A new paper has been making the rounds with the intriguing claim that YouTube has a *de-radicalizing* influence. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11211 Having read the paper, I wanted to call it wrong, but that would give the paper too much credit, because it is not even wrong. Let me explain.
-
-
Consider the paper’s definition of radicalization: "YouTube’s algorithm [exposes users] to more extreme content than they would otherwise." Savvy readers are probably screaming: There is no "otherwise"! There is no YouTube without the algorithm! There is no neutral!
Show this thread -
That’s the note on which I’d like to end: a plea to consider that the available quantitative methods can’t answer everything. And I want to thank the journalists who’ve been doing the next best thing — telling the stories of people led down a rabbit hole by YouTube’s algorithm.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
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
-
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.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is the problem with political scientists dealing with “charisma” and politicians. There is no easy way to quantify it, so a bunch of them just pretend it can’t be that important.
-
This is also the problem with economists ignoring qualitative issues because they're difficult to measure quantitatively and then decrying that those aren't important anyway—producing horrifyingly oversimplified models that get used anyway.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
A
#quantitative tool is still a tool; whose results are: .#interpreted . used . often misused . & frequently abused 2 get the answer 1 wants Those who worship at the altar of#Analytics, to the exclusion of Good 'Ole Thought &#PeerReview, are condemned to Bad Results#MATHpic.twitter.com/G9VrabMLT9
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Social media is an open system, so controlled experiments are not possible. This sounds like a theme of Danny Hillis' "Entanglement" article (where he views "the Enlightenment" as formal methods)https://medium.com/the-long-now-foundation/the-enlightenment-is-dead-long-live-the-entanglement-bcaed951b528 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Very interesting thread. An anthropologist may be a good partner in this research, I assume the users can be thought of as members of a community, especially if the anthropologist is familiar with digital environments. Just a thought.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.