
Was this Google Executive deeply misinformed or lying in the New York Times? - DyslexicAtheist
https://www.fast.ai/2019/05/28/google-nyt-mohan/
======
DannyBee
For someone so pissed off about what they perceive as misinformation, there
are simple facts here that are just false.

"As background, Mohan first began working in the internet ad industry in 1997
at DoubleClick, which was aquired by Google for $3.1 billion in 2008. Mohan
then served as SVP of display and video ads for Google for 7 years, before
switching into the role of Chief Product Officer for Google’s YouTube."

Err when Google closed DoubleClick, he was " Product Management Director for
Ad Serving, reporting to Susan Wojcicki, VP of Product Management." Not a
senior exec, not "SVP of display and video ads".

He was promoted to VP in 2009, and SVP in late 2015. I'm too lazy to look up
when the other job titles switched.

Seriously, this stuff is just not hard to get right, and if you are going to
take someone else to task for misinformation, why are you not doing everything
in your power to get it right (especially since this person seems to believe
it's so easy).

My best guess is she grabbed this stuff off a linkedin profile or something
without bothering to actually try to verify it (which you should, since lots
of people only list the job title they left with, not what they had).

I haven't bothered to fact check the rest of the claims, and the article is
otherwise interesting, but seriously.

If you are going to try to run someone down, can you at least bother to get
the data right?

Is this really the best we can do?

~~~
pbiggar
Really disappointed in this comment. Based on some nitpicking which isn't even
correct [1], you're dismissing the entire article. Google's role in spreading
conspiracy and hate is serious stuff, and given you're a googler, fairly
prominent on HN, and from my past interactions and opinions of you, I expected
much better than this.

[1] Not to get into the semantics of this, but when you say "when Google
closed DoubleClick, he was " Product Management Director for Ad Serving,
reporting to Susan Wojcicki, VP of Product Management."", that does not
contradict text you quoted from the article. So the only claim you have is
that the article called him an SVP for time when he was a VP.

~~~
DannyBee
It's not nitpicking. I spent a little time after I wrote this fact checking
more, and i didn't edit to include the other clearly wrong facts in this
article as a way of being nice to the author. Also, because i won't have a lot
of time to be on HN today, and people take no response as a sign of "no good
argument" instead of "not gonna spend all my time on a forum".

There are _plenty_ of issues here to go around here. Go, try to verify facts
yourself.

[1] This is wrong. "Mohan then served as SVP of display and video ads for
Google for 7 years, " _Then_ , as in, the 7 years after the doubleclick
acquisition. That is wrong. He was not a VP, SVP, or in charge of display and
video ads. He was in charge of one thing for a while, got promoted, and 7
years later, ended up SVP as both.

This shit matters. You are trying to argue essentially they could have just
deleted this paragraph. Which I doubt. They are trying to make the point that
this person has been a super senior person who has been doing this role a long
time who should know better, and they simply haven't been.

If they want to make a correct and weaker argument, awesome, they are welcome
to do that.

You don't get to just gloss over it.

Especially when taking other people to task for not apparently knowing
something.

~~~
tropdrop
I'm going to quote the facts you provided earlier:

When Google closed DoubleClick, he was " Product Management Director for Ad
Serving, reporting to Susan Wojcicki, VP of Product Management." She made no
claims about what position he had at DoubleClick. She just said "Mohan first
began working in the internet ad industry in 1997 at DoubleClick." This is not
an error.

Then, you said: "He was promoted to VP in 2009, and SVP in late 2015. I'm too
lazy to look up when the other job titles switched." Meaning, that you
correctly point out she should have said "Mohan first served as VP, then SVP
of display and video ads for Google for 7 years." Instead, she said "Mohan
then served as SVP of display and video ads for Google for 7 years"

So, that is 1 minor, incorrect detail in the article that you've identified -
an extra "S" onto "VP". What are some of the other "clearly wrong facts" that
we should just trust (appeal to authority?) you spotted? If you have no time
and are "too lazy," as you say, why choose to spend your time attacking the
most minor detail instead of the most egregious and appalling incorrect fact?

Seems to me like you couldn't find much else wrong with the article.

------
ggggtez
Except... Have it been shown that Google _did_ take action to change their
algorithms to describe misinformation, at the cost of a stock market hit in
January when they showed it decreased watch time?

I can't figure out what the author is complaining about. They obviously are
doing _something_ , enough for it to hurt their own bottom line.

~~~
thetrumanshow
There's probably a wee bit of presumption in connecting the dots like this,
but its an interesting set of dots to consider, and I wouldn't mind any
supporting links you have on this, opinion pieces or otherwise.

------
o10449366
Furthermore, why didn't NYT do more research into whether the executive's
statements were actually truthful? They've extensively investigated other tech
companies, but I've found their reporting on Google to be lackluster by
comparison.

------
SpicyLemonZest
Is there some specific factual claim that the author believes was false, or
does "lying" just refer to framing the issue differently than she'd prefer?

~~~
tropdrop
Claim is pretty straightforward. Mohan blames viewers and takes no
accountability for any extremism on YouTube, repeatedly failing to acknowledge
the role of autoplay. This paragraph summarizes it nicely:

"Even the reporter interviewing Mohan seemed surprised, at one point
interrrupting him to clarify, “Sorry, can I just interrupt you there for a
second? Just let me be clear: You’re saying that there is no rabbit hole
effect on YouTube?” (The “rabbit hole effect” is when the recommendation
system gradually recommends videos that are more and more extreme). In
response, Mohan blamed users and still failed to give a straightforward
answer."

~~~
rthrowayay
I'm not sure how it is not a problem of the users. The up next recommendation
is a product of your past behaviour and aggregate behaviour from other users.
If you keep on watching 'wrong think' content then yt is going to keep serving
it to you. They basically want yt to censor wrong think from their platform
even if this content is engaging with their userbase.

~~~
mthoms
The claim is that conspiracy content is more sticky than other content, and
since the algorithm is optimized for stickiness, it's naturally inclined to
skew in that direction.

In other words, starting from any random keyword... the algorithm is naturally
inclined to skew towards conspiracy videos in its recommendations.

At least that's what the article (and the sources it cites) are alleging.

------
duckqlz
I love how quick we are to blame the problem on an algorithm or poor
moderation when it is clearly a systemic issue, where by, the demand for such
content is driving its popularity which in turn increases the likelihood of
suggestion. As a society it's as though we look at youtube through a chicken
and egg style of viewing. Did YouTube radicalize society or was society always
radicalized but less visible? Either way there clearly has to be some action
beyond hiding the problem which can actually address the underlying issue.

------
Causality1
The way Youtube suggests videos has been borked in favor of sensationalism and
popularity for a while now. It used to be if you were watching "Cooking Steak
Part 2" the first suggested video was "Cooking Steak part 3" and the second
suggested video was "Cooking Steak Part 1" and the third suggestion was
"Cooking Chicken Part 1". Now it's a dead guarantee that not only will the
suggested videos not be the next one in the sequence, it won't have anything
to do with what I'm currently watching. It's utterly worthless.

~~~
pessimizer
Good to know I'm not the only person that has to leave youtube and go to
duckduckgo to find the next video of a clearly marked series _on youtube._

Or failing that, go to the user page, try to stop the autoplay on time, go to
the uploads page, and scroll around until I see it.

I will never cease to wonder what all of the talented programmers at google
are actually doing all day.

~~~
sieabahlpark
Working on ways to copyright strike everything.

------
pessimizer
Gamers with a taste for multi-hour reactionary rants over still images leave
them playing while they game with the sound off. If you're trying to maximize
time spent watching, the current situation is an inevitability.

------
ronilan
I just found this recommended video on my YouTube app homepage:
[https://youtu.be/WpMRV0r08CI](https://youtu.be/WpMRV0r08CI)

Uploading channel has 2667 subscribers (I’m not one of them), has only ever
uploaded 5 videos, starting about a month ago. All videos are of the same
topic. 4 of the videos have views in the low thousands. The recommended one
has 2 million.

Content wise, the video is 2:27 long, unedited fixed cam footage. It is true
to the title and delivers on its promise.

I have nothing further to add.

------
fearai
does the author just have a problem with "autoplay" vs the user clicking on
the videos?

i had to read over halfway just to find out what the google exec said. here is
the quote of contention, i think

"“I’m not saying that a user couldn’t click on one of those videos that are
quote-unquote more extreme, consume that and then get another set of
recommendations and sort of keep moving in one path or the other. All I’m
saying is that it’s not inevitable.”"

------
isoskeles
> More recently, YouTube has been aggressively promoting content from Russia
> Today (RT), a Russian state-owned propaganda outlet.

The author is a moron.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments or personal attacks here, regardless
of how uninformed anyone else is.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
officialchicken
> YouTube is using machine learning to pump pollution into society. From my
> TEDx talk.

Ok, but I can't take TED-related content seriously either. At least YT has
some redeeming content.

------
Dirlewanger
I find it funny how worried the author is about YouTube is promoting "distrust
of mainstream media". Not excusing all the crap YouTube will put in one's
sidebar, but when we have mainstream outlets like Politico posting egregious
and inexcusably racist hitpieces like this
([https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-
sa...](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/05/24/bernie-sanders-
millionaires-226982), also that title was changed from "Bernie Sanders might
still be cheap, but he's not poor" \-- I'd have never found out if it weren't
for YouTube recommending me the fabulous Jimmy Dore Show who pointed this
out), I don't know how you can continue to visit _any_ website deemed
mainstream anymore.

