
YouTube Has Been 'Actively Promoting' Videos Spreading Climate Denialism - rahuldottech
https://time.com/5765622/youtube-climate-change-denial/
======
acd
I see a ethic issue with ai recommendations algorithms.

Say that YouTube’s algorithm optimizes to offer viewers content that they
would like to watch. This maximizes viewer platform engagement which maximizes
advertisement revenue.

Say a clinically depressed person starts to watch videos on YouTube. The
algorithms does what is does well. Optimize viewer retention and offers more
depressing videos to keep the viewer engaged. Viewer gets more even more
depressed?

What is the moral programming goals?

Same could be said for example of violent content. Viewer watches violent
content get offered violent content?

~~~
logicchains
Presumably an AI recommendation algorithm would be incentivised to at least
show videos that encouraged a depressed viewer to stay alive to keep viewing,
otherwise they'd get less engagement. Similarly encouraging viewers of violent
content to go out and commit violence (and probably be jailed) would result in
less engagement, so ideally the AI would learn not to do that.

~~~
thrwaway69
How many people suffering from depression actually attempt suicide after
watching a depressive video rather than just continuing?

My guess is, not many for AI to learn atm. [1] Students suffering from
depression are 3x more likely to attempt and do so when they are less
depressed. [3] US suicide rate is 14 per 100,000 (age adjusted and closer to
youtube viewers). [0] Taking worst case 25:1 ratio for successful attempts.
There would be 350 attempts for every 100,000. Let's say YouTube can somehow
narrow down it to students suffering from depression (one category). 3x
multiplier - 1050 attempts for 100,000. That's presumably only 1% of very
specific targeted audience. You need to decrease that 1% to match people who
will supposedly get triggered by a depressing video on YouTube. Conservative
guess is 10x less so 0.1% and [2] 7% people of total population suffer from
depression in US. Isn't that something around 0.007% of population?

What is the motivating factor for the algorithm? Profit. I just don't see how
it is magically supposed to learn that. In fact, individuals suffering from
depression are more likely to be profitable for youtube if it earns money
based on consumption alone.

Disclaimer: this is a quick broad guess. It can be pretty wrong.

0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attempt#epidemiology](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attempt#epidemiology)

1] [https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/depression-and-
su...](https://www.ukessays.com/essays/psychology/depression-and-suicide-
attempt-psychology-essay.php)

2] [https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-
report...](https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-
reports/NSDUHDetailedTabs2017/NSDUHDetailedTabs2017.htm)

3] [https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-
statistics/](https://afsp.org/about-suicide/suicide-statistics/)

------
perceptronas
Isn't it good that you can view both sides of the issue and decide for
yourself? Even debate could be seen as something that spreads "climate
denialism".

~~~
jstummbillig
I would argue that "deciding for yourself" is not as much a thing, as we would
like it to be and we are faced with a dilemma:

As humans we are dangerously incapable of reasoning about most of our
increasingly complex worlds' and societies' mechanics, while forming opinions
about them easily and quickly. _We treat hard to reason about issues, that are
not a matter of opinion, as if they were._

In this contact bias plays a huge role: The more people are subject to a
topic, the more important it will be to them. And the more people are
subjected to the idea of x being true on that topic, the more people will
think of x as true.

I can easily believe that YouTube (as in "the code") does not have an unfair
and systemic bias towards climate denialism. But yeah, if the algorithm pegs
climate denialism videos as content that keep people engaged (maybe because it
keeps them enraged) and keeps feeding them to more people, then I have no
doubt that it statistically will convince more people of those ideas – and
that is an issue.

------
mikaeluman
The mere word "denialism" is a scary sign of the times we live in.

Is the idea that anything that goes against the current "consensus" be
removed? And is this just regarding climate change or does it apply to how we
think about physics, statistics or even software engineering? Are you an
"agile denialist"?

This type of reasoning shows a profound lack of understanding of what free
speech is and why it's fundamental to our society. That involves catering to
people who produce/consume content that is not consensus-based, regardless of
whether they are right or wrong.

Did it even occur to these so-called journalists that if Greta wants to do
research prep for a debate against a "denialist", then it's a very useful
feature to be able to search for all their arguments and get them served to
you? Or should she and others just focus on censorship and deplatforming
instead?

~~~
speedplane
> The mere word "denialism" is a scary sign of the times we live in. Is the
> idea that anything that goes against the current "consensus" be removed? And
> is this just regarding climate change or does it apply to how we think about
> physics, statistics or even software engineering?

This isn't a free speech issue, no one is suggesting that this content be
removed from the internet.

The issue is that sites like YouTube don't just provide content, they also
promote it by showing people recommendations. No one is suggesting that
climate change deniers should be prohibited from expressing their views, just
that YouTube should not promote it.

Take a more extreme issue: flat-earthers. Someone who believes the earth is
flat should definitely be able to say so, but it's not a good idea for YouTube
to actively promote that viewpoint. It's also just as bad for YouTube to
present the issue purely as flat-earthers versus non-flat-earthers, as it
suggests there is some sort of balance between the viewpoints.

To the extent that YouTube is promoting content, they should do within some
bounds of reasonable consensus. If they refuse to police their
recommendations, they aren't improving free speech, they are just destroying
the existing mechanisms of consensus.

~~~
chr1
> but it's not a good idea for YouTube to actively promote that viewpoint.

I would argue it is very beneficial to promote flat-earther videos. Because
most people can see it being false, and can use the experience to learn to not
trust to everything. So it can be a kind of a vaccine.

~~~
speedplane
> I would argue it is very beneficial to promote flat-earther videos. Because
> most people can see it being false, and can use the experience to learn to
> not trust to everything.

Some people who watch those videos will be convinced the earth is flat. But
even the people that don't, that "use the experience to learn to not trust
everything", is also harmful. It's far more productive for YouTube, or any
institution, to build actually trustworthy institutions, rather than teaching
people to not trust anything.

------
g82918
I don't get the surprise. People want climate denialism. Youtube gives it.
They get paid. How is this unusual?

~~~
glerk
Traditional media publications like Time magazine are direct competitors of
YouTube. Their strategy here is to push this narrative that content
_platforms_ should act like active content editors/curators and be held to the
same standard. A piece like this is infuriating to read if you take it at face
value.

~~~
pdkl95
> Their strategy here is to push this narrative that content platforms should
> act like active content editors/curators and be held to the same standard.

Except this isn't just a "narrative" being pushed by Time; YouTube explicitly
_wants_ the power to curate and actively uses that power in their business
model: they curate ("recommend") videos to optimize engagement. If they want
to wield editorial power, they are need to be held responsible for the
consequences of their exercise of that power.

The traditional way to avoid this problem is to make the platform into a
_common carrier_ that explicitly and visibly segregates itself away from
anything that might be seen as using editorial power. The post office isn't
held responsible for someone mailing a threatening letter because they just
delivered the (sealed) letter and couldn't know anything about the content.

> direct competitors

Yes, as a publication that can be held responsible for their editorial
decisions, Time would like YouTube to be held to the same standard.

------
indigochill
This is rather uncanny timing as Youtube has been "suggesting" flat earth
videos to me despite my never once having had any interest nor watched any
videos about it or tangential topics. Something seems fishy.

And I mean, I find the notion that you could mathematically justify a flat
earth by rebuilding a different system of geometry that made it "true" within
that system and then seeing what all the other consequences of that system
would be pretty entertaining (same with the heliocentric vs geocentric model,
though that one's easier and even beautiful - Venus's orbit, for instance,
makes a rosette sort of shape if you use Earth as your frame of reference
rather than the sun). But still, it's not something I've ever looked at on
YouTube (or Google more generally) so I have no idea why I'm now seeing videos
about it while watching primarily music videos.

~~~
mercer
Are you by any chance an (American) Evangelical Christian? Or have you been
watching videos in that general 'area'?

I truly don't mean this to offend, but my experience with that particular
denomination is that it's rife with all kinds of 'out-there' theories, ranging
from anti-vax to young-earth creationism to harry-potter-gives-you-demons to
various apocalyptic anti-christ-will-rise beliefs.

I can sort of imagine that YouTube might make some connection between those
'out-there' beliefs (leaving aside whether they're true or reasonable or not)
and flat-eartherism, regardless of how different they might be in their out-
there-ness.

Again, I'm not saying this to offend or imply that Christians are inclined to
be flat-earthers; the vast majority of them that I know are not. I'm just
really curious how you might be getting flat-earth videos and this was the
first thing that came to mind.

