youtube (and previously Google Video) for about 15 years now. But I guess that doesn't fit into the narrative of radicalizing right-wingers.
What radicalizes people is labelling them radical. (Score:3, Insightful)
The right wing communities on YouTube and elsewhere are not really "radical" - what actions have they taken that are radical?
It's not like they are like AntiFa, out burning cars or attacking people attending political rallies because of viewpoints differing. THAT is truly radical.
No, right wing communities online are simply like any other group, full of like minded people - the reason they appear different is because so many seek to make them appear to be different to others, so that no more people will join them.
To the people in the group, they get a little more closed off to outsiders when they see constant and to them, very unreasonable attacks constantly so they are more wary of people who are not in the group; But that doesn't make them radical, it makes them realists.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that everyone should be willing to call out someone else for being shitty, and open to accepting criticism that challenges their viewpoints.
Life should not be a "safe space". For a group that became so in love with calling liberals "snowflakes", y'all are some of the most fragile people I've seen with how quickly I see walls go up with hyper-reactive denial, blame shifting, and outrage.
People are made radical by the groups exploiting them. When you have Fox News and other right-wing media constantly
Re: (Score:2)
The right wing communities on YouTube and elsewhere are not really "radical" - what actions have they taken that are radical?
Well, I can think of this one incident in a small town called Charlottesville where a bunch of right-wingers decided to grab some tiki torches and march around at night shouting literal Nazi slogans (but at least they didn't have to worry about mosquitoes!). And then the next day they decided to hold a protest and one of them ended up running down a bunch of people with his car. But it's ok, there were a bunch of fine people there on both sides.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Far right or alt left never existed before YouTube (Score:3)
Right, YouTube is to blame because the radical right or liberal left never existed BEFORE YouTube! /s
Oh wait. All these digital platforms are just providing visibility into the fact that people have diverse opinions since the beginning of time. With anyone being able to post content it is just much easier to find content that aligns with your biases.
Move along, nothing to see here.
But let's continue to bring out scapegoats. /s
LOL (Score:2)
The algorithm is a harmful amplifier (Score:2)
The algorithm is harmful. Its only goal is to aggressively zero in on what will keep a user watching, without any regard to how well-informed it makes the viewer.
It causes people to stay within their bubble, gives them only videos that reinforce their existing conclusions, and can lead one to believe that some fringe idea has wide support and even popular consensus.
One can argue that YouTube is not the root cause, but it is absolutely an amplifier.
Biased much? (Score:4, Interesting)
Pandering to left-wing, pro socialist concepts is the daily norm I encounter on social media platforms like Facebook. Lots of hatred for anyone who attained wealth, and a belief that Capitalism is a failed system.
If it's really true that more right-leaning content exists in the form of YouTube videos, that's probably just the result of a concerted effort by the Right to put their viewpoints out there to contrast with the Left agenda that seems to be the one most big tech companies agree with.
Personally, as a libertarian, I side with a lot of what the conservative Republicans have to say -- despite condemning then on other issues. Their biggest flaw, IMO, is their fascination with encouraging the military-industrial complex and the Federal Reserve bank's control of our currency that's no longer backed by anything tangible. The Democrats on the Left, by contrast, want to champion all sorts of utter nonsense like this "transgender rights movement". (All sorts of problems since they've gone down that path -- from demands to build new "gender neutral" bathrooms in public schools to making a joke of women's competitive sports, with biological males demanding to be allowed to play and then winning all the trophies. Even some folks I know in the gay community take issue with some of it. After all? If you're a guy but then declare you identify as female and start dating other guys, doesn't that make you another gay guy except pretending you "have something all figured out" that they don't?) In any case, it's a whole lot of demands for social change, with a lot of it at taxpayer expense, for a very, very small percentage of the population who in most cases probably just need to seek professional counseling. When you're a small enough of a minority, you need to learn to work within society's existing structure and constraints, rather than demanding everyone else cater to you. If you're an oddity with 6 fingers on each hand? No, you can't expect all the glove makers to offer a 6 fingered version for you....
At this point, I think the Democrats also have their party getting split down the middle, with the Socialists invading them and pushing "Democratic Socialism" as the way they're able to infiltrate it and hijack it -- while the remaining "Progressives" or "Moderates" still understand that's not what their party should be about. But only the minority of their "Moderates" strike me as having logic and sanity behind what they advocate.
The Right certainly has its extremists, and a whole lot of "cult of personality" types who will defend everything Trump ever says or does, just because they have a fixation on the guy. But putting all the emotions aside about Trump's character or personality? I still see where what actually gets done as far as legislation and Federal policies is fairly expected, run-of-the-mill stuff that a different Republican president could do without all the fuss. Most of the time, a Trump policy is simply "undo what happened under Obama's presidency". That infuriates the folks who loved what Obama did, of course. But that shouldn't be shocking to anyone who assumes when you vote in the opposing party, they want the opposite of what the last one was doing with many things.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll never quite understand why some self identified libertarians get so so spun up about how other people view themselves.
Libertarian (at least to me and the way I practice it)) isn't a political ideal that says "I have the liberty to be a dick head, so fuck off", it's a political ideal that says "You have the right to be you and if I don't like it tough shit for me". The distinction is that if you have the right to be you then I have the right to be me, otherwise sooner or later somebody might decide I
It's universal visibility, not the algorithm (Score:2)
The algorithm suggesting more and more radical content and unsubstantiated "news" stories may contribute to the echo chamber. This is similar to Fox News or other traditional media beating its message into viewers non-stop. You're never going to convince the hard-core Fox News viewer who has the TV on every waking moment that their world view isn't the one perfect world view. Facebook and YouTube are just capitalizing on the same marketing tactics...give people more of what they want to hear and they'll kee
Useless Study (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at Appendices A (pg. 45) and B (pg. 49) of the 2018 paper which lists the channels that are considered to by part of what's called the AIN (Alternative Influence Network) you get people like Sam Harris, Tim Pool, Joe Rogan, and Dave Rubin. Describing any of those people as right-wing tells me a lot more about the person doing the describing than it does the people they hope to label.
A lot of the people on the list don't even appear to produce anything resembling news. Joe Rogan does a podcast that occasionally has political guests (he's recently had both Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, well-known right-wing politicians) but more often has other comedians or random people who have nothing to do with politics. Some that are news channels are people like Tim Pool, the guy that was known for reporting on Occupy Wall Street and says he politically donates to Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard.
There are some individuals listed (e.g., Ben Shapiro) that are right-wing news channels on YouTube, or who mainly deal with political commentary on their talk shows (e.g., Larry Elder), and even a few political figures associated with the Alt-Right (e.g., Milo Yiannopolous) but there are just as many individuals who apparently have nothing to do with politics or news given a quick glance at their YouTube channels.
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point of Harris and Rogan not being right wing. Harris jumped the shark when he threw in with right wingers on "maybe black people are naturally stupid" and Rogan is a noted dick head. So either way it's probably good that people don't listen to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, sure glad I'm not 'mainstream', then! xD (Score:3)
a new record... (Score:3)
Peak Godwin's Law in 60 seconds.
Huzzah, Slashdot, we did it!
Gee, What Could Be Happening? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people on the right don't have the luxury of living in a bubble of like-minded ideologues and we still know how to respectfully disagree with people. And in return we get people keying our cars in the name of "tolerance" as they react to some weird insane parody of our values in dorky handmaiden costumes. McCain and Romney were us nominating politicians who were known for being middle-of-the-road compromising deal-makers, and that not only went nowhere, but we saw the vitriol get even worse. I didn't support Trump in 2016, but a large part of his promise was to be a hammer to all the precious notions of political censorship/political correctness that the left has been trying to establish around all of their favorite policy positions, and until I see a left that's willing to engage in political discourse instead of slander, I'm going to vote for and support the biggest, roughest, and crudest candidate out there and go with overriding the opposition rather than finding reasonable middle-grounds.
Was this funded by youtube? (Score:3)
...because it really seems like a stretch to justify Youtube's demonetizing/derecommending anything that's not ardently liberal in theme.