
The Making of a YouTube Radical - viburnum
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/08/technology/youtube-radical.html
======
burlesona
> Google Brain’s researchers wondered if they could keep YouTube users engaged
> for longer by steering them into different parts of YouTube, rather than
> feeding their existing interests. And they began testing a new algorithm
> that incorporated a different type of A.I., called reinforcement learning.

> The new A.I., known as Reinforce, was a kind of long-term addiction machine.
> It was designed to maximize users’ engagement over time by predicting which
> recommendations would expand their tastes and get them to watch not just one
> more video but many more.

It saddens me that so many of our smartest engineers are working on stuff like
this.

~~~
Youcandothis
I don't see whats wrong about suggesting videos to users that they like to
watch.

~~~
throwayEngineer
Same.

There is this pessimist view that Google is evil.

In my life, Google is the single best entity I'm aware of. Incredible amounts
of free stuff that makes my life better.

Any addiction to their platform has been due to bliss.

~~~
__i___ii____
Should have named yourself "totallydontworkatgoogle."

------
rjf72
This article just included Milton Friedman in a collage that seems to imply he
was a conspiratorial, racist, misogynist? For those who might not know who he
was, here is is Wiki entry. [1] He's a nobel prize winning economist and more
or less critical reading to understand the logic behind much of our current
economic processes, without casting judgement on the rightness or wrongness of
said systems. He died 13 years ago. I am, for once, at a loss for words. That
is just so unbelievably idiotic.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman)

~~~
busymom0
That along with them including Philip DeFranco (even though he's not mentioned
in the article) made me lose interest in whatever they were trying to say
through the article. I don't want to get on a political debate here on HN but
Phil is more left leaning or at least that's the impression almost entirety of
his audience gets from watching his videos.

I honestly think that this article is more about trying to take down
independent but huge following journalists/creators than it's about shining
light on radicalization. This could be because of these independent creators
are taking away too much of these huge media company/newspaper's profits.

------
coldtea
While there are lots of "far right" channels out there, the majority of of the
channels shown as screenshots have nothing to do with the "far right" or
conspiracy theories.

Looks like their main crime is being conservative.

~~~
lwelyk
I just scrolled down the screenshot section where it showed the videos he
watched in one time period, are you really trying to say Stefan Molyneux, Paul
Joseph Watson, thunderf00t and a lady complaining about "cuckservatives"
aren't "far right" or conspiracy theorists?

~~~
coldtea
I haven't watched Stefan Molyneux or thunderf00t, so can't tell.

I've watched a few Paul Joseph Watson videos. I've also watched Shapiro, Milo,
and Peterson, recognized from the screenshots shown. You can agree or disagree
with the positions they take (e.g. Milo plays the extravagant provocateur for
laughs and money), but where are those "conspiracy theories"?

Of course in these days, everything is labeled a "conspiracy theory" too. I
keep the term for things involving the illuminati and aliens.

Regular corporatist interests and politicians conspire all the time -- the
more open version is called lobbying.

Heck, politics is all about conspiring (including very covertly spy-shit,
Nixon-Watergate like) against other parties and ideologies...

~~~
lwelyk
Paul Joseph Watson was an employee of Info Wars. Like, the whole thing of that
site is conspiracy theories? I can't help but feel you're being disingenuous
when you question Info Wars members being conspiracy theorists.

~~~
coldtea
And I feel people are being disingenuous when they say Paul Joseph Watson is a
conspiracy theorist by association.

I've watched several of his own videos on his YouTube channel. Where are the
conspiracy theories?

~~~
lwelyk
I found these in about 10 minutes. Don't act like being part of a conspiracy
theory website makes calling you a conspiracy theorist is some sort of
disingenuous leap. Like the point of the website is spreading conspiracy
theories.

A lot of the prison planet blog was deleted it seems, I guess due to his and
alex jones' fallout, but here are your links.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifIAlft47bM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifIAlft47bM)

[https://www.infowars.com/obama-birth-certificate-raises-
as-m...](https://www.infowars.com/obama-birth-certificate-raises-as-many-
questions-as-it-answers/)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20180123234120/https://www.priso...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180123234120/https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/220207okcrevelations.htm)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20170702085649/https://www.priso...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170702085649/https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/160407blackop.htm)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20171226050840/https://www.priso...](https://web.archive.org/web/20171226050840/https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705teneasysteps.htm)

~~~
coldtea
So, the kind of "conspiracy" you meant is speculation there is a cover up of a
politician's ill health condition in the first video? That has been done time
and again by all kinds of politicians and leaders, from the time of El Cid...
If that's a "conspiracy theory", then sure, every journalist alluding to
something not documented at the time, is a conspiracy theorist. I expected
more aliens, illuminati, and lizard people.

The second is merely reporting, on a well known topic of public discussion. A
document was requested, it appeared, and there were people raising questions
about certain aspects. Should they not be reported? Where's the conspiracy
part?

The others I'll give you are conspiracy theory material (though several of
those kind of conspiracies (government conspiring, ordering executions, and so
on), that a naive US person thinks "can never happen", have been found -- by
courts and later evidence -- true in Europe time and again, just ask in Italy,
Spain, France, Greece, etc. E.g:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing#Officia...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piazza_Fontana_bombing#Official_investigations_and_trials)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoris_Lambrakis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigoris_Lambrakis)

That said, those are from like 10 years ago or more? I'm familiar with his
YouTube stuff and I don't see much conspiracy stuff there.

------
jl2718
The author of this article and the YouTube creators he maligns, are both
engaged in what Naval Ravikant describes as a “negative-sum prestige game”.
The wealth benefits are nearly zero, and the fame is all negative. Stay in the
positive-sum wealth game, fellow hackers; build, create, form meaningful life-
long relationships.

------
spookyuser
I love the scrolling transition at the beginning of this article. It really
feels like an excellent piece of internet art.

~~~
golergka
It's also a very misleading and dishonest journalism, as many of YouTubers
displayed in the final stages have nothing to do with the alt-right.

~~~
gjsman-1000
I'm not a fan of all of those YouTubers, but quite a few of the big ones (i.e.
Crowder, Shapiro, Peterson) detest racism, and have openly and many times said
that they do not support white supremacy and think Nazis are racist morons.
Someone asked why neo-Nazis were attending one of their conferences, and the
speaker (Peterson) said he had no idea and wanted them to leave for being
idiots.

Doesn't change the fact that NYT still calls them "white supremacist
supporting." I think the problem here is that they support some policies which
white supremacists, as a group, also like supporting. Just because two groups
can agree on something doesn't mean those groups are allies. Also, "white
supremacist" is a great slam against someone you don't like regardless as to
if it is true.

~~~
mercer
"Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This
is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock" \- Ben Shapiro

~~~
gjsman-1000
[https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/25712847277](https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/25712847277)

And he was totally blasted by his own fanbase for it. Everyone might say
something, once in a while, too far. Doesn't make it right, but doesn't make
him completely wrong on everything.

------
nootropicat
The most interesting thing about the article is the admission by google that
it wages an ai-powered war on humanity. Rather than paperclips, the most
likely ai apocalypse scenario consists of an ai that modifies and breeds
humans (what it considers humans) to do nothing but watch ads.

~~~
stcredzero
It will first breed and otherwise manipulate humans into believing only what
the media tells them.

------
TomMckenny
It's going to be hard to discuss the problem here if just mentioning it draws
such a vast quantities of spam from the other Caleb Cains of the world.

------
RandomInteger4
Why in the world is Philip DeFranco in that collage?

~~~
razius
The same as everybody else, they challenge the mainstream media view.

~~~
razius
See Tim's video [https://youtu.be/ZtYle7Rqn0Q](https://youtu.be/ZtYle7Rqn0Q)

------
camdenlock
For much of the article, the author portrays the “left-wing” as a bastion of
sanity and moral good, a place where those who have been hijacked by the
“right-wing” can be rehabilitated. Only at the very end does he pay passing
lip-service to the possibility that there might be danger on both sides.

Is his characterization accurate?

~~~
devin
I am having trouble thinking of a way to answer this without being downvoted
for either being "too left" or "too right" in my reply. Maybe I'll just try
and take a side route: Ideology is one hell of a drug. I like Gary Bernhardt's
talk[0] on the subject. He defines ideology as the stuff we don't know that we
know. In any event, there are certainly shallow moralists on both sides.

[0]:
[https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/ideology](https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/ideology)

------
djflutt3rshy
So long as advertising revenue rules everything around me, I don't see this
problem going away. Whether it's addictive right-wing videos or addictive
left-wing videos, websites like YouTube will always prioritize "engagement"
and adviews over safe and neutral and boring and reliable. Good times...

------
gjsman-1000
Quick Question: You are worried about right-ring rabbit holes, NYT.

If I watched a bunch of NYT, Vox, and other such videos, are you _sure_ I
wouldn't be sucked into a Left-wing rabbit hole?

~~~
runarberg
I think there is a fundamental difference though. At some point the far right
will start to promote really hateful messages such as anti-gay, anti-jew,
anti-woman, etc. At the far left end, on the other hand, the hate is stared at
the capitalist system and public figures benefiting from it.

~~~
pacala
At the far-left end:

A. Millions murdered based on class: independent farmers [0], intellectuals,
defined as anyone wearing glasses [1], entrepreneurs, professionals. Generally
anyone perceived as better off than their neighbor was at risk of being
labeled 'enemy of the people' by said neighbour and deported overnight into
the Gulag [2]. Or executed on the spot.

B. Millions deported based on ethnicity. Entire populations were moved around
USSR in the '30s, including Balts, Poles, Romanians, Tatars or Koreans, based
simply on their ethnicity, partly as an attempt to forcefully disassociate
them from their cultural legacy.

C. Millions murdered due to breakdown of basic economic structures. The great
famine of Ukraine in '32/'33, and Mao's great famine of the '59/'63 stand out
as marvels of far left ideology implemented by force in the economic sphere.

All in all, an estimated 100 million people lost their lives in the name of
far left ideology [6]. It is repugnant to gloss over recent history and
pretend there are no hideous monsters to be found.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekulakization)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
intellectualism#Democrati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
intellectualism#Democratic_Kampuchea)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_in_the_Soviet_Uni...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_in_the_Soviet_Union#The_Soviet_Gulag_System)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Sov...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union#Ethnic_operations)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao%27s_Great_Famine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao%27s_Great_Famine)

[6]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes)

~~~
runarberg
This is off topic since I (and parents) was specifically talking about youtube
creators. But sure, lets change the subject for a minute and talk about the
general ramification of far left and far right policies.

I could go hat for hat and mention all the murders and genocieds far right
regimes have conducted, regimes like Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile, etc.

But I could also go through all the disasters caused by capitalism like the
Bhopal disaster in 1984, or—the elephant in the room—global warming.

My third option would be to list all the social issues caused by unhindered
capitalism, issues like the housing crisis, or the worker conditions in the
late 19th to early 20th century.

But all this is conflating the fact that I would be blaming bad policies
enacted by ignorant, greedy, or even malicious people in the name of a
political or economical ideology, which is to say (at least in the case of
Franco and Pinochet) I’m confusing capitalism with fascism, something I see
quite a lot in the above comment. My point is that none of these (with the
notable exception of global warming) are the necessary consequences of far
left or far right policies.

Sure you could take me on this and claim that both far right and far left
people are capable of performing horrible things, and you would not be wrong.
And then again, I must point out that this is off topic, we are specifically
talking about youtube creators, of which you can find numerous example of far
right creators spreading hate towards a large generalized public while on the
far left you at worst find this hate spread towards public figures that
represent far-right ideologies.

------
__i___ii____
[https://youtu.be/HWc5_4uKOg8](https://youtu.be/HWc5_4uKOg8)

Molyneux's response to the article.

------
philshem
Lots of grey text in these comments.

------
0815test
It's nothing new, is it? [https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-
toxoplasma-of-rage...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-
of-rage/) (2014)

How many Tumblr radicals are out there? Both sides are doing it.

------
malicioususer11
personally, i can relate. but where are the Facts? :)

------
gjsman-1000
This piece of "journalism" is very biased towards the left. I have noticed
that the left has increasingly declared traditional right-wing values as
"extremist" or "alt-right" to attempt to whittle down what being right-wing
means.

An example of this is abortion. No matter how you feel about it, saying that
abortion is murder and should be banned is now, in the NYT's opinion, "alt-
right" and "extremist" even though about half of America believes so and this
has always been a Right-wing value.

Not only this, but this type of article is why the Right calls NYT "fake
news." Not necessarily "fake," but the bias is boldly visible. It doesn't help
with media credibility - and then the Left wonders why the Right doesn't take
newspapers seriously. For the record, I think "Fake news" is overused - but I
do understand, reading this, why the Right loves bashing NYT.

~~~
oh_sigh
The right has always hated abortion in recent memory, but I think you've gone
too far in saying that most conservatives think abortion is murder. Some of
the extreme rightists, usually of the religious variety, think that abortion
is murder, but rank and file conservatives will probably not tell you that
they a woman who gets an abortion(even illegally) should go to prison for life
for first degree murder and conspiracy(with her doctor).

~~~
IWeldMelons
The most interesting thing though, is that the Scandinavian Countries (the
leftiest in Europe) have the toughest regulations about abortions - the cut-
off term AFAIR is only 12 weeks vs 24 in USA.

~~~
username90
Sweden which is the largest Scandinavian country allows it up to 18 weeks with
no questions asked, after that you need to apply.

------
__i___ii____
I closed out of the article at the suggestion that the likes of Joe Rogan, Ben
Shapiro, and Dave Rubin are "radicalizing" anyone. The New York times is such
unbelievable garbage.

------
deogeo
> When Mr. Cain first saw these videos, he dismissed them as left-wing
> propaganda. But he watched more, and he started to wonder if people like Ms.
> Wynn had a point. Her videos persuasively used research and citations to
> rebut the right-wing talking points he had absorbed.

Good to know apparently none of the right-wing videos used research or
citations - only 'talking points'. Or at least it wasn't mentioned.

