I'm genuinely curious what you think the criteria for recommendations should be. I can't answer if you have no opinion.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
let's say, for the sake of argument, the status quo. What about this do you wish to change and how
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @adamjohnsonNYC
There is no sake of the argument: there is an unavoidable editorial choice, enacted through the algorithm. What's yours?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @adamjohnsonNYC
Your position: watch a Muslim dissident video, YouTube should actively recommend ISIS; watch Trump: white supremacists? Yes?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
it's not recommendeding those videos because it's evil, it's doing so because others who watched also watched those+other criteria
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @adamjohnsonNYC @zeynep
you use these extreme examples that are effectively using the word in the definition. I'm asking for criteria not examples.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adamjohnsonNYC @zeynep
if ur advocationg YouTube recommend videos that counter *every* video that's fine, but theres some heretofore criteria of which ones
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @adamjohnsonNYC
I am, in fact, recommending considering the criteria by which the whole "engagement via rabbit holing" model works.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @zeynep
right. And as a subset of that recommendation you're advocating editorial calls on *specific* videos. I'm asking which and why.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
I'd like the whole model to change; in the full interview I gave examples across the political spectrum.
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.