YouTube Regrets(foundation.mozilla.org)
foundation.mozilla.org
YouTube Regrets
https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/campaigns/youtube-regrets/
213 comments
I understand how you're struggling with this, but can I make an observation?
You seem to have a personal experience that you are vulnerable to YouTube.
However, you seem to be concluding that you are NOT vulnerable to YouTube. Not based on data, but because that is an unacceptable conclusion. Like a lot of people, you believe accountability is important for society to function. And it seems like you force blame on yourself, in order to rescue the notion of accountability.
I think you see the problem, right? But what if this whole way of thinking isn't right? There are some people alive today who still believe that getting a disease is a sign of not praying enough. Like, living in the USA right now. We know they are wrong. What if being vulnerable to cognitive exploitation is similar? What if it's foolish to put this in the realm of "the victim needs moral strength" and it should be more in the realm of "the perpetrator needs to stop harming / the risk factors need to be reduced by collective actions".
You seem to have a personal experience that you are vulnerable to YouTube.
However, you seem to be concluding that you are NOT vulnerable to YouTube. Not based on data, but because that is an unacceptable conclusion. Like a lot of people, you believe accountability is important for society to function. And it seems like you force blame on yourself, in order to rescue the notion of accountability.
I think you see the problem, right? But what if this whole way of thinking isn't right? There are some people alive today who still believe that getting a disease is a sign of not praying enough. Like, living in the USA right now. We know they are wrong. What if being vulnerable to cognitive exploitation is similar? What if it's foolish to put this in the realm of "the victim needs moral strength" and it should be more in the realm of "the perpetrator needs to stop harming / the risk factors need to be reduced by collective actions".
I may have oversimplified and have come across as saying "personal responsibility and self-control needs to be absolute and be treated as such".
I was by no means trying to exonerate YouTube or any service that aims to manipulate its users. I was only trying to convey that a large campaign against exploitation should not be the other extreme where victims are automatically absolved while the perpetrator is entirely demonized. Surely there must be a middle-ground?
I was by no means trying to exonerate YouTube or any service that aims to manipulate its users. I was only trying to convey that a large campaign against exploitation should not be the other extreme where victims are automatically absolved while the perpetrator is entirely demonized. Surely there must be a middle-ground?
I don't see an inherent reason why the middle ground is correct when assessing blame. Or indeed why blame is a kind of conserved quantity and if we give more to one we must give less to another.
Look, when I got up in the morning I had no intention of looking at videos from the 2001: A Space Odyssey soundtrack, but I followed an urge and lost 15 minutes as it led me to viral videos about deleted scenes from Star Wars and then surprisingly well-made fan videos, and... you get the gist.
On the other hand, many people at YouTube did wake up this morning with the intention of maximizing my viewing time. They are armed with supercomputers and artificial intelligences piloted by Ph.Ds. If in some future world, "conspiracy to steal time" was a crime, this would be an easy prosecution.
That said, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't take any steps to defend myself. I should use something to block certain sites. But just because I have that responsibility doesn't diminish someone else's culpability for inflicting harms.
Look, when I got up in the morning I had no intention of looking at videos from the 2001: A Space Odyssey soundtrack, but I followed an urge and lost 15 minutes as it led me to viral videos about deleted scenes from Star Wars and then surprisingly well-made fan videos, and... you get the gist.
On the other hand, many people at YouTube did wake up this morning with the intention of maximizing my viewing time. They are armed with supercomputers and artificial intelligences piloted by Ph.Ds. If in some future world, "conspiracy to steal time" was a crime, this would be an easy prosecution.
That said, that doesn't mean that I shouldn't take any steps to defend myself. I should use something to block certain sites. But just because I have that responsibility doesn't diminish someone else's culpability for inflicting harms.
> I don't see an inherent reason why the middle ground is correct when assessing blame.
Either one or the other party receives all the blame, or you are in the middle ground of spreading the blame around. One group is entirely responsible IFF the other entirely _not_ responsible. Anecdotally, it does not seem like either party bears zero responsibility, so neither party bears all responsibility, which seems to me to be a nearly-inherent reason why the middle ground is correct.
> I should use something to block certain sites. But just because I have that responsibility doesn't diminish someone else's culpability for inflicting harms.
Very well put!
Either one or the other party receives all the blame, or you are in the middle ground of spreading the blame around. One group is entirely responsible IFF the other entirely _not_ responsible. Anecdotally, it does not seem like either party bears zero responsibility, so neither party bears all responsibility, which seems to me to be a nearly-inherent reason why the middle ground is correct.
> I should use something to block certain sites. But just because I have that responsibility doesn't diminish someone else's culpability for inflicting harms.
Very well put!
> There are some people alive today who still believe that getting a disease is a sign of not praying enough. Like, living in the USA right now. We know they are wrong.
That is a dramatic generalization,and who is "we"? Your initial argument seems sound to me but the analogies and the method you arrived at the conclusion sounds like you are not aware of your own confirmation bias.
If you mean that introspection is a bad way to recognize when you're being manipulated I agree. That concept is not exclusive against taking responsibility. One can say "I am responsible for my actions but youtube is also responsible for manipulating my thought process,on purpose and with bad faith"
P.S.: None of the major world religions teach "not praying makes you sick", perhaps you meant "prayer cures illness"? Plenty of medical doctors and surgeons believe prayer helps (even if they think it is strictly the hoping and positivity aspect that allows the mind to work with the body to fight illness),which is why I asked "who is 'we'"?
That is a dramatic generalization,and who is "we"? Your initial argument seems sound to me but the analogies and the method you arrived at the conclusion sounds like you are not aware of your own confirmation bias.
If you mean that introspection is a bad way to recognize when you're being manipulated I agree. That concept is not exclusive against taking responsibility. One can say "I am responsible for my actions but youtube is also responsible for manipulating my thought process,on purpose and with bad faith"
P.S.: None of the major world religions teach "not praying makes you sick", perhaps you meant "prayer cures illness"? Plenty of medical doctors and surgeons believe prayer helps (even if they think it is strictly the hoping and positivity aspect that allows the mind to work with the body to fight illness),which is why I asked "who is 'we'"?
YouTube does have problems, but I'm not sure what Mozilla tries to accomplish by hosting this once-sided set of gripes. The first one I saw was from a father concerned that his daughter would watch dance videos and would want to become more physically fit. A healthy response would be to say "Great! Now let's find a gym or studio where you can do this safely, effectively, and work toward your goals."
For my young children, I hand select videos for them. Videos I've watched or know about. Just like parents have done for kids for the past 30 years or more.
For my young children, I hand select videos for them. Videos I've watched or know about. Just like parents have done for kids for the past 30 years or more.
If you're referring to the gripe I've copied and pasted below, I read it differently - it sounded to me as though the father is concerned about anorexia.
---
My 10-year-old sweet daughter innocently searched for “tap dance videos” and now is in this spiral of horrible extreme “dance” and contortionist videos that give her horrible unsafe body-harming and body-image-damaging advice. I’ve tried to go in and manually delete all recommended videos, put in parental controls, everything (including blocking the app) — but she’s finding ways to log on using browsers and school computers. These terrible videos just keep being recommended to her. She is now restricting her eating and drinking. I heard her downstairs saying “work to eat! work to drink!” I don’t know how I can undo the damage that’s been done to her impressionable mind.
---
My 10-year-old sweet daughter innocently searched for “tap dance videos” and now is in this spiral of horrible extreme “dance” and contortionist videos that give her horrible unsafe body-harming and body-image-damaging advice. I’ve tried to go in and manually delete all recommended videos, put in parental controls, everything (including blocking the app) — but she’s finding ways to log on using browsers and school computers. These terrible videos just keep being recommended to her. She is now restricting her eating and drinking. I heard her downstairs saying “work to eat! work to drink!” I don’t know how I can undo the damage that’s been done to her impressionable mind.
It really isn't that difficult to spend an afternoon or a weekend curating playlists of content for your kids, the difficulty comes from the recommended feed, which can show things wholly unrelated to the video. It's trivial to set up a script to remove the feed on PC, but on mobile it's another story and I'm not sure many parents want to go through that mess.
Sounds like there is a selling opportunity there.
Sounds like there is a selling opportunity there.
We were raised by TV. Come home after school and watch re-runs of 90's American sitcoms, Discovery Channel, History Channel, some Cartoon Network. Watch TV, do your homework, snack around, then your parents come home 3 or 4 hours later and your freedom stops.[1]
Today kids are raised by YouTube.
The crucial difference is that when I was a kid there was common consensus that hey maybe we shouldn't play the goriest and sexiest things on TV between 2pm and 7pm when kids are watching.
YouTube doesn't have that. Yet. I'm sure eventually it will have to.
[1] I learned more than I care to admit about human interaction, personal relationships, and how the world works from American TV shows. But I also learned so much English that people often confuse me for a native speaker.
Today kids are raised by YouTube.
The crucial difference is that when I was a kid there was common consensus that hey maybe we shouldn't play the goriest and sexiest things on TV between 2pm and 7pm when kids are watching.
YouTube doesn't have that. Yet. I'm sure eventually it will have to.
[1] I learned more than I care to admit about human interaction, personal relationships, and how the world works from American TV shows. But I also learned so much English that people often confuse me for a native speaker.
The problem is that YouTube tries to have that and fails.
For once kids I had been spoken with (~12y) where aware that there are thinks they don't want to see.
But then we have that problem that it's no longer obvious what is "bad" and what isn't. For once youtube removes/age locks videos which are obvious not teen safe (gore, porn). But this mainly gives a illusion of safety.
The problems are normally not the obvious "bad" videos but such which seem to be fine. Except that they aren't because they either change their stile/content midway or are bad in a more subtile way.
EDIT: Just to be clear old TV also had manipulative content, but this was normally only about advertisements and politics due to curation. YT has manipulative content of cults of all kind, often with noticeable risks to mental and/or physical health. And the politically motivated manipulative content seems to have become much more wild/dangerous as it's practically way less restricted.
For once kids I had been spoken with (~12y) where aware that there are thinks they don't want to see.
But then we have that problem that it's no longer obvious what is "bad" and what isn't. For once youtube removes/age locks videos which are obvious not teen safe (gore, porn). But this mainly gives a illusion of safety.
The problems are normally not the obvious "bad" videos but such which seem to be fine. Except that they aren't because they either change their stile/content midway or are bad in a more subtile way.
EDIT: Just to be clear old TV also had manipulative content, but this was normally only about advertisements and politics due to curation. YT has manipulative content of cults of all kind, often with noticeable risks to mental and/or physical health. And the politically motivated manipulative content seems to have become much more wild/dangerous as it's practically way less restricted.
> Just like parents have done for kids for the past 30 years or more.
Parents traditionally haven't though. They relied on rating systems for television content and movies to efficiently screen out content that might be unsuitable for children. These voluntary rating systems were formed in different countries, at different times, for different media (e.g. video games, movies, television, and comics each have their own). It's important to note that these generally accepted rating systems were created as a voluntary measure to avoid widespread regulation of content.
Parents for the last 30 years didn't hand select movies to watch, they read the synopsis, looked for the rating, or asked a friend or employee at the video store for the rating of the content. They used a recommendation system, but that system was a fair bit more interactive. It's anecdotal, but in my high school and university days I worked in video stores, over about an 8 year period - translates into literally hundreds of user education sessions talking about how rating systems work what they cover and don't cover, and regional differences since Canada uses different ratings than the US and often had both a Canadian rating and a US rating.
Your "healthy response" statement also clearly comes from a position of reasonable economic privilege - I can also indulge my childrens interests, and do regularly through sports and other activities, but for the majority of middle class families, that kind of indulgence is out of reach due to the cost.
It's just not economically viable for most families to enroll their kids in something to help them "learn about it safely", any more than most families have time to create curated lists of content (which requires a degree of technical proficiency that is also somewhat challenging for many people).
Parents traditionally haven't though. They relied on rating systems for television content and movies to efficiently screen out content that might be unsuitable for children. These voluntary rating systems were formed in different countries, at different times, for different media (e.g. video games, movies, television, and comics each have their own). It's important to note that these generally accepted rating systems were created as a voluntary measure to avoid widespread regulation of content.
Parents for the last 30 years didn't hand select movies to watch, they read the synopsis, looked for the rating, or asked a friend or employee at the video store for the rating of the content. They used a recommendation system, but that system was a fair bit more interactive. It's anecdotal, but in my high school and university days I worked in video stores, over about an 8 year period - translates into literally hundreds of user education sessions talking about how rating systems work what they cover and don't cover, and regional differences since Canada uses different ratings than the US and often had both a Canadian rating and a US rating.
Your "healthy response" statement also clearly comes from a position of reasonable economic privilege - I can also indulge my childrens interests, and do regularly through sports and other activities, but for the majority of middle class families, that kind of indulgence is out of reach due to the cost.
It's just not economically viable for most families to enroll their kids in something to help them "learn about it safely", any more than most families have time to create curated lists of content (which requires a degree of technical proficiency that is also somewhat challenging for many people).
[deleted]
There's a lot of context you had to make up to arrive at that interpretation for the first hand account you read.
> Shouldn't I be accountable for my own actions and lack of impulse control instead of expecting a corporation with an ad-revenue business-model to do it for me?
Not every brain works the same way. In fact, every brain is certain to work differently. Plenty of people may not have the same impulse control you have, and it's not their fault.
We believe we have agency, but this depends on the underlying inputs to our knowledge base. When the inputs are manipulated and result in new assumptions, the decisions we make are invariably influenced and often in ways we don't expect. This is also the root of concepts like unconscious bias.
Tldr: probably not, because you cant control your inputs anymore.
Not every brain works the same way. In fact, every brain is certain to work differently. Plenty of people may not have the same impulse control you have, and it's not their fault.
We believe we have agency, but this depends on the underlying inputs to our knowledge base. When the inputs are manipulated and result in new assumptions, the decisions we make are invariably influenced and often in ways we don't expect. This is also the root of concepts like unconscious bias.
Tldr: probably not, because you cant control your inputs anymore.
> Plenty of people may not have the same impulse control you have, and it's not their fault.
Um, sorry, what?
If you choose to do a thing, whatever it is, that thing very much is your responsibility, and (if it ends badly) your fault[1].
I've done some bloody stupid things over the years that haven't ended well and, guess what? That's all my fault.
Taking things from the prosaic to the hyperbolic, here are some notable examples of the kinds of people who typically have poor impulse control but who very definitely should be held to account for their actions:
- Paedophiles
- Rapists
- Shoplifters
- Serial murderers
[1] I will grant you this doesn't apply to children, which is why we have concepts such as the age of legal majority, but it certainly applies to adults of sound mind (i.e., the overwhelming majority of adults).
Um, sorry, what?
If you choose to do a thing, whatever it is, that thing very much is your responsibility, and (if it ends badly) your fault[1].
I've done some bloody stupid things over the years that haven't ended well and, guess what? That's all my fault.
Taking things from the prosaic to the hyperbolic, here are some notable examples of the kinds of people who typically have poor impulse control but who very definitely should be held to account for their actions:
- Paedophiles
- Rapists
- Shoplifters
- Serial murderers
[1] I will grant you this doesn't apply to children, which is why we have concepts such as the age of legal majority, but it certainly applies to adults of sound mind (i.e., the overwhelming majority of adults).
To be clear, I'm not saying people should be excused of crimes, just that we can't always assume everyone has the same level of capability and self sufficiency. Now with that out of the way:
Addiction is a disease, not a crime. It's therefore a great example of something which fails your test.
I won't address the strawmen you laid out because information addiction is the challenge we're facing in this thread, and addiction of any sort is recognized as a disease and disorder.
---
> Um, sorry, what?
Please null the tone. I'd like to engage you on level and respectful terms.
Addiction is a disease, not a crime. It's therefore a great example of something which fails your test.
I won't address the strawmen you laid out because information addiction is the challenge we're facing in this thread, and addiction of any sort is recognized as a disease and disorder.
---
> Um, sorry, what?
Please null the tone. I'd like to engage you on level and respectful terms.
> Plenty of people may not have the same impulse control you have, and it's not their fault.
If someone with bad impulse control kills another person, is it not their fault?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that this is the moral principle being debated here.
I certainly don't know the answer, but we should think about this one a little bit before saying that no one is ever at "fault" for anything.
Impulse control is just another facet of human personality, just like being aggressive, or being a bigot.
If someone with bad impulse control kills another person, is it not their fault?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that this is the moral principle being debated here.
I certainly don't know the answer, but we should think about this one a little bit before saying that no one is ever at "fault" for anything.
Impulse control is just another facet of human personality, just like being aggressive, or being a bigot.
This boils down to [the incoherence of] free will. Same consequences too (mostly none) -- you still want to control antisocial behavior, regardless if you think people are wet robots running their unique blend of experience and wetware or if they are sock puppets possessed by magical souls unencumbered by earthly effects. Or anything in between and to the side.
You still want to throw malfunctioning unit into a cell, or repair it some way. (Some soul-having scenarios are downright dystopian -- can't fix a defective soul unaffected by natural events, might have to dump it into a volcano).
You still want to throw malfunctioning unit into a cell, or repair it some way. (Some soul-having scenarios are downright dystopian -- can't fix a defective soul unaffected by natural events, might have to dump it into a volcano).
> Not every brain works the same way. In fact, every brain is certain to work differently. Plenty of people may not have the same impulse control you have, and it's not their fault.
Impulse control is a skill, not everyone is the same or has equal level of abilities in anything, but we are ultimately choosing our reaction to an input and we have power to extend our influence on ourselves and world around us.
Impulse control is a skill, not everyone is the same or has equal level of abilities in anything, but we are ultimately choosing our reaction to an input and we have power to extend our influence on ourselves and world around us.
It's also a heritable trait, at least based on the slew of research I found when googling impulse control genes.
That doesn't mean it can't be improved, but it does mean we should be respectful of people who may have a much harder time with it. Not everyone can meet a societal baseline that's challenging enough for people deemed to be normative; a person with one arm is plenty likely to be good at basketball, but imposing qualification rules based on their capability to do free throws might be a bit out of bounds... so to speak.
That's what algorithm (self-)regulations (and gripes along what Mozilla published here) would aim to address.
That doesn't mean it can't be improved, but it does mean we should be respectful of people who may have a much harder time with it. Not everyone can meet a societal baseline that's challenging enough for people deemed to be normative; a person with one arm is plenty likely to be good at basketball, but imposing qualification rules based on their capability to do free throws might be a bit out of bounds... so to speak.
That's what algorithm (self-)regulations (and gripes along what Mozilla published here) would aim to address.
I may have generalized without meaning to. I agree that there are segments of the population my point wouldn't apply to (children being one).
However, I personally find it scary when an organization with as much cachet as Mozilla encourages people to absolve themselves of responsibility.
However, I personally find it scary when an organization with as much cachet as Mozilla encourages people to absolve themselves of responsibility.
This came up in a TED talk about the ethics of online advertising a while back, but I can't recall who the speaker was. They talked about the transformation of advertising in the age of big data, and how marketing efforts have shifted from benign, widely-encompassing efforts in print and tv to highly-targeted, tailored initiatives to drive sales. The implication being that by using consumer data, we could be building systems that are capable of targeting those who struggle with impulsive behavior or are easily co-opted (think old people and scam callers) and not even know it.
It really comes down to how you view things like addiction and impulsive behavior, and how those things impact free will. The fact that we don't really know with any kind of certainty that people who struggle with these things are protected when using the internet raises a lot of questions. Should people with these struggles just not use the internet?
It really comes down to how you view things like addiction and impulsive behavior, and how those things impact free will. The fact that we don't really know with any kind of certainty that people who struggle with these things are protected when using the internet raises a lot of questions. Should people with these struggles just not use the internet?
> Shouldn't I be accountable for my own actions
Ehhhhh. You make decisions and take actions inside contexts that other people create.
So, if you want to be absolute about it, you have to only consider the choices you as they differ from your alternatives. If you did not have (or, within epsilon, did not experience having) any other choices, are you accountable at all?
And, since all of this is super fuzzy anyway (YouTube presents you with a weighted choice, at which "exit" is near the bottom), you have do something like take the cross-product of each option with the modifications made to your capacity to choose that option and _then_ the difference between each of those and _then_ you can begin to say what someone is accountable for given their choices, but then that's not accounting for past traumas, and then you start getting into free will and "can you even make a choice anyway".
> instead of expecting a corporation with an ad-revenue business-model to do it for me?
....yes. Definitely. Because that corporation sure as shit won't, and it's not so much a question as that we each are responsible for ourselves as an observation, because mostly, other people aren't gonna do it.
You might be responsible for the outcome of your decisions, but it's not exactly reasonable for the rest of us to hold you completely accountable, because you're not wholly responsible for the options you decided between.
Ehhhhh. You make decisions and take actions inside contexts that other people create.
So, if you want to be absolute about it, you have to only consider the choices you as they differ from your alternatives. If you did not have (or, within epsilon, did not experience having) any other choices, are you accountable at all?
And, since all of this is super fuzzy anyway (YouTube presents you with a weighted choice, at which "exit" is near the bottom), you have do something like take the cross-product of each option with the modifications made to your capacity to choose that option and _then_ the difference between each of those and _then_ you can begin to say what someone is accountable for given their choices, but then that's not accounting for past traumas, and then you start getting into free will and "can you even make a choice anyway".
> instead of expecting a corporation with an ad-revenue business-model to do it for me?
....yes. Definitely. Because that corporation sure as shit won't, and it's not so much a question as that we each are responsible for ourselves as an observation, because mostly, other people aren't gonna do it.
You might be responsible for the outcome of your decisions, but it's not exactly reasonable for the rest of us to hold you completely accountable, because you're not wholly responsible for the options you decided between.
It's really embarrassing that Mozilla is pitching this as if people have no agency. The idea that we need to stand together and tell youtube that we are incapable of any kind of self controls is a bad joke.
Everyone thinks they are the exception to Pavlovian incentives, brainwashing, dark patterns and social engineering. That can't possibly be the case. Everyone thinks $XX.99 doesn't work on them, but it still does. You wouldn't design security for a system on the premise that your users are too smart to mess up, so why make the distinction for yourself personally.
The intellect is stronger than the will. Remember the story of Odysseus handcuffing himself to a pole to avoid the lure of the Sirens.
The intellect is stronger than the will. Remember the story of Odysseus handcuffing himself to a pole to avoid the lure of the Sirens.
I think mostly it's scary because it's free and incredibly accessible: Anyone can get addicted, and you don't need money, a drug dealer, or any of those things to fall down a rabbit hole.
Yes, you should be held accountable if you watch 2 hours of youtube a day, but I think that there's a difference between a legal obligation and the right thing to do. Yeah, google doesn't HAVE to do anything. But they really should. It's the right thing to do.
Yes, you should be held accountable if you watch 2 hours of youtube a day, but I think that there's a difference between a legal obligation and the right thing to do. Yeah, google doesn't HAVE to do anything. But they really should. It's the right thing to do.
The personal accountability argument is perfectly reasonable for most people, yet there are also vulnerable populations to consider. While we can usually assume that children are under the care of a responsible adult, there are cases where they are not. For other populations, that assumption cannot be made. Those with intellectual disabilities, psychological problems, and substance abuse problems are frequently left to their own devices as long as they are to some extent functional in society.
That is before considering marginalized people. While they may be able to walk away from videos that marginalizes them, they are not always free to walk away from people who marginalize them. (These are people who may, or may not, be reinforcing their prejudices from those videos.) They may be enticed to view a video that appears to align with people like them, only to discover that it is attacking people like them. Then there are the sheer numbers. A message repeated often enough, even if it is only through thumbnails and titles, will have an impact upon a person's well being.
It is also important to realize that this environment is the product of decisions made decades ago, when we decided that anyone can post anything with few consequences. Whether you view that as good or bad depends upon several factors, such as where you fall on the spectrum of free speech. Yet there was one clear consequence: anyone did post anything and making content discoverable became a problem. Given the bulk of data, it became effectively impossible for humans to categorize or recommend content, so algorithms entered the picture. Since the algorithms cannot do it properly, we should not be surprised by people blaming the algorithms or the creators of those algorithms.
Is there a way to fix the problem? Short of scrapping YouTube, I doubt that there is a human solution. There is too much content and you cannot rely upon creators to do so accurately (too many motives, lack of understanding, or laziness to deal with). So the only real solution is to tackle the algorithms or face the consequences of the existing ones.
EDIT: clarification on "creators".
That is before considering marginalized people. While they may be able to walk away from videos that marginalizes them, they are not always free to walk away from people who marginalize them. (These are people who may, or may not, be reinforcing their prejudices from those videos.) They may be enticed to view a video that appears to align with people like them, only to discover that it is attacking people like them. Then there are the sheer numbers. A message repeated often enough, even if it is only through thumbnails and titles, will have an impact upon a person's well being.
It is also important to realize that this environment is the product of decisions made decades ago, when we decided that anyone can post anything with few consequences. Whether you view that as good or bad depends upon several factors, such as where you fall on the spectrum of free speech. Yet there was one clear consequence: anyone did post anything and making content discoverable became a problem. Given the bulk of data, it became effectively impossible for humans to categorize or recommend content, so algorithms entered the picture. Since the algorithms cannot do it properly, we should not be surprised by people blaming the algorithms or the creators of those algorithms.
Is there a way to fix the problem? Short of scrapping YouTube, I doubt that there is a human solution. There is too much content and you cannot rely upon creators to do so accurately (too many motives, lack of understanding, or laziness to deal with). So the only real solution is to tackle the algorithms or face the consequences of the existing ones.
EDIT: clarification on "creators".
This and some comments below is the extreme to one or the other end. The situation is as almost always grey (not white or black). If you are procrastinating on youtube or buy junk there is something you can do (you have some degree of control) also there is something Youtube can do (they also have some degree of control), why do we involve so much extremism into discussions around (ads, privacy, etc..)
P.S. I spend <2h/day on youtube mostly on the shows or tutorials I wanted in advance. I spend <20min/day on fb (90% messenger, 10% groups that I "have to" follow). Very close to 0 social media activity for more than 2 years now. So it's definitely possible.
P.S. I spend <2h/day on youtube mostly on the shows or tutorials I wanted in advance. I spend <20min/day on fb (90% messenger, 10% groups that I "have to" follow). Very close to 0 social media activity for more than 2 years now. So it's definitely possible.
Isn't it more complicated than that? We have great self control where we are choosing to exercise our will power, but will power is a limited-renewable resource. I mean, I can ride a bicycle down a hill and focus on it and do a great job, but if that hill has a ton of animated billboards that's got to affect me on some level, differently than if the street were bare, right?
I think we as a society are going to have to get a lot more savvy about how easy it is to influence other people when they're not paying close attention.
I think we as a society are going to have to get a lot more savvy about how easy it is to influence other people when they're not paying close attention.
>>getting sucked into the "look how awesome mirrorless camera
It is definitely a double edge sword but being obsessed about something and pursing it to no end could lead to extraordinary results. Lots if not most of great accomplishments have been done by people that would just not let something go.
It is definitely a double edge sword but being obsessed about something and pursing it to no end could lead to extraordinary results. Lots if not most of great accomplishments have been done by people that would just not let something go.
I certainly agree that a 'healthy obsession' with a topic can yield amazing results! I sincerely doubt I'll now become a renowned photographer but even if I don't I hope to be able to own my decision to try (and potentially fail).
> we're now happy to blame some algorithm for our shortcomings and take no personal responsibility for our actions
Seems like a bit of a strawman?
> Shouldn't I be accountable for my own actions
Certainly, and those using algorithms to direct human behavior have accountability as well, wouldn't you say? Are they not accountable for their behavior?
Wouldn't it be rather opposed to the way we think about most products and services if those implementing algorithms were held exempt from all consequences or responsibilities of putting their product into the world?
Surely you acknowledge that algorithms wield incredible power? Or else we wouldn't be having this discussion nor would the world's most powerful corporations be investing vast resources into using algorithms to further their goals?
Seems like a bit of a strawman?
> Shouldn't I be accountable for my own actions
Certainly, and those using algorithms to direct human behavior have accountability as well, wouldn't you say? Are they not accountable for their behavior?
Wouldn't it be rather opposed to the way we think about most products and services if those implementing algorithms were held exempt from all consequences or responsibilities of putting their product into the world?
Surely you acknowledge that algorithms wield incredible power? Or else we wouldn't be having this discussion nor would the world's most powerful corporations be investing vast resources into using algorithms to further their goals?
There's a few problems with this viewpoint:
1. Do we want to figure out who to blame, or do we want to fix the problem? You're blaming the people who watch the videos, but that doesn't lead to any solution to what is a pervasive problem in our society.
2. If we must play the blame game, then at least let's be nuanced about it. Sure, it's my personal responsibility if I make the poor choice to start smoking, but cigarette companies are responsible for producing a product that kills people. These are two separate actions: one done by me, and one done by a corporation. We're each responsible for our own action, and neither one is good.
1. Do we want to figure out who to blame, or do we want to fix the problem? You're blaming the people who watch the videos, but that doesn't lead to any solution to what is a pervasive problem in our society.
2. If we must play the blame game, then at least let's be nuanced about it. Sure, it's my personal responsibility if I make the poor choice to start smoking, but cigarette companies are responsible for producing a product that kills people. These are two separate actions: one done by me, and one done by a corporation. We're each responsible for our own action, and neither one is good.
Cigarette companies are reviled for having information that smoking kills, and not only supresssing it but going as far as to claim smoking has health benefits.
That goes way beyond personal responsibility. It was a wide spread fraud.
YouTube isn’t really doing that. They simply recommend things that you may like and succeed or fail at it. When people are uncomfortable with the recommendations it’s a failure, not a conspiracy against the public.
That goes way beyond personal responsibility. It was a wide spread fraud.
YouTube isn’t really doing that. They simply recommend things that you may like and succeed or fail at it. When people are uncomfortable with the recommendations it’s a failure, not a conspiracy against the public.
> They simply recommend things that you may like
That's the misconception here. Youtube is recommending things that make you watch more Youtube. Their customer base is advertisers, not viewers.
That's the misconception here. Youtube is recommending things that make you watch more Youtube. Their customer base is advertisers, not viewers.
Individuals may have freewill, but general populations certainly do not. I think people are concerned because these algorithms are a population-level problem.
Also, in your individual example, I think the 'blame' exists partially with you and partially with youtube. Your weakness for camera gear combined with the strength of the camera gear algorithm guided you to buy 15k worth of stuff.
Also, in your individual example, I think the 'blame' exists partially with you and partially with youtube. Your weakness for camera gear combined with the strength of the camera gear algorithm guided you to buy 15k worth of stuff.
> Individuals may have freewill, but general populations certainly do not.
So free will is when we have not zoomed out enough to see patterns? That actually explains a lot.
So free will is when we have not zoomed out enough to see patterns? That actually explains a lot.
I can easily blame an algorithm if the company has provided no way to tweak or override its recommendation engine parameters, or at minimum allow curation or filtering companies picked by users (or responsible guardians) to override recommendation decisions.
If YouTube doesn't want to be responsible for it, it should provide means for other companies to pick up the slack.
If YouTube doesn't want to be responsible for it, it should provide means for other companies to pick up the slack.
This is insane. Not because of the campaign (pretty forgettable), or YouTube involvement (the more our favorite corporation is bashed, the better), but because of how people who have made it think. They see themselves (or people next to them) as some sci-fi blobs of flesh who are fed by the robots, and therefore feel the need to complain when the robots are not doing their work well enough. “Oh, no, bad things happen in the world! People die, people kill, people believe in things I consider stupid, people neglect their relatives, and blame it on modern technology! I want to revert myself to not knowing all of that. Please lobotomize me gently.”
Also: clear cookies, don't login into any accounts when you don't need it, type your specific search terms in, don't click on those totally obvious clickbait ads/videos/whatever. Here, I solved your “recommendation problem”.
Also: clear cookies, don't login into any accounts when you don't need it, type your specific search terms in, don't click on those totally obvious clickbait ads/videos/whatever. Here, I solved your “recommendation problem”.
[deleted]
the neuropsychological mechanisms, being exploited are about as primative as a patellar reflex. You can be cognizant and keep a leash on it, but in the correct context you are guaranteed to give in, unconscious of the process.
The common problem here is that people are not doing any emotional work, and are blaming YouTube for their personal failings. The first and only solution that these people come to is to try to restrict people's access. Stop blaming technology and just talk to your loved ones!
> 02: “I Don’t Know How To Undo the Damage That Has Been Done”
> My 10-year-old sweet daughter innocently searched for “tap dance videos” and now is in this spiral of horrible extreme “dance” and contortionist videos that give her horrible unsafe body-harming and body-image-damaging advice. I’ve tried to go in and manually delete all recommended videos, put in parental controls, everything (including blocking the app) — but she’s finding ways to log on using browsers and school computers. These terrible videos just keep being recommended to her. She is now restricting her eating and drinking. I heard her downstairs saying “work to eat! work to drink!” I don’t know how I can undo the damage that’s been done to her impressionable mind.
So your sweet 10-year-old daughter is learning dirty dancing now? And your first reaction is to blame a website for this? Young women have had these problems long before YouTube. TALK TO YOUR DAUGHTER. How long did you spend writing this? Have you tried just sitting her down and helping her with her self esteem issues? There's no app for it, it's just called being a supportive and encouraging parent.
> 05: How I Lost My Father
> My stepfather is an 80-year-old retired scientist from Ecuador. He was always curious about all sources of wisdom, theories and knowledge, is very literate and educated, enjoys discussing current events and scientific discoveries. But for a few years, he has become quite lonely and spends a large amount of time on the internet — and on YouTube in particular. His curious mind quickly brought him toward "alternative theories" on multiple topics: conspiracies, Illuminati and other alien-based stories, Bible-inspired as well as radically anti-religious obscure worldviews, "pyramidologists", etc.
> Despite the fact that we tried to erase his YouTube history and "clean" his browser, his recommendations are completely filled by these kinds of esoteric videos, with those recognizable synthetic (TTS) voice-over commentaries, endlessly proposing a similar video after another. He sometimes falls asleep while watching. His days are filled by such content, which has quite strongly affected his worldview toward a much grimmer and more pessimistic turn. It seems impossible for us, his family, to fight against the recommendation algorithms that steers his digital consumer life. It is quite sad and frustrating to see a loved one bury oneself more and more into this kind of obscure, negative and extremely confidence-depriving influence.
> My father, before his passing, thought aliens were already living among us in disguise, that he could eliminate his heating bill with a new "free energy" device, and that UFOs were all over the place. He showed me YouTube videos that "proved it." I spent hours trying to explain to him that YouTube is full of "free energy" scams, that the best UFO is maybe a shitty little DARPA toy, and that aliens among us in plain clothes was simply delusion caused by YouTube videos. He could not come to grips with why people could be dishonest, or why the FCC wasn't doing their job, and trusted what he saw on his TV way too much. He was consuming YouTube on his TV and maybe thought the same FCC kind of government regulation he was used to was still present there. How much better could our time together have been if not for YouTube-induced delusions?
So all you tried doing was taking away his computer? You can't stop him from taking the bus to the library! It sounds like he was extremely lonely. The best thing you can do is spend more time with him, and maybe get to the root of what is causing him to be unhappy.
With both the father and the daughter, I believe that the feelings are coming first, and the media they are seeking out is a reaction to it. The 10 year old girl has very normal self esteem and body issues, and needs a mother there to support her. The elderly father feels alone, depressed, and maybe abandoned, and is seeking out videos that are congruent with his state of mind.
I have a lot of experience with this. I had a very similar situation with a family member who became embroiled in Trutherism about a decade ago. But it wasn't the fault of the Internet. It was because he was depressed and miserable for other reasons. The conspiracies that he saw, when distilled down, were based his much more pragmatic anxieties. When he got emotional support and a job, he was much better. This guy should have tried spending more time with his father and helped him feel safe and close, then he wouldn't have spent so much time watching this.
> 02: “I Don’t Know How To Undo the Damage That Has Been Done”
> My 10-year-old sweet daughter innocently searched for “tap dance videos” and now is in this spiral of horrible extreme “dance” and contortionist videos that give her horrible unsafe body-harming and body-image-damaging advice. I’ve tried to go in and manually delete all recommended videos, put in parental controls, everything (including blocking the app) — but she’s finding ways to log on using browsers and school computers. These terrible videos just keep being recommended to her. She is now restricting her eating and drinking. I heard her downstairs saying “work to eat! work to drink!” I don’t know how I can undo the damage that’s been done to her impressionable mind.
So your sweet 10-year-old daughter is learning dirty dancing now? And your first reaction is to blame a website for this? Young women have had these problems long before YouTube. TALK TO YOUR DAUGHTER. How long did you spend writing this? Have you tried just sitting her down and helping her with her self esteem issues? There's no app for it, it's just called being a supportive and encouraging parent.
> 05: How I Lost My Father
> My stepfather is an 80-year-old retired scientist from Ecuador. He was always curious about all sources of wisdom, theories and knowledge, is very literate and educated, enjoys discussing current events and scientific discoveries. But for a few years, he has become quite lonely and spends a large amount of time on the internet — and on YouTube in particular. His curious mind quickly brought him toward "alternative theories" on multiple topics: conspiracies, Illuminati and other alien-based stories, Bible-inspired as well as radically anti-religious obscure worldviews, "pyramidologists", etc.
> Despite the fact that we tried to erase his YouTube history and "clean" his browser, his recommendations are completely filled by these kinds of esoteric videos, with those recognizable synthetic (TTS) voice-over commentaries, endlessly proposing a similar video after another. He sometimes falls asleep while watching. His days are filled by such content, which has quite strongly affected his worldview toward a much grimmer and more pessimistic turn. It seems impossible for us, his family, to fight against the recommendation algorithms that steers his digital consumer life. It is quite sad and frustrating to see a loved one bury oneself more and more into this kind of obscure, negative and extremely confidence-depriving influence.
> My father, before his passing, thought aliens were already living among us in disguise, that he could eliminate his heating bill with a new "free energy" device, and that UFOs were all over the place. He showed me YouTube videos that "proved it." I spent hours trying to explain to him that YouTube is full of "free energy" scams, that the best UFO is maybe a shitty little DARPA toy, and that aliens among us in plain clothes was simply delusion caused by YouTube videos. He could not come to grips with why people could be dishonest, or why the FCC wasn't doing their job, and trusted what he saw on his TV way too much. He was consuming YouTube on his TV and maybe thought the same FCC kind of government regulation he was used to was still present there. How much better could our time together have been if not for YouTube-induced delusions?
So all you tried doing was taking away his computer? You can't stop him from taking the bus to the library! It sounds like he was extremely lonely. The best thing you can do is spend more time with him, and maybe get to the root of what is causing him to be unhappy.
With both the father and the daughter, I believe that the feelings are coming first, and the media they are seeking out is a reaction to it. The 10 year old girl has very normal self esteem and body issues, and needs a mother there to support her. The elderly father feels alone, depressed, and maybe abandoned, and is seeking out videos that are congruent with his state of mind.
I have a lot of experience with this. I had a very similar situation with a family member who became embroiled in Trutherism about a decade ago. But it wasn't the fault of the Internet. It was because he was depressed and miserable for other reasons. The conspiracies that he saw, when distilled down, were based his much more pragmatic anxieties. When he got emotional support and a job, he was much better. This guy should have tried spending more time with his father and helped him feel safe and close, then he wouldn't have spent so much time watching this.
ocschwar(2)
Free will is an illusion but you can continue to postulate otherwise. You can feel like you’re responsible while not really being true in both situations.
> Free will is an illusion but you can continue to postulate otherwise.
Then you won't be mad at me for down-voting your comment? It wasn't my choice!
Then you won't be mad at me for down-voting your comment? It wasn't my choice!
I'm curious why you think I would care in the first place if that's your attitude.
This is the path of irresponsibility, leads to not caring, what denying it really accomplishes? You really will argue that you can’t even try acting otherwise?
Reminds Ice T from rick and morty schwifty :)
Nope, a person with the childish attitude that the person exhibits is a clown in either mental capacities of understanding free will is an illusion or not. Understanding free will is an illusion increases analysing how you are as a person and in my opinion makes you become a pacifist.
If free will is an illusion, then the influence of the algorithms is also illusory. Furthermore, Google had no choice but to create the algorithms as they have, therefore holding them (or anyone) accountable for any harm is meaningless.
Much better to act as if free will is not illusory, and do what we can to improve things.
Much better to act as if free will is not illusory, and do what we can to improve things.
I disagree and that's very much a strawman argument. I still want to improve things and even when knowing free will is an illusion.
> Free will is an illusion but you can continue to postulate otherwise
Aren't you implying free will by saying a person "can continue to postulate otherwise"?
Aren't you implying free will by saying a person "can continue to postulate otherwise"?
postulate: suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis of reasoning.
To really live up to your philosophy you seriously need to completely abandon modal verbs in your language
Depends on what you mean by "free will." Natural liberty, moral liberty, ultimate sovereignty...
You're not free in any of those situations.
Curious where you're coming from -- Materialistic determinism? Hyper-Calvinism? Something else?
Ok. How? And are we talking predestination or simply external locii of control lack of free will?
There is the narrating self and the experiencing self. The narrating self makes up stories from the information that the experiencing self feeds to it. The important thing being that the experiencing self cannot judge, it just... experiences. Takes in every bit of sensory information and let’s the narrating self make up the story it thinks matches the experience one goes through.
Now, imagine the sensory overload you get when stuck on YouTube, showing those reviews, unboxing videos, whatever to you - or more precisely, to your experiencing self. At some point your narrating self will make up the story and then you end up paying 15k for camera equipment... of course, it’s your choice, right?
EDIT: https://medium.theuxblog.com/the-peak-end-rule-ff7246115248
Now, imagine the sensory overload you get when stuck on YouTube, showing those reviews, unboxing videos, whatever to you - or more precisely, to your experiencing self. At some point your narrating self will make up the story and then you end up paying 15k for camera equipment... of course, it’s your choice, right?
EDIT: https://medium.theuxblog.com/the-peak-end-rule-ff7246115248
Some of these are incredibly dehumanizing. "my dad believes weird things now its all youtubes fault!" Your dad was and still is allowed to believe whatever he wants regardless of whether someone told him it was true. The next one, a guy is upset his EX is paranoid. Why are people no longer allowed to believe what they want regardless of how others feel about it? You only liked him as your dad when he agreed with you.
I honestly find this whole thing disgusting, it's one thing to be upset that you got deceived but to assume someone else has been and to demand the freedom (to be deceived, to choose what you believe) be removed from another is insane. Youtube is full of plenty of shit, if someone wants to believe it or if someone accidentally "falls for it" that's their problem and theirs alone.
I honestly find this whole thing disgusting, it's one thing to be upset that you got deceived but to assume someone else has been and to demand the freedom (to be deceived, to choose what you believe) be removed from another is insane. Youtube is full of plenty of shit, if someone wants to believe it or if someone accidentally "falls for it" that's their problem and theirs alone.
the same feeling I got after reading the page, maybe not disgusting but rather a little silly for blaming youtube for it when it's clear some of these people are either mentally ill on their own or just way too gullible.
It's disgusting because they're trying to force others to conform with their beliefs and assuming things are wrong simply because they've been told so. The teacher is upset because there's "anti-American propaganda" on youtube. Is everyone the world over supposed to love america and is dissent no longer allowed? It's disgusting because despite essentially claiming to be standing against what one would call brainwashing, they're actually calling for MORE of it, as long as it's the right kind.
Would you say the same for Doterra and other "multi-level marketing" schemes? I wish there was energy to discuss marketing for the elderly.
I know an older couple, good people who are the kindest, most thoughtful neighbors one could ask for. I've been called over to help with various technical issues, and when I see their YouTube recommendations my heart sinks.
The entire feed is conspiracy theory videos which have led them to believe some really awful things. Virtually any tragedy in the news has some conspiratorial take; the victims are actors, it was a false flag operation, the school doesn't exist. Over time the viewer builds up the impression that every news story is meant to deceive them, and then completely loses their ability to judge truthfulness or apply skepticism.
I've even heard them talk about leaving their idyllic home because of misplaced fears. For the rest of their lives they will believe the awful lies that YouTube has served them.
The entire feed is conspiracy theory videos which have led them to believe some really awful things. Virtually any tragedy in the news has some conspiratorial take; the victims are actors, it was a false flag operation, the school doesn't exist. Over time the viewer builds up the impression that every news story is meant to deceive them, and then completely loses their ability to judge truthfulness or apply skepticism.
I've even heard them talk about leaving their idyllic home because of misplaced fears. For the rest of their lives they will believe the awful lies that YouTube has served them.
> The entire feed is conspiracy theory videos which have led them to believe some really awful things.
> the victims are actors, it was a false flag operation
You don't know what led them to believe what. And false flag operations are common, so is staging photos, videos for war propaganda. Those are not conspiracy theories, but our terrifying reality. Truth doesn't exist in wars.
One big problem with your story though, just like with every story on this Mozilla page, is that it's impossible to verify. And when it's impossible to verify things are often made up. Furthermore, emotional propaganda of such stories is pushing people to take some rumors, change them and claim them as their own, creating this "me too" movement of fake stories.
Another problem, is that the stories are so poor, that there is no perspective, baseline or any room to make any conclusions of supposed negative effects on people. Just fallacies. Do some strange things get recommended to some people? Of course they do. Do they even have enough reach to even theoretically be able to affect people? Certainly not nearly as much as a family friendly content of a girl living in a van with a snake.
> the victims are actors, it was a false flag operation
You don't know what led them to believe what. And false flag operations are common, so is staging photos, videos for war propaganda. Those are not conspiracy theories, but our terrifying reality. Truth doesn't exist in wars.
One big problem with your story though, just like with every story on this Mozilla page, is that it's impossible to verify. And when it's impossible to verify things are often made up. Furthermore, emotional propaganda of such stories is pushing people to take some rumors, change them and claim them as their own, creating this "me too" movement of fake stories.
Another problem, is that the stories are so poor, that there is no perspective, baseline or any room to make any conclusions of supposed negative effects on people. Just fallacies. Do some strange things get recommended to some people? Of course they do. Do they even have enough reach to even theoretically be able to affect people? Certainly not nearly as much as a family friendly content of a girl living in a van with a snake.
Are you suggesting that these stories of my friends’ and others’ corruption through conspiracy videos are themselves part of a conspiracy? I don’t even know what to say to that.
So they became skeptical about the content they see on TV, but not on YT? How can you be sure about that? Maybe they became more skeptic in general?
Also, how can one blame YT or any media for providing/proposing content that changes one's views? Arbitrarily blocking content that present a different view on events discussed in mainstream media would seriously threaten democracy.
Also, how can one blame YT or any media for providing/proposing content that changes one's views? Arbitrarily blocking content that present a different view on events discussed in mainstream media would seriously threaten democracy.
Meh. Pretty lame. Feels like someone is generally not happy with a large share of videos on YouTube. There is also not solution proposed. Censorship is one that comes to mind, and which of course won’t work well. I think it is important to realize that YouTube is merely a mirror of our societies.
I agree. People have shown that the content that gets watch time and appeals to the widest demographic is "low quality".
The author of this appears to have allowed their child to freely browse the collection of videos, regrets it, and is now passing blame. In the case of his father, the author is blaming YouTube for not curating proper content. Why didn't the author curate content for his father or spend more time with them to see what they were watching? It sounds like the premise of these points is that the author didn't appreciate the bubbles their family members fell into, and instead wanted them to be in different bubbles.
The author of this appears to have allowed their child to freely browse the collection of videos, regrets it, and is now passing blame. In the case of his father, the author is blaming YouTube for not curating proper content. Why didn't the author curate content for his father or spend more time with them to see what they were watching? It sounds like the premise of these points is that the author didn't appreciate the bubbles their family members fell into, and instead wanted them to be in different bubbles.
Social media has introduced profound changes to the way our society functions. Its not a bad or a good change: there are both good and bad aspects to it. Democratization of media means that suppressed voices and talent can still rise and break through, and that's a good thing. On the other hand, it also means that the worst of humanity (even if a minority) can also break through - traditional media's filters were not always a bad thing.
The main problem are that recommendation systems are a black box. They should have interfaces for interaction. They should allow user chosen curators (e.g. parental filter companies) to tweak their parameters, add filters or over-ride recommendation choices.
As I mentioned somewhere downstream, we can't have black boxes shoving things we don't want into our screens anymore. We need something better.
The main problem are that recommendation systems are a black box. They should have interfaces for interaction. They should allow user chosen curators (e.g. parental filter companies) to tweak their parameters, add filters or over-ride recommendation choices.
As I mentioned somewhere downstream, we can't have black boxes shoving things we don't want into our screens anymore. We need something better.
Respectfully, I disagree. Youtube is not a mirror of society. Youtube is a tool to maximize people's attention to advertisement. To achieve this goal psychological and other tricks are employed. I think that these tricks distort what you would call "mirror of our societies".
That's exactly what they want! I expected to scroll down and see a new alternative YouTube being launched. I was puzzled when I didn't see it. What's their point? That they don't like one of their competitor's products?
I expected someone at Mozilla discovering a tracker blocking trick making YT not notice you watched particular video.
> YouTube is merely a mirror of our societies.
I agree about the mirror facet to this. Sometimes I'm even meta-aware of being sucked in to a new demographic when I start charting new video territory. I often pause and think to myself, "Wow, here's a whole batch of content targeting demographic XYZ, no thank you." I've often detected video suggestions going off my mental road barriers and I put a stop to it early before it pollutes my feed. The trouble is when you give in to temptation and let curiosity get the best of you.
YouTube is a version of our society where you can pay or use tricks to get your message pushed very strongly to a lot of unsuspecting people.
In real life I don’t typically get people taking to me about products without telling me they were paid to recommend these products and the billboards on the street don’t show ads based on my profile (yet).
In real life I don’t typically get people taking to me about products without telling me they were paid to recommend these products and the billboards on the street don’t show ads based on my profile (yet).
> YouTube is a version of our society where you can pay or use tricks to get your message pushed very strongly to a lot of unsuspecting people.
Yes it's called marketing/propaganda. It wasn't invented by YouTube.
Now that whole "YouTube Regrets" stunt by Mozilla here is obviously about the following question: "who should YouTube allow to have an audience", nothing more.
Yes it's called marketing/propaganda. It wasn't invented by YouTube.
Now that whole "YouTube Regrets" stunt by Mozilla here is obviously about the following question: "who should YouTube allow to have an audience", nothing more.
Marketing can’t for instance force you to read an ad before you read an article in the newspaper. They can’t force you to sit through a video before you drive into town. They can’t swap out one newspaper article for another for money and they can’t completely change the focus of a newspaper by using SEO.
"I think it is important to realize that YouTube is merely a mirror of our societies."
Why would youtube be a mere reflection of society? If culture gets reproduced through action, wouldn't youtube's actions amplify certain cultural messages? Do mere reflections amplify things?
Why would youtube be a mere reflection of society? If culture gets reproduced through action, wouldn't youtube's actions amplify certain cultural messages? Do mere reflections amplify things?
>I think it is important to realize that YouTube is merely a mirror of our societies.
YouTube, and all for-profit social media construct experiences that take advantage of our human fallibility in order to drive eyeballs and clicks. You're writing something very explicitly crafted to drive potentially self-destructive behavior off as merely "a mirror of our societies."
The closest parallel is the gambling industry. There's a reason it's highly regulated.
YouTube, and all for-profit social media construct experiences that take advantage of our human fallibility in order to drive eyeballs and clicks. You're writing something very explicitly crafted to drive potentially self-destructive behavior off as merely "a mirror of our societies."
The closest parallel is the gambling industry. There's a reason it's highly regulated.
The first example about the guy looking for "fail videos where people get a little hurt" is a strange anecdote to open with for this campaign.
> Let’s send a message to YouTube that they need to recommend responsibly...
I don't think there's such a thing as responsible recommendation at the scale YouTube operates at. At least not in the way people think by responsible anyway.
> Let’s send a message to YouTube that they need to recommend responsibly...
I don't think there's such a thing as responsible recommendation at the scale YouTube operates at. At least not in the way people think by responsible anyway.
We need a radical change in the way recommendation systems work. They should always be designed in a way so that they are controllable, trainable and customizeable by consumer (or responsible guardian) input. We need to be able to interface with that aspect of the web instead of having a black box shove stuff into our throats.
Even a simple way to blacklist channels, videos and keywords would be great. There is a "not interested" item in context menu, but it doesn't seem to work very well...
I think it was a neutral opening to the matter they want to bring up that should hold recognizable substance in pattern to folks who've experienced the YouTube recommendation blackholes. Things get more "controversial" the further along in their examples, which would probably turn off people from reading further if hit with that stuff right off the bat.
I think he phrased it weirdly. Should have made a comparison to Americas Funniest Home Videos.
I see: if you're a big enough operation, you can't be held responsible because responsible behavior is just kind of inconveniently costly.
Eventually, you serve the tools instead of building them...
Eventually, you serve the tools instead of building them...
> if you're a big enough operation, you can't be held responsible
It's not irresponsible because people see videos they would rather not. It would be irresponsible if someone logged in to a child's account and see's something inappropriate, and it would be irresponsible to continuously allow illegal videos to stay up (both of these cases happen and need addressing). But saying your preferences don't align with how they determine content to be similar to each other doesn't make it irresponsible.
Catering to preferences like that is not a responsibility. It might make the product better or worse for you if they don't, but it's not an obligation.
It's not irresponsible because people see videos they would rather not. It would be irresponsible if someone logged in to a child's account and see's something inappropriate, and it would be irresponsible to continuously allow illegal videos to stay up (both of these cases happen and need addressing). But saying your preferences don't align with how they determine content to be similar to each other doesn't make it irresponsible.
Catering to preferences like that is not a responsibility. It might make the product better or worse for you if they don't, but it's not an obligation.
Sure there is:
Recommend videos with topics related to previously viewed videos.
Ratings. While there will be borderline cases, it's pretty clear that "death and dismemberment" content should not follow a childrens train cartoon.
Oh I know, "censorship!" etc... but at Googles scale, as you point out, what else shall we do?
I do rather throw that ball back into your court. At that scale, they are regulatable :D
Oh I know, "censorship!" etc... but at Googles scale, as you point out, what else shall we do?
I do rather throw that ball back into your court. At that scale, they are regulatable :D
This is what they are already doing..
The key to your statement is the word "related". How do you determine whether two pieces of content are related? Because Youtube has found a way which works for them and seems to work in the majority of cases.
The key to your statement is the word "related". How do you determine whether two pieces of content are related? Because Youtube has found a way which works for them and seems to work in the majority of cases.
They are clearly failing, so they should leave space (API or similar) for users to pick their own curation and filtering companies of choice.
> They are clearly failing
Do we know that to be true? failing for what percentage of the user base? it's obviously imperfect.
Do we know that to be true? failing for what percentage of the user base? it's obviously imperfect.
Someone subconsciously channeled Idiocracy, "All I wanted was to watch some OW BY BALLS".
A lot of these stories read as overly dramatic and it often feels like the author is begging for sympathy in situations that don't seem to be very regrettable...
Some of these complaints are because many people don’t realize that their YouTube watch history is separate from your browser history (watch history is stored on their servers, associated with your Google account). If you want to fully reset your recommendations you need to use Google’s privacy tools to clear your watch history and also unsubscribe to all channels. Google/YouTube could be more clear about this but it’s not a totally broken system.
If you realize that you are getting weird recs due to a particular video you watched, you can delete that singular video from your history. I’m not particularly concerned about this aspect of Google/YouTube’s behavior.
Finally, if you’re upset about your dad watching conspiracy videos, consider that maybe he’s always been a nut job and you are just now realizing it. People don’t keep watching videos that they don’t like, they started down the rabbit hole by clicking on videos that looked interesting (maybe the rabbit hole got deeper because they feel asleep, but they did start it on their own).
If you realize that you are getting weird recs due to a particular video you watched, you can delete that singular video from your history. I’m not particularly concerned about this aspect of Google/YouTube’s behavior.
Finally, if you’re upset about your dad watching conspiracy videos, consider that maybe he’s always been a nut job and you are just now realizing it. People don’t keep watching videos that they don’t like, they started down the rabbit hole by clicking on videos that looked interesting (maybe the rabbit hole got deeper because they feel asleep, but they did start it on their own).
People do watch videos they don't like. Most addictions are a whole process where the addictee feels negative the majority of the time and then gets a high that reinforces the cycle.
My mum gets paranoid about burglars. If I introduced her to a constant drip feed of robbery videos her fear would escalate disproportionate to her normal life. That's not a revealed character flaw.
My mum gets paranoid about burglars. If I introduced her to a constant drip feed of robbery videos her fear would escalate disproportionate to her normal life. That's not a revealed character flaw.
You can Not disable recommendation learning algorithm despite whatever Google claims in their documentation. Deleting/disabling watch history does nothing.
It most certainly does something. I do it on a regular basis whenever I feel that the recommendations are getting too "fine tuned" and I want to have more broad recommendations.
If you are not seeing fully refreshed recommendations it's probably because you are still subscribed to channels or have liked videos or the other pieces of information that goes into recommendations.
If you are not seeing fully refreshed recommendations it's probably because you are still subscribed to channels or have liked videos or the other pieces of information that goes into recommendations.
You can clear your watch history:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/95725?co=GENIE.Pla...
You can also configure it to automatically clear anything older than 3 or 18 months.
Or follow this link to go straight there: https://myactivity.google.com/activitycontrols/youtube
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/95725?co=GENIE.Pla...
You can also configure it to automatically clear anything older than 3 or 18 months.
Or follow this link to go straight there: https://myactivity.google.com/activitycontrols/youtube
As far as I can tell, this doesn’t reset the algorithm for YT recommendations for your account.
Does Not Work. Its all smoke and mirrors. You can create new account, disable YT history altogether and it will still keep learning and recommending garbage based on a milder version of what you previously watched.
I get similar videos recommended to me on computers I've never watched similar videos on before. They track you by more than your computer. I've had videos recommended to me on my computer that were interests of friends who had visited me at my house and watched youtube on their phones and the same has happened when I went to their house. I would be recommended videos within their set of interests.
You really have no control over what google knows about you or who they think you are. you can't change browsers, computers, or even your location to get away from them.
You really have no control over what google knows about you or who they think you are. you can't change browsers, computers, or even your location to get away from them.
Or do not login to YouTube and use containers so you get a new profile often, or clean your cookies.
It’s not that easy yet but proper browser support for regaining control is coming.
It’s not that easy yet but proper browser support for regaining control is coming.
I understand that some people are more sensitive than me, and they want to feel protected from the things that trigger them. But sometimes they ask things without taking into consideration how their demands would affect those that aren't like them.
In the same way that each one of your (positive) rights is just someone else's obligation, every case of censorship is someone else's lack of freedom. While YouTube is not a state institution (hence they're not morally obligated to cater to anyone's needs, or be a platform for any kind of video), they want to make money, and if their best way to make money is through automatic recommendations, then I'm afraid that YouTube is not for people that don't like automatic recommendations.
In the same way that each one of your (positive) rights is just someone else's obligation, every case of censorship is someone else's lack of freedom. While YouTube is not a state institution (hence they're not morally obligated to cater to anyone's needs, or be a platform for any kind of video), they want to make money, and if their best way to make money is through automatic recommendations, then I'm afraid that YouTube is not for people that don't like automatic recommendations.
I'm not sure what Mozilla Foundation is trying to accomplish with this page. Maybe make people more conscious about Internet content consumption habits. Maybe sparking discussions like this in online forums and other media. It's a little bit odd that they choose YouTube ignoring other social networks with the same addictive effect (it's ironic to have Twitter and Facebook share buttons at the side).
On the YouTube topic. As a product designer, I think that YouTube product managers and designers have a lot of responsibility. Video recommendations are designed to be addictive. They don't stop, and while there are options to turn auto-play off they are not the default. It's not a problem of the "uninformed user". It's by design. People in the comments mention creating playlists and curating content. But there are many design gaps there too. For example, YT Kids has some time controls, but the content curation options are minimal.
“Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral” - Melvin Kranzberg
On the YouTube topic. As a product designer, I think that YouTube product managers and designers have a lot of responsibility. Video recommendations are designed to be addictive. They don't stop, and while there are options to turn auto-play off they are not the default. It's not a problem of the "uninformed user". It's by design. People in the comments mention creating playlists and curating content. But there are many design gaps there too. For example, YT Kids has some time controls, but the content curation options are minimal.
“Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral” - Melvin Kranzberg
YouTube has far bigger issues in how it handles copyright claims. Right now a firm can unilaterally shutdown any channel and abuse of the system is a daily occurrence.
Another issue is in how they're now demonetizing any piece of content that mentions anything remotely controversial, making it even less profitable to do any kind of journalism. Want to talk about the Kurds in Syria? Be prepared for having the video be immediately demonetized.
The recommender system comes far third in this list, in my opinion.
Another issue is in how they're now demonetizing any piece of content that mentions anything remotely controversial, making it even less profitable to do any kind of journalism. Want to talk about the Kurds in Syria? Be prepared for having the video be immediately demonetized.
The recommender system comes far third in this list, in my opinion.
I do believe that “something needs to be done”, about the various internet dis-info machines [0]. However, while the link shows a bunch of relatable stories, all it offers in response is a “sign up to Mozilla” button. That’s it. A newsletter. A bit disappointing and anti-climactic.
[0]. I have no idea what.
EDIT: I signed up to the newsletter.
[0]. I have no idea what.
EDIT: I signed up to the newsletter.
I like the conclusions they come to in their letter to social media, where they are requesting allowing researchers more insight and control, essentially enabling them to sample/simulate the recommendation engine and get more insight into how it clusters or relates contents. Furthermore they want to reduce limits on API keys so that more comprehensive academic research can be performed.
They know the issue isn't so much the algorithm as those that are gaming it to empty extraction of peoples attention (== money), extreme, or harmful ends. In doing so we might better understand the problem and then provide tools or recommendation to social media and the public on the topic.
They know the issue isn't so much the algorithm as those that are gaming it to empty extraction of peoples attention (== money), extreme, or harmful ends. In doing so we might better understand the problem and then provide tools or recommendation to social media and the public on the topic.
interesting!
This is a more informative link about why they've done this: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/our-recommendation-yo...
Ah! Didn’t see that (was viewing in a phone and requesting desktop site made no difference). Maybe the link was there and I missed it. In any case, thanks!
try veiwing with page style [css], turned off
You can click "Not interested" on each of the videos recommended to you and you will get fewer videos of that kind or from that channel. Half of those stories are about helpless people or people having mental health issues, in which case unrestricted internet access will always be a problem. I personally don't get the point or suggested solution of the article, could anyone explain what their suggested solution is?
I don't know what OP's suggested solution is, but if I had my way, I'd just eliminate recommendations entirely, in favour of perhaps some kind of category- or tag-based search (eg "give me more cute puppy videos"). Especially since so many people seem to have so many problems with recommendations, it's clearly not bringing value to life, so just get rid of it.
Of course Google won't, because it would dramatically reduce watch time and their advertisers wouldn't like that. But a man can dream
Of course Google won't, because it would dramatically reduce watch time and their advertisers wouldn't like that. But a man can dream
> in favour of perhaps some kind of category- or tag-based search
Because the people looking for visibility on their conspiracy video would never tag their video with high-visibility keywords like "cute" and "puppies"!
Dumb metadata-based search and content recommendation is not the way forward. Google's original contribution to the web was pulling us out of that tarpit - SEO prior to PageRank was a wreck.
Because the people looking for visibility on their conspiracy video would never tag their video with high-visibility keywords like "cute" and "puppies"!
Dumb metadata-based search and content recommendation is not the way forward. Google's original contribution to the web was pulling us out of that tarpit - SEO prior to PageRank was a wreck.
There is no proposed solution, the article exists solely to bring attention to a perceived issue while applying pressure upon greater forces to enact some form of subjectively positive change.
Clicking "Not interested" Doesnt work. Its either a placebo button, or its implemented in a funny way like on Twitch.
Twitch also has "Not interested" button, but what they never mention anywhere is that it simply pushes stuff into 1000 size limited FILO list. You know, 1000 entries because storage is expensive at Amazon.
Twitch also has "Not interested" button, but what they never mention anywhere is that it simply pushes stuff into 1000 size limited FILO list. You know, 1000 entries because storage is expensive at Amazon.
regulate the corporate monopoly that has taken over some significant percentage of terrestrial tv eyeball time with a video sharing website?
I had many of these problems until I straight-up turned off viewing history. Now my recommendations are trash because they're too generic, which is precisely how I like them.
Not to say that for some folks a complete abolition of YouTube might be well in order.
Not to say that for some folks a complete abolition of YouTube might be well in order.
> Now my recommendations are trash because they're too generic, which is precisely how I like them.
Do one better: Consider NewPipe [0] instead, if you're on Android.
[0] https://newpipe.schabi.org/
Do one better: Consider NewPipe [0] instead, if you're on Android.
[0] https://newpipe.schabi.org/
I am not an Android user, nor would I like to have [my Google account suspended](https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe/issues/2723).
The user who created that issue refused to provide any evidence of their Google account being suspended for using NewPipe.
Same. I have been able to completely depersonalize Youtube for myself. I don't remember the exact steps I took in Google's privacy dashboard—turning off history and removing all liked and disliked videos were among them—but it absolutely worked.
I don't think this discounts the larger problem though...
P.S. I'm quite frustrated that I can't "depersonalize" Amazon.
I don't think this discounts the larger problem though...
P.S. I'm quite frustrated that I can't "depersonalize" Amazon.
I dont know how you achieved that. Iv had disabled viewing history for years now and still get thematic recommendations(watch car video today, tomorrow its all car videos, except more extreme and clickbaity). Afaik you cant turn this off.
That's almost worse because the videos they are showing you are ones the general masses have clicked on and gotten sucked into.
Was hoping Mozilla was working on a free video hosting alternative.
Would also love a free webmail alternative.
Would also love a free webmail alternative.
> free
This is the issue. I'm starting to believe the only options are free ad-supported generic platforms or direct creator-to-fan relationships. Totally free without ads is impossible.
This is the issue. I'm starting to believe the only options are free ad-supported generic platforms or direct creator-to-fan relationships. Totally free without ads is impossible.
I’d be happy if Mozilla ran video hosting and just targeted ads based on the video itself (and maybe broad geographic area and language) and not what the user browsed last week and is on the fence about.
At least that’s been a viable model since the beginning of TV and radio. Dunno why it can’t be done now.
At least that’s been a viable model since the beginning of TV and radio. Dunno why it can’t be done now.
Advertisers aren't interested in entering into new relationships with companies that can't tell them how well their ads are converting; they're too addicted to what ad-tech can do for them. Only the massive reach of the few existing old-world ad-space providers (e.g. cable TV; newspapers) allows them to keep doing things the old way. It's not a door open to anyone new.
They'll still know how many views there were and on which video and how many actions they got, so they'll still know how well their ads are converting.
They just won't be able to target them as well.
They just won't be able to target them as well.
Because TV and radio are synchronous formats. The station only needs enough storage and bandwidth to play the one piece of media that they are playing right now, in this very moment. Once it's been broadcast once, it goes right in the trash unless they really need to record it for reruns or something.
Online video requires you to be able to store every piece of video that has ever been uploaded, for the rest of eternity, and requires you to be able to play anything on-demand to ~600 million simultaneous connections, each requesting a different piece of media. You can't fund that with advertising.
Google hasn't ever released figures, but the speculation consensus seems to be that youtube has never made a profit.
Online video requires you to be able to store every piece of video that has ever been uploaded, for the rest of eternity, and requires you to be able to play anything on-demand to ~600 million simultaneous connections, each requesting a different piece of media. You can't fund that with advertising.
Google hasn't ever released figures, but the speculation consensus seems to be that youtube has never made a profit.
> can’t fund that with advertising
Give it 5 years.
Give it 5 years.
Youtube said that ten years ago, and they still haven't made a dime.
Cheaper bandwidth and storage for the host doesn't help because it's getting cheaper for users too, meaning that they are going to create higher-quality content. Ten years ago, everything being uploaded to youtube was 480i resolution. Now most things being uploaded are 1080p60fps, with some channels starting to upload 4k.
Cheaper bandwidth and storage for the host doesn't help because it's getting cheaper for users too, meaning that they are going to create higher-quality content. Ten years ago, everything being uploaded to youtube was 480i resolution. Now most things being uploaded are 1080p60fps, with some channels starting to upload 4k.
>I’d be happy if Mozilla ran video hosting and just targeted ads based on the video itself (and maybe broad geographic area and language) and not what the user browsed last week and is on the fence about.
Isn't that quite literally what youtube becomes, if you decide to turn off the watched history completely?
Isn't that quite literally what youtube becomes, if you decide to turn off the watched history completely?
A Mozilla PeerTube instance to join Blender's [1] in setting a good example would be a good place to start. The tech exists, and there's a large number of people on the ActivityPub fediverse ready to see it. Any organization that currently uses YouTube could do a similar mirror.
[1] https://video.blender.org/
[1] https://video.blender.org/
Free video hosting loses huge amounts of money.
I don’t see how. Popular videos show ads what feels like every other minute. I find myself zoning out staring at the bottom right where the Skip Ad button shows up and I can’t even recall a single ad I’ve ever seen on YouTube.
[deleted]
Less every year.
These are my uBlock filters that I use to block all of Youtube's recommendations. I think it makes the site much cleaner.
##.ytp-pause-overlay ##.ytp-suggestion-set ##.ytp-endscreen-content youtube.com###related
I personally try to hide all recommendations everywhere.
##.ytp-pause-overlay ##.ytp-suggestion-set ##.ytp-endscreen-content youtube.com###related
I personally try to hide all recommendations everywhere.
i did the same! I had to explicitly search for videos and click from there.
I also fixed the video in place so I could scroll through comments of howto videos to see if any of the commenters had corrections or improvements to the methodologies without losing the video content itself. It does that on mobile by default, but not on a desktop.
I also fixed the video in place so I could scroll through comments of howto videos to see if any of the commenters had corrections or improvements to the methodologies without losing the video content itself. It does that on mobile by default, but not on a desktop.
>” I don’t know how I can undo the damage that’s been done to her impressionable mind.
Here's an idea: Don't give your children unsupervised access to the internet. Yeah she might still access this stuff at school, but when I was in middle and highschool pre-2007 there's no way I'd ever get away with watching videos on a school computer during class. It's hard to imagine teachers are somehow more relaxed about this in 2019 and I'd be amazed if youtube wasn't blocked on school networks anyway.
There's nothing a 10 year old NEEDS internet access for on private computer or phone.
Here's an idea: Don't give your children unsupervised access to the internet. Yeah she might still access this stuff at school, but when I was in middle and highschool pre-2007 there's no way I'd ever get away with watching videos on a school computer during class. It's hard to imagine teachers are somehow more relaxed about this in 2019 and I'd be amazed if youtube wasn't blocked on school networks anyway.
There's nothing a 10 year old NEEDS internet access for on private computer or phone.
> Don't give your children unsupervised access to the internet.
What phenomenally useless advice, and an utterly uninformed perspective.
Who and how do you propose offer this "supervised access" in a meaningful fashion?
How do you adapt for the fact that children, when supervised, specifically avoid play that might subject them to additional scrutiny (for example, not using youtube, etc).
How do you address the lack of supervision in environments that aren't specifically at home, or when one parent finds different content problematic than another parent?
How do you ensure that two parents who are at odds (e.g. divorced couples, etc) coordinate what is permitted or not in an environment where the child has different rules in different environments?
Far from children not having internet access at school, the school my children attends recognizes the need to teach children how to think critically about online content, and both my 8 year old and 10 year old have had assignments to use youtube and other media sites to learn more about specific topics.
Far better advice would be to periodically review content your children view, and then have meaningful discussions about the content they are consuming, what makes it "good" or "bad", and encourage children to make better choices, and to discuss what they are seeing and learning.
As awful as Youtube is, it's not possible to block it out of kids lives, any more than porn magazines and other objectionable content could be kept out of the hands of children 30 years ago.
What phenomenally useless advice, and an utterly uninformed perspective.
Who and how do you propose offer this "supervised access" in a meaningful fashion?
How do you adapt for the fact that children, when supervised, specifically avoid play that might subject them to additional scrutiny (for example, not using youtube, etc).
How do you address the lack of supervision in environments that aren't specifically at home, or when one parent finds different content problematic than another parent?
How do you ensure that two parents who are at odds (e.g. divorced couples, etc) coordinate what is permitted or not in an environment where the child has different rules in different environments?
Far from children not having internet access at school, the school my children attends recognizes the need to teach children how to think critically about online content, and both my 8 year old and 10 year old have had assignments to use youtube and other media sites to learn more about specific topics.
Far better advice would be to periodically review content your children view, and then have meaningful discussions about the content they are consuming, what makes it "good" or "bad", and encourage children to make better choices, and to discuss what they are seeing and learning.
As awful as Youtube is, it's not possible to block it out of kids lives, any more than porn magazines and other objectionable content could be kept out of the hands of children 30 years ago.
Blocking YouTube access doesn’t have to be perfectly implement to be useful.
As you say in your last sentence, it’s impossible to keep porn magazines out of the hands of children, but yet we as a society are determined to at least try.
It’s all that’s suggested here, try to limit access, make it clear that some things aren’t to be watched at a young age.
Can you image what society would be like if people just had given up on restricting porn and said they could sell it to 10 year olds and play it in elementary school libraries?
As you say in your last sentence, it’s impossible to keep porn magazines out of the hands of children, but yet we as a society are determined to at least try.
It’s all that’s suggested here, try to limit access, make it clear that some things aren’t to be watched at a young age.
Can you image what society would be like if people just had given up on restricting porn and said they could sell it to 10 year olds and play it in elementary school libraries?
Unfortunately if you limit access to content, children who are curious will simply bypass those limits. For some children they will do it through social means, for others (puts up hand) they will learn how to bypass technical controls, but in general, if they are curious about it, then parents have a choice: teach them about it, or let someone else is. Most parents hope that it's school that teaches stuff they don't want to, but it might be a friend, or someone worse.
I am not arguing for wholesale abandoning of parental controls, but there are relatively innocuous parental controls (for example, my kids tablets don't let them do anything between 10:00 pm and 9:00 am; they don't need it after bed time or before school, and if they do, then I can override it). On the other hand, there is invasive surveillance that copies off all traffic so that parents can review it, keystroke loggers, and other "spouseware" that makes sure that parents can intrude into every interaction. There are no doubt a subset of children who merit this kind of surviellance - children with health issues that need supervision so they don't harm others or themselves. For those edge cases, those tools make sense, but for most children, a more effective strategy is to listen to your children, respect their feelings, agree on boundaries, and have consistent and reasonable consequences for breaking those rules.
Anything else says to children that you don't trust them, and that will lead to them developing a habit of keeping secrets and hiding things from parents, and that is a pathway to children not talking to parents when there are unsafe interactions because they are afraid of the consequences of asking for help and admitting that they broke the rules.
I am not arguing for wholesale abandoning of parental controls, but there are relatively innocuous parental controls (for example, my kids tablets don't let them do anything between 10:00 pm and 9:00 am; they don't need it after bed time or before school, and if they do, then I can override it). On the other hand, there is invasive surveillance that copies off all traffic so that parents can review it, keystroke loggers, and other "spouseware" that makes sure that parents can intrude into every interaction. There are no doubt a subset of children who merit this kind of surviellance - children with health issues that need supervision so they don't harm others or themselves. For those edge cases, those tools make sense, but for most children, a more effective strategy is to listen to your children, respect their feelings, agree on boundaries, and have consistent and reasonable consequences for breaking those rules.
Anything else says to children that you don't trust them, and that will lead to them developing a habit of keeping secrets and hiding things from parents, and that is a pathway to children not talking to parents when there are unsafe interactions because they are afraid of the consequences of asking for help and admitting that they broke the rules.
Per the second sentence of the paragraph you pulled that quote from, they are restricting her internet. It's not helping.
> I’ve tried to go in and manually delete all recommended videos, put in parental controls, everything (including blocking the app) — but she’s finding ways to log on using browsers and school computers.
> I’ve tried to go in and manually delete all recommended videos, put in parental controls, everything (including blocking the app) — but she’s finding ways to log on using browsers and school computers.
I addressed the school part and it sounds like she has access to a computer without supervision at home
> I addressed the school part
You addressed it by saying she couldn't possibly watch videos at school, which is silly.
There's plenty of educational content on YouTube. A lot of school firewalls only block stuff that's been tagged as age-restricted content. Or students may know how to get around the block. Or she may be watching on her friends' phones. (The parent says "school computers", but how would they know for sure?) All this can happen during lunch, or before or after school, or between classes.
It is impossible to directly monitor 100% of a school-age child's internet access unless you homeschool them, never let them go to the library or talk to other kids, and sit and watch them while they do their homework.
You addressed it by saying she couldn't possibly watch videos at school, which is silly.
There's plenty of educational content on YouTube. A lot of school firewalls only block stuff that's been tagged as age-restricted content. Or students may know how to get around the block. Or she may be watching on her friends' phones. (The parent says "school computers", but how would they know for sure?) All this can happen during lunch, or before or after school, or between classes.
It is impossible to directly monitor 100% of a school-age child's internet access unless you homeschool them, never let them go to the library or talk to other kids, and sit and watch them while they do their homework.
[deleted]
I'm tempted to block Youtube at the router (at least between specific times) because I find it is far more addictive for kids that I remember the TV used to be. The good thing about old TV with 4 channels is that most of the time it was boring, so you'd turn it off and go do something else. Kids TV would stop at about 6pm for the news (IIRC).
While I agree that parenting would suggest some consideration of the material accessible, perhaps the number one video sharing website could put some effort into what clearly is a funnel towards evil: it's recommendation engine. I routinely get wacko right wing nonsense in my recommendation feed and I'm rather left wing and never once searched for such content. I
It's probably time to lean on the Goog a bit and get them to stop feeding Alex Jones and his ilk with unsolicited "recommendations" that run counter to previously viewed videos messaging. I get it. They think that people should leave their filter bubbles, but they equate all points of view as equally educational, when common sense would point out that some points of view on some topics should be considered off-limits. If I say "I want to live" and your point of view is "die mofo die!" do we really need to compromise on merely mutilating me? perhaps your point of view can be entirely dismissed in such a case, as situationally wrongful. Morality has social functionality, gasp.
But I reckon that 1) there's likely no state actor with sufficient power to control the goog by now, accumulated dirt being accumulated dirt, pols having browsing histories, money having value, and all...
2) there's likely to be no such reaction here on Hacker News due to this malicious algorithm being considered a form of "free speech" I suppose.
Here I always figured on tech being a liberalizing social force, but between FB and the G, it's going downhill rather swiftly...
It's probably time to lean on the Goog a bit and get them to stop feeding Alex Jones and his ilk with unsolicited "recommendations" that run counter to previously viewed videos messaging. I get it. They think that people should leave their filter bubbles, but they equate all points of view as equally educational, when common sense would point out that some points of view on some topics should be considered off-limits. If I say "I want to live" and your point of view is "die mofo die!" do we really need to compromise on merely mutilating me? perhaps your point of view can be entirely dismissed in such a case, as situationally wrongful. Morality has social functionality, gasp.
But I reckon that 1) there's likely no state actor with sufficient power to control the goog by now, accumulated dirt being accumulated dirt, pols having browsing histories, money having value, and all...
2) there's likely to be no such reaction here on Hacker News due to this malicious algorithm being considered a form of "free speech" I suppose.
Here I always figured on tech being a liberalizing social force, but between FB and the G, it's going downhill rather swiftly...
This was a terrible article. The fact that Mozilla endorses this content is extremely disappointing.
Agreed - this isn't a Youtube problem. It's a people problem. If you don't want to watch this stuff and have it recommended to you, put down your phone and do something else. Or use the limitless other streaming video services out there. Youtube doesn't owe us anything and relying on them to do anything other than maximize use is a waste of time.
There's shared responsibility with any product/consumer relationship so I think the point is that YouTube is not owning up to theirs. IMO, pretty fair argument to make when you think about people who are not in tech.
We hold cigarette companies responsible for letting us know their products may cause harm. We hold food and beverage companies responsible for what they put on their labels. We label coffee cups with a "Hot!" warning.
I hear you on personal responsibility, however, I think that comes from a place where you have or had time and space to educate yourself on this (apologies: using "you" very generally here and don't mean to imply you specifically). Most readers here have deep experience with YouTube and the consumer web--I've been on the web since Compuserve in the mid 90s and a hundred people who read this thread can one-up me. Think about how many people are coming onto the web for the first time. YouTube is a source of truth to them. They're told that Facebook has a "News" feed--and that's what they think is in their feed: literal and true news.
I'm trying to consider it from that perspective. My first reaction is to say: if you don't like it, just ignore it. If you don't want to get addicted to something, don't try it. It's up to you, as an individual, to own your life. I still feel that to be true, however...
I'm still considering how I feel but I think it's more complex than that my gut reaction indicates. We're not making decisions just for the informed 10% and I do think there is ground to be given up by the platforms.
We hold cigarette companies responsible for letting us know their products may cause harm. We hold food and beverage companies responsible for what they put on their labels. We label coffee cups with a "Hot!" warning.
I hear you on personal responsibility, however, I think that comes from a place where you have or had time and space to educate yourself on this (apologies: using "you" very generally here and don't mean to imply you specifically). Most readers here have deep experience with YouTube and the consumer web--I've been on the web since Compuserve in the mid 90s and a hundred people who read this thread can one-up me. Think about how many people are coming onto the web for the first time. YouTube is a source of truth to them. They're told that Facebook has a "News" feed--and that's what they think is in their feed: literal and true news.
I'm trying to consider it from that perspective. My first reaction is to say: if you don't like it, just ignore it. If you don't want to get addicted to something, don't try it. It's up to you, as an individual, to own your life. I still feel that to be true, however...
I'm still considering how I feel but I think it's more complex than that my gut reaction indicates. We're not making decisions just for the informed 10% and I do think there is ground to be given up by the platforms.
The stories highlighted seem to be split between "content I don't like exists on YouTube" and "content I don't like is recommended to me."
I think adding tools to help users address the latter is worthwhile, but I don't think the former is actually a problem.
I think adding tools to help users address the latter is worthwhile, but I don't think the former is actually a problem.
> "content I don't like exists on YouTube"
"... and YouTube irresponsibly recommends that content to people who are likely to be negatively affected by it".
"... and YouTube irresponsibly recommends that content to people who are likely to be negatively affected by it".
I think there's a big difference between YouTube actively recommending things vs. people searching for things and not liking the results they get.
The latter is what I meant by "content I don't like exists on YouTube".
From the article:
>I started searching for “fail videos” where people fall or get a little hurt.
>My 10-year-old sweet daughter innocently searched for “tap dance videos”[...]
The latter is what I meant by "content I don't like exists on YouTube".
From the article:
>I started searching for “fail videos” where people fall or get a little hurt.
>My 10-year-old sweet daughter innocently searched for “tap dance videos”[...]
In both of those cases, the videos that showed up from the search weren't the problem. The problem was the videos which were recommended based on a history of having viewed the videos in the search results.
The same pattern applies to many of the other stories in the article. (There's more than just the ten on the first page. Click "load more stories" at the bottom of the page.)
The same pattern applies to many of the other stories in the article. (There's more than just the ten on the first page. Click "load more stories" at the bottom of the page.)
Oh, I think you're right. I misread those.
Also didn't know there were more than the first 10 because I browse with js off by default, which hides the "more" button.
Also didn't know there were more than the first 10 because I browse with js off by default, which hides the "more" button.
I'm glad there's beginning to be a wider conversation about this. We are what we consume, and it's incredibly easy to consume via the YouTube sidebar. I think most of us derive some portion of our beliefs and values from things the see and learn on the internet, whether it be here, reddit, YouTube, etc. When you consider how many thoughts are shaped by that algorithm that has virtually no human oversight, driven purely by engagement metrics, it's humbling and frightening. I think entities like Google that have become so influential are going to have to start taking more responsibility for the effects their algorithms
Just as a side note, YouTube removed the "Not Interested" functionality if you are not logged in from mobile (web) and I can't find it either on the desktop web version.
Sure it's still there if you are logged in, but if you aren't you can only clear the browser (cookies) etc. To get ride of annoyances, but this isn't a feature a less technical versed use is aware about, especially because they are "annoyed about youtube not their browser, right?".
Well anyway the main problem doesn't lie with youtube specifically but the idea that this kind of systems are a good idea.
----
This kind of systems ==> in the sense of very complex, opaque interwinded systems of targeted advertisement and recommendation system which are not meant to give you the best experience but keep you as long as possible on the platform. Which also through constant change of rules try their best to prevent people from gaming the system but in the end only end up hurting quality content providers through constant changing rules, and their recommendation system _still_ gets hijack frequently by all kind of people (from stupid annoying hidden advertisements, over *phobic hate propaganda, subtle political propaganda to cults like thinks).
Anyway in the end this is not only a technical problem but also a social one one more than one layer.
Also tbh. I would be more worried about many of the other modern user provided multimedia platforms then youtube.
But well, one problem is that many people have the misconception that youtube (and others) are safe. It isn't especially not for young kids, even if it doesn't contain porn or other "obvious" adult stuff.
Sure it's still there if you are logged in, but if you aren't you can only clear the browser (cookies) etc. To get ride of annoyances, but this isn't a feature a less technical versed use is aware about, especially because they are "annoyed about youtube not their browser, right?".
Well anyway the main problem doesn't lie with youtube specifically but the idea that this kind of systems are a good idea.
----
This kind of systems ==> in the sense of very complex, opaque interwinded systems of targeted advertisement and recommendation system which are not meant to give you the best experience but keep you as long as possible on the platform. Which also through constant change of rules try their best to prevent people from gaming the system but in the end only end up hurting quality content providers through constant changing rules, and their recommendation system _still_ gets hijack frequently by all kind of people (from stupid annoying hidden advertisements, over *phobic hate propaganda, subtle political propaganda to cults like thinks).
Anyway in the end this is not only a technical problem but also a social one one more than one layer.
Also tbh. I would be more worried about many of the other modern user provided multimedia platforms then youtube.
But well, one problem is that many people have the misconception that youtube (and others) are safe. It isn't especially not for young kids, even if it doesn't contain porn or other "obvious" adult stuff.
I fundamentally do not understand people who watch recommended videos. They are almost never relevant to me.
I watch videos on youtube either if they come from channels I have chosen to subscribe to, or specific videos I have been linked to from outside (friends, reddit, hn, etc). The idea that I would watch, say, anti-LGBT videos that were auto-recommended after watching a drag queen's channel just seems silly. Why would I just click into those hateful videos? I didn't want them! So I don't watch them!
I'm sympathetic to the idea that borked recommendations algorithms can be frustrating and obnoxious but at the end of the day, every video I watch is a video I _chose_ to watch, and I just choose not to watch garbage. I don't understand why other people seem to find making this choice to be so difficult
I watch videos on youtube either if they come from channels I have chosen to subscribe to, or specific videos I have been linked to from outside (friends, reddit, hn, etc). The idea that I would watch, say, anti-LGBT videos that were auto-recommended after watching a drag queen's channel just seems silly. Why would I just click into those hateful videos? I didn't want them! So I don't watch them!
I'm sympathetic to the idea that borked recommendations algorithms can be frustrating and obnoxious but at the end of the day, every video I watch is a video I _chose_ to watch, and I just choose not to watch garbage. I don't understand why other people seem to find making this choice to be so difficult
There is a thing called auto-play and it's on by default.
I really don't have "Youtube Regrets", I do have lack of content syndrome though.
YouTube never forces you to watch the videos, True but Youtube and several other companies have designed their algorithms to keep you engaged with it for long duration of time. It is built by people who understand how the human brain works and how to take advantages of the shortcomings of the human brain. That is why so many people inspite of knowing that it is bad for you are still unable to get rid of their habits.
Sure people can quit watching those recommended videos anytime they want, but the feed is carefuly curated to make you keep watching and watching and potentially also altering your beliefs. That is I believe YouTube crosses the line. It has to remain responsible.
Sure people can quit watching those recommended videos anytime they want, but the feed is carefuly curated to make you keep watching and watching and potentially also altering your beliefs. That is I believe YouTube crosses the line. It has to remain responsible.
We think our temperature perception is strictly temperature, while a large component of our temperature perception is not temperature but change of temperature. (We have both really...)
Similarily our experience of sadness and happiness tends to be a comparative assessment (compared to 5 seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks ... ago).
So if you are a platform that generates income from advertisement, and if advertisements must be felt as positive, you optimize for negative background (content) videos, such that the advertisements are relatively positive as a result. Now is that a reflection of the consuming individual's character flaws? I think not
Similarily our experience of sadness and happiness tends to be a comparative assessment (compared to 5 seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks ... ago).
So if you are a platform that generates income from advertisement, and if advertisements must be felt as positive, you optimize for negative background (content) videos, such that the advertisements are relatively positive as a result. Now is that a reflection of the consuming individual's character flaws? I think not
It is not a matter of free-speech vs individual responsibility as I read it in most of the comments. It is a matter of big money vs the people.
Everybody knows deep pockets buy fake views to promote their content. Youtube in turn favors them to promote virality, and people are exposed with uninteresting or unwanted content, but still addictive. The more addictive, the more profitable.
They do have a responsibility, unless you think a company can make money selling weapons. Oh wait!
Everybody knows deep pockets buy fake views to promote their content. Youtube in turn favors them to promote virality, and people are exposed with uninteresting or unwanted content, but still addictive. The more addictive, the more profitable.
They do have a responsibility, unless you think a company can make money selling weapons. Oh wait!
This is more or less an instance of the "paperclip maximizer" problem[1]. Complicated systems optimizing for simple goals often have unintended consequences.
Surely the billions we threw at safe AI must be paying off anytime now right?
[1] https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
Surely the billions we threw at safe AI must be paying off anytime now right?
[1] https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
[deleted]
If people weren't doing this with YouTube/TikTok/Netflix, they'd be doing with television. The difference is you actually get to choose what type of garbage you are addicted to watching. I consider that a huge improvement.
Well, until now YouTube had broken autogenerated subtitles in Firefox on Android and no playback on thumbnails in FF on desktop (at least I don't think my plugin setup is at fault). Gotta watch out for what will be broken tomorrow.
Another kind of YT regret is finding a great video that YT then removed, which you will never see again. No chance of contacting the channel author (deleted).
A YT user must develop the habit of downloading anything that appears valuable.
A YT user must develop the habit of downloading anything that appears valuable.
There's a similar effort tracking the bias in Youtube's recommendation algorithmn: https://algotransparency.org/
Gotta wonder how a story that gained 100 points in 1 hour managed to fall off the front page.
Hope that the irony of a story like this getting pushed away from the front page by an algorithm isn't lost on people :)
Hope that the irony of a story like this getting pushed away from the front page by an algorithm isn't lost on people :)
I watch a lot of YouTube content and sometimes I refrain myself from watching a video because I know that it's going to mess up my recommendations in a way beyond repair :)
Adding these lines to uBlock Origin filters helps me waste less time on youtube:
www.youtube.com##.html5-endscreen
##.ytp-pause-overlay
www.youtube.com###secondaryI've started using a large number of separate web browser profiles (and a different Google account) on a per-subject basis.
It's really nice having one account used purely for music (with all the associated music recommendations), another for consuming news etc.
Bypassing soft paywalls becomes easier as they're different sessions (that aren't incognito, so don't trigger incognito detection). Having a 'no.JS' profile is the fastest way to skip soft paywalls.
It's really nice having one account used purely for music (with all the associated music recommendations), another for consuming news etc.
Bypassing soft paywalls becomes easier as they're different sessions (that aren't incognito, so don't trigger incognito detection). Having a 'no.JS' profile is the fastest way to skip soft paywalls.
One time I clicked on a silly animated music video about how Mussolini screwed up invading Greece, and watching this whole 60 second clip flipped my entire youtube into alt-right mode. It was like night and day and it happened immediately.
I started getting suggested things like "Biggest Hillary Fails" and "Jordan Peterson DESTROYS WHOEVER" over and over and over, and it got quickly got darker with things about how problematic immigration was and weird fan "documentaries" about senior SS leaders.
I'm way too suspicious (to a fault) of everything I take in, but I can imagine other people going down real holes if they were served the same terrible suggestions.
I started getting suggested things like "Biggest Hillary Fails" and "Jordan Peterson DESTROYS WHOEVER" over and over and over, and it got quickly got darker with things about how problematic immigration was and weird fan "documentaries" about senior SS leaders.
I'm way too suspicious (to a fault) of everything I take in, but I can imagine other people going down real holes if they were served the same terrible suggestions.
Unfortunately watching any videos related to father's rights in custody battles leads down the same path. I'm guessing it's not just a case of "people who watch x also watch y" but rather "video y is sticky and increases total daily watch time for those who watch video x".
[deleted]
All I get are car repair videos and lawyers.
[deleted]
Off topic: is the intro animation designed for trackpads or something? It's advanced by you scrolling, and since I'm using my scrollwheel and it's a stuttery mess. This design seems to be pretty widespread as well. Are all these designers assuming that everyone uses touchpads for scrolling?
Keyboard is even worse; advancing by page with Space, as I normally read, skips half the text (perhaps a blessing in disguise).
Seemed to work quite well on mobile. Using safari
oh you should try it in Lynx... lousy as all getup...
but then so is youtube :D
Mozilla is just so consistently off the mark with every new product offering they make. They have top-tier engineering talent but leadership seems completely out of touch and irrelevant.
Dunno about regrets but this clearly shows that neither of those two institutions aged well.
eeniemeenie(1)
saas_sam(2)
I feel like a large part of where we are in the world now is because in 2015 or so, YouTube mindlessly and singlehandedly funneled millions of apolitical young male gamers into gamergate extremism. It took forever for YouTube to stop giving me personal recommendations for various alt-right content no how many times I told it I wasn't interested.
I personally went through a 3-month journey starting from travel videos to getting sucked into the "look how awesome mirrorless cameras are and all the beautiful content I can create with them" and ended up spending about 15k on camera gear (body, lenses, gimbals, lights, etc). I eventually managed to reign myself in but I didn't think I can now turn around and blame Google or some algorithm for spending far more than I should have. Shouldn't I be accountable for my own actions and lack of impulse control instead of expecting a corporation with an ad-revenue business-model to do it for me?