[DerpyBaby123]

Why do you jump to that conclusion? Youtube's algo is long suspected of pushing more and more extreme/radical content, and the comittee seems to be looking for more information on if that process affected the Jan 6 riot

That's not looking for a scapegoat; it's looking for a set of root causes

[nightski]

Maybe congress should look inward? There is no end to the divisiveness in congress on both sides. We used to be able to compromise and make progress. Now we just use any loophole possible to avoid dealing with the other side. Not only that they constantly trash, berate, and spread fear about the other side.

[jimbob45]

YouTube shows you more of what you look for. If it stops doing that, people will use a 3rd-party search tool that lawmakers will be unable to censor (e.g. Reddit, Digg, 9gag, 4chan).

It's a scapegoat. If you want people to stop looking up content about distrusting the government, the solution is a more transparent government, not to stop them from watching the content.

[DerpyBaby123]

It doesn't just do that, it pushes you more and more into specific niches. It doesn't have to do that either, but Youtube has designed it to do it, to put users into the famous Youtube Rabbit Hole.

This rabbit hole encourages extremism in some people, and that can be harmful to society. Why the defeatist attitude, that huge companies have to encourage extremism or people will stop using their products? That's non-sensical

[whimsicalism]

Youtube recommends videos you are likely to click on. It is unclear to me what else they are supposed to recommend.

It is also unclear to me that the recommendations ought to be moderated by some embedded state entity to make sure the results align with what is in political vogue.

[caleb-allen]

There is a difference between holding a view that isn't "in vogue" and inciting violence. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous and ignorant.

[whimsicalism]

This is in the context of the commission saying that FB didn't do enough to block the spread of election fraud misinformation, not that they didn't do enough to block imminent lawless action.

[BitwiseFool]

I sense there are two processes at work here. One is simply an algorithm that recommends more of the same. If I watch a Jordan Peterson video, I start seeing recommendations for his other lectures and podcasts. I doubt YouTube's algorithm is specifically trying to change my views politically. Likewise, if I end up seeing a lefty BreadTuber's video, I start to see more socialist videos.

The other thing is that we really don't have shared definition or word-feel for "extremism". The people who are the most vocal about curbing extremist content also happen to be wildly partisan. I don't think that is a coincidence. I sense the false-positive rate is extremely high in this regard.

[BitwiseFool]

>"That's not looking for a scapegoat; it's looking for a set of root causes "

I wouldn't say they are looking for a scapegoat, it's just political theater and tactical expediency. Furthermore, I'd also say "root causes" is not quite right either. At the end of the day, this is a very partisan committee and I believe they understand the power in getting these big social media companies to crack down on conservative content under the guise of preventing "extreme/radical content".