this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
54 points (95.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

34964 readers
530 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/2044512

I made sure to remove cookies and not sign in so I think these are the base suggestions made by youtube.

top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Google is currently defending itself in the US Supreme Court over a lawsuit that alleges they assisted the terrorist group ISIS in recruiting members after it was found the YouTube algorithm promoted ISIS recruiting videos to young men who later committed a terrorist attack.

So to answer your question using Google's argument: they have so many videos that an advanced search feature is required to make the site usable. Their search feature only suggests things that are popular. It's not their fault ISIS recruitment (or other violent content) videos are popular.

The counter argument is: Google is curating content by displaying things people didn't search out themselves. This is direct promotion by Google itself and therefor it should be treated as if they are the publisher of that content. Anyone publishing violent content should be held liable for it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Promoting terrorism increases engagement

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah, except it gets more complicated than that. Google wouldn't necessarily be promoting it either. As their algorithm looks for popular searches. Terrorism seems to be an overly used word for comparing protests to terrorism.

As an example, I live in a pretty red state. I would consider my self democrat/liberal in this state. When the George Floyd protests were happening a lot of people in my state were referring to the non-protest raids as terrorism. Despite the fact they will all defend the very clear terrorism on the capital as an attempt to save the U.S.

Point being you take the word protest and terrorism. You set it side by side as an exaggeration for literally anything half the the country disagrees with and boom you get popular terrorists searches.

I also don't think Google isn't at fault since their algorithm is designed to continue feeding that kind of content and the deeper you go the more ingrained into content you get and the more insane it gets.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So wait, is Google only suggesting things that are popular, or are they displaying things people didn't search out themselves? How do they prove that in court, do they need to show their source code or something?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not a lawyer and haven't read through the court documents, but from legal commentators it seems that Google provides the general steps for how their algorithms work in plain language for the judges to consider. Even then, the Supreme Court itself has stated they have no clue how technology works so this is difficult for them to rule on

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

What prevents Google from lying about how their algorithms work, though? How could it actually be verified? There's no way it could just be as simple as they give their word and suddenly that's good enough for a court ruling?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

YouTube makes money by showing ads on videos people watch. If they show people the videos they want to watch, they get to show more ads before someone stops watching YouTube for the day. This incentives YouTube to surface the videos that people will watch for the longest time with no regard for anything but their advertisers' willingness to have their ads played on said videos.

Also it's expensive to moderate a platform so big that one in three humans uses it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Thank you, I think your answer is much better. Still I don't think "Capitalism" is an informative answer to why/how these search suggestions work.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Presumably because that's what lots of people are searching for.

Otoh, Google giving insane suggestions is sort of a meme by itself so who knows what they use?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Algorithm's designed to promote engagement. Getting angry groups screaming and trying to murder people counts as engagement.

As long as the screaming and arguing happens on their site and drives ad revenue, they don't care about the murdering part.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good point!

I've written before that I think a lot of these sites intentionally do the Jerry Springer thing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, no doubt.

And there are plenty of groups out there that know how to create ...engaging... videos, specifically for the purpose of getting people to hate the Other of the Week. Wouldn't want the peasants to figure out who's really screwing them...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That's a good point too.

Honestly, the anti-establishment left and the anti-establishment right have a lot they could agree on if there wasn't so much media pointing out the few things they disagree on (or inventing things to disagree on)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wish people weren't angry at the protest but instead at the more oppressive forces of society. Also sorta unrelated but what does Otoh mean?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I thought it stood for Ordo Templi Orientis Hermeticists all this time!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Everyone will have their personal perspective on certain protests based on a number of factors.

A lot of people wanted the BLM riots shut down with lethal force because of the senseless violence and destruction in some cities. Otoh, some people thought they didn't go far enough. Someone whose city was destroyed would have a different perspective than someone whose city was just fine. People might have different views based on their view of the black community and their relationship with the rest of American society.

A lot of people thought the trucker convoy in Canada was a just fight against oppression, but many people thought they were just a bunch of antivaxx confederate Nazis and thought the use of any level of violence was justified because they were disrupting people's lives and they were secretly trying to clone Hitler. There was a broad spectrum of views and they only represented a piece of that spectrum.

Real politics is usually more complicated than just good vs. evil, it's really hard having one set of rules that apply equally and equitably to diverse people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Saying cities were 'destroyed' is a bit hyperbolic. Even the cities with the craziest riots, like Portland just had a block of the city dedicated to it. The Capital Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), that the news used to make ~~Portland~~ Seattle look like a warzone, only covered 2 intersections of the city.

Edit: The CHAZ/CHOP was in Seattle, not Portland.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Also worth noting that a study show a lot of the violence was started by cops, and then people reciprocated. Another study noted 90-95% of the protests were peaceful.

Only bigots call them riots, to push a political narrative.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah real politics is complicated and messy but that doesn't mean we should demonize the act of fighting for our rights. And that is the thing that I am worried about. That people are starting to see fighting for your rights as a bad thing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Engagement. Hate promotes engagement and therefore is very profitable

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean I don't think thats the full story. You should try looking at this interactive website.

The Evolution of Trust

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, this thing works if everyone around you is not an asshole. It doesn't if everyone is. And even if the copycat or copykitten win in the end, the number of retries is just too tiring, so you just give up and decided to not trust anyone, thus becoming the cheater, same as everyone else.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

oh god that's terrifying

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it's any consolation, it's only conservatives who delight in the misery of the oppressed. It's not the normal people among us. Unfortunately, there are a lot of conservatives on the planet at the moment. It will take a lot of work and some open, honest discussions about the dangers of conservatism to cure it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, I know all that, but I've just given up at this point (look my comment above as to why). I'm just too old for this back and forth bullshit till the end of time. And I don't think things are gonna change any time soon. Unless a global catastrophy plages mankind, nothing is gonna change... like an asteroid impact or something like that. People show their greatest virtues and unite only when faced with grave danger... it's just how humans are, they don't do shit about anything unless all of their friends, relatives, family are in immediate danger.

And even if we avoid this grave danger, things will soon get back to same old, same old. A large chunk of humanity (like over 95%) needs to be wiped out in order for people to take things seriously and shift their mindsets in an entirely different direction... and even then, there is no guarantee that that will last.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Have we forgotten about the LA riots?

I would not stop for protestors either.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Reginald_Denny

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Ah, because every protest results in mobs attacking people and breaking things! Nice generalization there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

I haven't. People were justified in their anger, and let that anger out in the way they could. That's why you shouldn't give people a reason to be justifiably angry and instead meet the needs of the people without abusing them. The acquittal of those cops told people that the law didn't apply to law enforcement. If the law doesn't apply equally, why should it be viewed as anything other than tyranny?