Comment by ravenstine
5 days ago
I don't.
My experience with their algorithm between 2014 and ~2020 was that autoplay would quickly turn into a form of video diarrhea composed largely of Jordan Peterson and Lex Fridman. Was pretty bizarre because I only watched a few Peterson videos in the beginning, mostly his "Maps Of Meaning" videos which I think are mostly poppycock, and ever since then YouTube would quickly bring me back to his content even though I was never navigating to it organically. I had to resort to clicking "Not interested" and "Don't recommend channel" on several videos, which sort of worked, but it wasn't fool proof.
These days it happens way less often, though usually that loop contains a lot of "gurus" in general and less of Peterson.
I hope I never have to hear the voices of Jordan Peterson or Lex Fridman again. I'm not a fan of either one, but YouTube insisted I was for many years.
I think they can be paid to do that, but I'm not sure quite how it was arranged.
That, or the Peterson pipeline is a good representation of a local maximum: a fairly obvious way a set of videos can direct people to related videos and increase the appetite for them. That'd produce algorithmic reinforcement without anybody getting paid. Apart from Youtube, content-agnostically hungering for being paid in views on their platform.
It could have sent a very strong signal that 'this content maximally sends a statistically significant number of viewers down MASSIVE youtube rabbitholes never to emerge, therefore take the gamble and try to show everyone the content, ???, profit!'
This was at the center of controversy many years ago, described as a sort of alt-right pipeline. I believe there are studies about that exact algorithm behavior on youtube. My understanding is that it was changed to loop back around to trusted content sooner.
Dunno about parent but to me "old algorithm" is more like 2010, not 2014.
Edit: 2010 and earlier. To me old youtube is before the rise of Minecraft. There's probably a better threshold but that's the one that comes to mind.
Funny, I have the opposite experience. I used to get relevant videos to what I was watching. If I'm watching a Phish video, it would recommend other Phish videos. These days, if I'm watching a Phish video I will literally, as in literally literally, get a Candace Owens video recommendation. I have literally never clicked on one of her videos ever. I don't watch political content on youtube at all, and if I did I am very left leaning. I can't fathom what has made the algorithm so terrible that if you're watching 90s Phish videos it recommends right-wing talking heads.
I truly miss the way the next video used to be picked. I don't get political videos but I will be watching The Band live concerts and after the second video I will get something like a singing video with The Wiggles (I have a child). It makes absolutely no sense to me.
It's so weird and obvious that shenanigans are going on in the recommendation algorithm. I'll watch a Video Game Streamer, and in the sidebar, the top ten recommended related videos are:
- Same streamer, different video
- Different streamer
- Far right pundit blasts immigration
- Video game streamer
- Video game streamer
- Video game review
- Same streamer, similar content
- Ben Shapiro OWNS Liberals with FACTS
- Video game streamer
- Video game streamer
I've never watched one of these blowhards in my life, but man, YouTube thinks I'd love it. Because I watch video games? Is this the gamer-to-alt-right pipeline I keep reading about?
There are a lot of video game players who are tooting the "DEI is ruining games" horn, with streamers amplifying this message. You could agree with that thesis without being conservative but even researching it will pull your YouTube recommendations in that direction; it seems to align well with conservative values.
There is massive overlap between those who watch video game streamers and those who watch the right wing rage content. Youtube is recommending you the videos those other people who watch video game streams watched next.
1 reply →