[pavlov]

YouTube’s algorithm feeds increasingly radicalizing content to young people. It makes celebrities of people like Andrew Tate and is a primary enabler of fringe belief bubbles.

Any time someone posts a YouTube link to a political discussion, it’s guaranteed to be the worst nonsense that pries on people who “do their own research.” (No matter if they’re left or right on the political spectrum, there’s endless junk on YouTube for both.)

There’s surely good stuff on YouTube, but as a parent I honestly wouldn’t miss it if it disappeared overnight.

[kbolino]

As targeted towards young people, YouTube's algorithm serves up a lot more Mr. Beast than Andrew Tate.

[throwaway32654]

Considering the recent controversies, YouTube's algorithm recommending Mr. Beast to young people is no less of a problem.

[lotsofpulp]

That is not an “algorithm” unique to YouTube. See 24/7 news channels for a much earlier example. It is simply the nature of loosening standards on broadly available media, and throughout history, even strict standards have not always prevented the “bad” stuff from getting through.

[pavlov]

News channels don’t show random 30-minute programs created by viewers themselves. YouTube does.

Fox News and CNN may have low journalistic standards, but at least they have some. They also have liability. (Fox paid $787 million to a voting equipment manufacturer as settlement for lies they published in relation to the 2020 election.)

YouTube has neither. Their algorithm will happily promote any nonsense that has traction. The lies that cost Fox $787 million continue to circulate on YouTube unabated — and an untold number of other lies too. Alphabet has no reason to prevent this.

[ethbr1]

The greatest sin of YouTube's current recommendation algorithm is its optimization for eyeball time (aka more ad capacity).

Any tweaks around the edges will never be able to compete with that.

And unfortunately that central tenet incentivizes creators to make clickbait content that plays on emotions, because that's the most reliable way to deliver what YouTube wants.

(YouTube could decide it was optimizing for something else, but that would put a big dent in ad revenue)

[CamperBob2]

How do you fix this without doing something even worse?

[gspetr]

> It makes celebrities of people like Andrew Tate

Legacy Media made celebrities out of people far worse than Tate decades before Youtube: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Mesrine

Media's propensity to do so has been lampooned before as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Killers

Tagline: "Media made them superstars"

> and is a primary enabler of fringe belief bubbles.

Oh? It's not like anyone's ever seen conspiracy theory programs on TV before Youtube. Heck, if someone re-rendered some of those with AI to use Alex Jones' voice, even his viewers might not be able to tell the difference.

[jart]

> It makes celebrities of people like Andrew Tate

By banning Indian school children and sucking the oxygen out of competing influences like Pewdiepie.

[smcin]

Who's banning Indian school children?