YouTube constantly recommends me COVID-19 conspiracy videos since I dared to watch one that was popular here in Germany. Basically on every video I watch I have now german conspiracy videos as recommendations. I did neither like the video or did I subscribe the channel.
If you want to watch something one-off, some interesting tidbit outside of your curated feed then doing it in incognito mode is required, otherwise, as you noted you are doomed.
We shouldn’t have to jump through these kinds of hoops. Their recommendation engine is smart enough to discern between a one off video watch and a genuine interest, but youtube gets stuck on recommending conspiracyland videos. It’s at the point where I just ignore the entire section as if it were ads.
I want a tool to work without having to sift through hundreds and hundreds of videos and try to guess which one caused the drift into crazy town.
I have YouTube history turned off along with other publicly visible tracking and this kind of nonsense still happens to me. Their algo is working on more data than just what they make visible to the user.
Yup. It's just what do these recommendations do to the society? If you are suspectible to believe certain content for whatever reasons you are basically doomed as you get caged into an echo chamber that only validates the bullshit that is fed to you.
There are plugins for Firefox to hide all recommendations and the start page of YouTube. Did this a couple of months back, and it has honestly made me happier and with a lot more control over watchtime etc.
I now live in the Subscription section, and it's great!
Yeah, I've been doing this a lot lately. It's kind of disappointing how easily the recommendations shift once you click on a video that's sketchy.
In my case, I once made the bad decision to watch a Jordan Peterson video. By itself it wasn't crazy, he was mildly provocative, a little paternalistic, not my cup of tea. But geez, the trash that then ended up appearing in the side bar after that was awful. I find that if I watch some "bad" videos, I have to spend a fair amount of time culling shit out of the subsequent recommendations.
Another way to keep your feed from being polluted is simply to create "garbage user" that you toggle to if you want to view potentially garbage content.
What I really wish youtube did was to allow users to filter out videos that contain keywords we choose, like twitter's somewhat effective "muted words" list.
"It's kind of disappointing how easily the recommendations shift once you click on a video that's sketchy."
It isn't just "sketchy" videos. Someone linked me to a video of a dog being rescued, which I watched on my logged-in profile, and it was fine and all, but explaining to YouTube that that doesn't mean I'm interested in hearing about every dog ever rescued (since I didn't know about the 'delete from history' trick) has been a lot of "Never show me videos from this channel" button pushed.
So you effectively desire a way to build your own bubble, and cast it in stone, and also give even more information to Google (what you do not like) ???
My feeling is they pushing the extra crazy ones though.
Watching a clearly not well Person argue crazy theories isn't very convincing to healthy people anyway.
On the other Hand people like Dr. Erickson get censored, because they simply dare to question the lock down and argue that there is no evidence supporting it's effectiveness in saving lives.
> On the other Hand people like Dr. Erickson get censored, because they simply dare to question the lock down
Erickson, among other things, makes provably false statements about the prevalence and mortality of covid19. You’re allowed to be misinformed as a private citizen; you’re not allowed to grandstand in public as a physician and spread misinformation. He’s lucky he only got deplatformed, rather than have his license taken.
You make it sound like he was expressing an unpopular interpretation of the data, rather than actively spreading untrue assertions.
> you’re not allowed to grandstand in public as a physician and spread misinformation
For all I know Erickson is saying no one died of Covid or something that ridiculous/obviously false, but labelling statements as misinformation and censoring them instead of retracting endorsements and getting others to realize those statements are false is an aggressive seize of power by authorities over what is or isn’t true.
I realize authoritative knowledge is necessary; not everyone has the time or ability to parse through medical information and come to reasonable conclusions.
But authoritative bodies should have to earn their authority from the public, not use censorious platforms to assert it. The fundamental problem we’re running into now with misinformation is a lack of trust, not a lack of information. Forcing people to listen to sources they don’t trust and blocking sources they do trust will make the situation worse.
If people trust a crackpot more than they trust an established authoritative body, that authoritative body should take a real hard look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves why that’s the case.
It might have been correct to say there's no evidence in March (which is not a reason to not do something, we would still be in the Stone Age if every action we took required evidence.). There's plenty of evidence now as we have data for both going into and coming out of lockdown.
There's plenty of weird, contradictory evidence. Many places have come out of lockdown early, been told they're facing certain doom ("Georgia's Experiment in Human Sacrifice" [1]), and then been quietly forgotten when the predicted consequences don't come. It's hard to believe that lockdowns don't do anything at all, but I don't think anyone can honestly say we have definitive proof they were necessary.
I can. R0~5.7 has dropped below 1.0 in many mask-averse stay-at-home regions, which I consider compelling evidence of efficacy in an adverse environment, under common-sense priors informed by the medical literature.
"This number is below 1.0" is not, by itself, an argument that some particular social policy was necessary or effective. An argument that lockdowns were necessary would at a minimum need to address the questions of "would a less strict policy have sufficed" and "will the long-term outcome after lockdowns end be different".
Georgia has 164 deaths per million residents, versus 82 in South Carolina next door and 87 in California. Are you sure you still want to call that a bad prediction?
There is a difference between genuine alternative views and just cultish conspiracy content created for clicks that defies any law of physics - is it reasonable to recommend a video from someone who argues the lockdown is not warranted? Why not. Is it reasonable to recommend someone who denies the existence of the virus and want's to sell you his quack treatments? I don't think so.
No, they are saying that having a discussion about how to deal with the pandemic is a little more above board than someone arguing that it's a 5G conspiracy.
It was a little above board to argue that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe at one time, and it was fervently argued, dissenters were dealt with harshly.
Not saying there is a logical equivalency here, but this type of thinking is exactly why free speech is important, not why it’s dangerous.
Yes 5G masts are the cause of covid and need to be all burned down. Vaccines causr autism. Bringing your kids to the doctor is harmful, give them bleach anemas.
No harm in spreading lies and absurd conspiracies, right?
Two of the 3 things has been portrayed by the President of the US on Twitter. They are not censoring him.
Additionally, no harm? Movies encourage terrible behavior as well, but we are not trying to ban them on Netflix. If there is a movie where they glamorize alcohol or unprotected sex, there is no effort to have them removed from streaming platforms.
At one point, saying the world was round would have been an absurd conspiracy. Just because something appears and most likely is inaccurate, doesn't mean that we should have a central fact checking authority. That is some 1984 stuff right there. People can make choices for themselves and do their own research. There is no law preventing people like Sandra Bullock from telling people that baby foreskin is good for their skin, even though most people would know that is disgusting.
i keep an ear/eye on things, and there really aren't many saying that 5g causes covid. it's straw manning really. little bit like the autism thing. there are issues with vaccines that are worth looking at, but people like to lump things into groups, and yeah, even lump it into 'wrongthink' and surf the cognitive dissonance with sarcasm.
It's beyond fucked up what Google is doing.