[hacker42]

Do you study the phenomenon of information bubbles at Google? Let's say, a German user just happens to watch some right-wing populist video claiming that we need to stop Merkel's refugee politics. The next day the user might receive plenty of recommendations in their feed that confirm the message in the first video. They happen to stumble upon a video of some party convention by an uprising German populist party, and everything makes sense now! Video by video the user gets dragged into a right-wing ideology.

That is an information bubble. The algorithm cannot detect low quality or populism, neither can it recommend opposite standpoints, and at the end of the day it has a real effect on a country's politics and the well-being of many people.

Do you have means of quantifying such effects? What are possible countermeasures?

If you cannot talk about that, then this would be my feedback: Perhaps you could train a language model to find opposing views in video titles and tags and then diversify the video recommendations based on that.

[sevenless]

What about the reverse scenario, though? Should someone who watches videos about refugee suffering be given anti-refugee video recommendations, lest they be dragged into a 'left wing ideology'? I don't see how that would be acceptable. Would Holocaust documentaries be 'diversified' with Holocaust denial videos?

'Information bubbles' have existed as long as people have had a choice of newspapers to buy and TV channels to watch. Calling for Youtube to artificially 'balance' videos seems like political interference.

[mempko]

While information bubbles have existed as long as people had a choice, at least with a newspaper or TV channel, you have to read and watch a little to understand whether it fits your liking. You have to put some effort in.

With recommendation engines, your bubble, without effort, ossifies.

[AndrewKemendo]

There is no such thing as unbiased. So they have top pick how they are going to be biased. My guess is the way that makes the most ad revenue irrespective of ideology.

[hacker42]

I think personalized media might bring information bubbles to a whole new level because recommendation systems are more efficient and achieving millions of YouTube views has arguably fewer intellectual hurdles than achieving similar reading rates via print or TV. The information passes though fewer filters (none), e.g. proof readers, team discussions. If that causes an increase of misinformation, then it is on Google to fix it, i.e. to reduce the amount of misinformation at least to pre-YouTube levels.

[cscurmudgeon]

Ah good old moral relativism.

[force_reboot]

Isn't the concept of an "information bubble" already inherently relativistic? sevenless was simply pointing out the relativism cuts both ways.

[cscurmudgeon]

I was just pointing out the obvious.

[tnones]

As opposed to planting your flag in the ground that your camp is always right and the outgroup is evil?

[cscurmudgeon]

As opposed to at least trying to think a bit.

If you think relativism is fine. Then "As opposed to planting your flag in the ground that your camp is always right and the outgroup is evil?" is also fine.

See how silly and immediately self-contradictory relativism is?

[tnones]

"Trying to think a bit" would be on the side of having more information to think about, I'd imagine. Absolute relativism is a strawman you've brought into it, political tribalism is on the other hand a very real thing.

[ycombinatorMan]

Ah good ole' sociopathy

[PunchTornado]

some low quality left wing populism right here.

google does right to not chose between left and right, moral or imoral.

[hacker42]

Why? Leftist people would also get more diverse recommendations. They'd be exposed to arguments such as the importance of maintaining western values etc. I actually did an experiment of wading through videos recommended based on anti-Merkel stuff. There are very few reasonable discussions and mostly it's horribly populist and poorly researched stuff.

[sevenless]

What exactly are western values, other than a not-so-subtle way of asserting hostility to Muslims? The people who go on about the importance of opposing immigration in the name of maintaining liberal and tolerant values (a code word for 'gays and feminism') seem to be exactly the same people who hate gays and feminism in the first place.

[hacker42]

> What exactly are western values, other than a not-so-subtle way of asserting hostility to Muslims?

For example that no death threats are spoken when a daughter defies her farther's will who she is supposed to spend time with. That caricaturists, satirists and atheists are safe. These are things that western cultures have established, and which could arguably be endangered by letting in refugees by the millions and by prohibiting cultural criticism at the same time. I am myself not convinced of the urgency of this threat, but I think these are some of the more convincing arguments against Merkel's refugee politics. Other arguments are for example second order effects or equilibrium effects, e.g. that conservatives, professionals and business folk amount to a counter-reaction that is worse than letting in refugees in a more controlled way (i.e. Brexit and brain drain).

> exactly the same people who hate gays and feminism in the first place.

I have no idea about the numbers, but I am pretty certain both groups exist. Those who use these arguments as pretense and those who are honestly concerned about the efficiency, safety and trust our culture has established (which e.g. allow us to focus on education, art and science).