Radicalization via YouTube, as widely understood, is when someone watches a few partisan videos and unwittingly starts a feedback loop in which the algorithm gradually recommends more and more extreme content and the viewer starts to believe more and more of it.
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
The key is that the user’s beliefs, preferences, and behavior shift over time, and the algorithm both learns and encourages this, nudging the user gradually. But this study didn’t analyze real users. So the crucial question becomes: what model of user behavior did they use?
90 proslijeđenih tweetova 836 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
The answer: they didn’t! They reached their sweeping conclusions by analyzing YouTube *without logging in*, based on sidebar recommendations for a sample of channels (not even the user’s home page because, again, there’s no user). Whatever they measured, it’s not radicalization.
17 replies 157 proslijeđenih tweetova 1.367 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
Arvind Narayanan je proslijedio/a tweet korisnika/ceMark Ledwich
Sidenote: the first author has been on a diatribe about the media, even in the thread introducing the paper. It doesn’t undermine the paper by itself, but given that they disingenuously exclude how radicalization might actually work, it… raises questions.https://twitter.com/mark_ledwich/status/1210743217982803970 …
Arvind Narayanan je dodan/na,
Mark Ledwich @mark_ledwich4. My new article explains in detail. It takes aim at the NYT (in particular,@kevinroose) who have been on myth-filled crusade vs social media. We should start questioning the authoritative status of outlets that have soiled themselves with agendas. https://medium.com/@markoledwich/youtube-radicalization-an-authoritative-saucy-story-28f73953ed17 …Prikaži ovu nit7 replies 82 proslijeđena tweeta 901 korisnik označava da mu se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
Others have pointed out many more limitations of the paper, including the fact that it claims to refute years of allegations of radicalization using late-2019 measurements. Sure, but that’s a bit like pointing out typos in the article that announced "Dewey Defeats Truman".
1 reply 55 proslijeđenih tweetova 790 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
Incidentally, I spent about a year studying YouTube radicalization with several students. We dismissed simplistic research designs (like the one in the paper) by about week 2, and realized that the phenomenon results from users/the algorithm/video creators adapting to each other.
7 replies 150 proslijeđenih tweetova 1.215 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
Let’s not forget: the peddlers of extreme content adversarially navigate YouTube’s algorithm, optimizing the clickbaitiness of their video thumbnails and titles, while reputable sources attempt to maintain some semblance of impartiality. (None of this is modeled in the paper.)
8 replies 114 proslijeđenih tweetova 938 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
After tussling with these complexities, my students and I ended up with nothing publishable because we realized that there’s no good way for external researchers to quantitatively study radicalization. I think YouTube can study it internally, but only in a very limited way.
16 replies 124 proslijeđena tweeta 1.012 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
If you’re wondering how such a widely discussed problem has attracted so little scientific study before this paper, that’s exactly why. Many have tried, but chose to say nothing rather than publish meaningless results, leaving the field open for authors with lower standards.
14 replies 154 proslijeđena tweeta 1.266 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit -
In our data-driven world, the claim that we don’t have a good way to study something quantitatively may sound shocking. The reality even worse — in many cases we don’t even have the vocabulary to ask meaningful quantitative *questions* about complex socio-technical systems.
20 replies 484 proslijeđena tweeta 1.925 korisnika označava da im se sviđaPrikaži ovu nit
I'd argue we don't have a way to quantitatively study MOST things in the universe People overlook how unbelievably hard it is to instrument a system to produce data Also, humans don't like to be instrumented & IRB's discourage it. There are hard limits to studying humans
-
-
Odgovor korisnicima @AndrewKemendo @random_walker
Right-there have been soooooo many times that I’ve abandoned a research question after realizing I couldn’t ethically or adequately address it using any sound methods I knew. And it’s always hard to say no to a question but you have to do work you can live with.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 6 korisnika označava da im se sviđa - Još 3 druga odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.