I would not be surprised if YouTube had modified its algorithm to favor MSM over fringe channels after the blowback from the NYT article. This analysis is an interesting follow-up and would have been especially cool if they could compare the results with the same analysis done back in 2018. However, I'm not a fan of how this post tries to conflate the two algorithms as the same and use the results of a study done on the algorithm a year later to bash the original piece.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 6:17 PM Yosem Companys <[email protected]> wrote: > From the post: > > "We show how YouTube’s late 2019 algorithm is not a radicalization > pipeline, but in fact... > > - Removes almost all recommendations for conspiracy theorists, > provocateurs and white Identitarians > - Benefits mainstream partisan channels such as Fox News and Last Week > Tonight > - Disadvantages almost everyone else > > "It also shows how the algorithm encourages filter bubbles, especially for > partisans. > > "Contrary to the narrative promoted by the New York Times, the data > suggests that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm actively discourages > viewers from visiting content that one could categorize as radicalizing or > otherwise questionable." > > > https://medium.com/@markoledwich/youtube-radicalization-an-authoritative-saucy-story-28f73953ed17 > > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major > commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you > moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, > change to digest mode, or change password by emailing > [email protected].
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/lt. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing [email protected].
