YouTube makes money by showing ads on videos people watch. If they show people the videos they want to watch, they get to show more ads before someone stops watching YouTube for the day. This incentives YouTube to surface the videos that people will watch for the longest time with no regard for anything but their advertisers’ willingness to have their ads played on said videos.
Also it’s expensive to moderate a platform so big that one in three humans uses it.
I haven’t. People were justified in their anger, and let that anger out in the way they could. That’s why you shouldn’t give people a reason to be justifiably angry and instead meet the needs of the people without abusing them. The acquittal of those cops told people that the law didn’t apply to law enforcement. If the law doesn’t apply equally, why should it be viewed as anything other than tyranny?
Google is currently defending itself in the US Supreme Court over a lawsuit that alleges they assisted the terrorist group ISIS in recruiting members after it was found the YouTube algorithm promoted ISIS recruiting videos to young men who later committed a terrorist attack.
So to answer your question using Google’s argument: they have so many videos that an advanced search feature is required to make the site usable. Their search feature only suggests things that are popular. It’s not their fault ISIS recruitment (or other violent content) videos are popular.
The counter argument is: Google is curating content by displaying things people didn’t search out themselves. This is direct promotion by Google itself and therefor it should be treated as if they are the publisher of that content. Anyone publishing violent content should be held liable for it.
Yeah, except it gets more complicated than that. Google wouldn’t necessarily be promoting it either. As their algorithm looks for popular searches. Terrorism seems to be an overly used word for comparing protests to terrorism.
As an example, I live in a pretty red state. I would consider my self democrat/liberal in this state. When the George Floyd protests were happening a lot of people in my state were referring to the non-protest raids as terrorism. Despite the fact they will all defend the very clear terrorism on the capital as an attempt to save the U.S.
Point being you take the word protest and terrorism. You set it side by side as an exaggeration for literally anything half the the country disagrees with and boom you get popular terrorists searches.
I also don’t think Google isn’t at fault since their algorithm is designed to continue feeding that kind of content and the deeper you go the more ingrained into content you get and the more insane it gets.
So wait, is Google only suggesting things that are popular, or are they displaying things people didn’t search out themselves? How do they prove that in court, do they need to show their source code or something?
I’m not a lawyer and haven’t read through the court documents, but from legal commentators it seems that Google provides the general steps for how their algorithms work in plain language for the judges to consider. Even then, the Supreme Court itself has stated they have no clue how technology works so this is difficult for them to rule on
What prevents Google from lying about how their algorithms work, though? How could it actually be verified? There’s no way it could just be as simple as they give their word and suddenly that’s good enough for a court ruling?
Everyone will have their personal perspective on certain protests based on a number of factors.
A lot of people wanted the BLM riots shut down with lethal force because of the senseless violence and destruction in some cities. Otoh, some people thought they didn’t go far enough. Someone whose city was destroyed would have a different perspective than someone whose city was just fine. People might have different views based on their view of the black community and their relationship with the rest of American society.
A lot of people thought the trucker convoy in Canada was a just fight against oppression, but many people thought they were just a bunch of antivaxx confederate Nazis and thought the use of any level of violence was justified because they were disrupting people’s lives and they were secretly trying to clone Hitler. There was a broad spectrum of views and they only represented a piece of that spectrum.
Real politics is usually more complicated than just good vs. evil, it’s really hard having one set of rules that apply equally and equitably to diverse people.
Saying cities were ‘destroyed’ is a bit hyperbolic. Even the cities with the craziest riots, like Portland just had a block of the city dedicated to it. The Capital Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ), that the news used to make Portland Seattle look like a warzone, only covered 2 intersections of the city.
I think the point they were making was that someone whose home, safety, or means of income were damaged or destroyed would have a different perspective than someone who wasn’t adversely affected, regardless of the big picture.
Oh I agree with that statement, the original comment just needs to be narrowed down. Nobody’s city was destroyed. Some people had their business properties destroyed, but I imagine most of the shops that were broken or burned had some sort of insurance, and most of them avoided bankruptcy.
I do feel bad for anyone whose livelihood was affected by that, though. I think a lot of the rioters’ anger was misplaced. I especially feel bad for any of smaller businesses that were affected. Walmart and Target can handle all of their stores being burned, but your local mom and pop shop might not bounce back from that.
The problem is you framing protesters as rioters. There were relatively very few rioters and a lot of them were simply opportunists who would have been rioting regardless of what the protests were about. Bad actors exist everywhere.
It was the riots that most people I know of had problems with. The violence, the destruction of property (500 million dollars in Minneapolis alone, which is a lot), Secoriea Turner, an 8 year old little girl who was shot to death during protests for the crime of her parents trying to turn the car around in a Wendy’s parking lot. And the opportunistic looting done in the name of the “protests” and defended in the establishment media (how many news and opinion shows had that piece of garbage who wrote the book “In defense of looting” on?)
On the other hand, I was uncharitable in both my examples. Do you think the Canadian truckers were trying to secretly clone Hitler?
In the same post you’re whining about, I said that the trucker protesters were trying to secretly clone Hitler. Apparently you missed that there was all kinds of hyperbole.
Multiple individual residences and at least two apartment buildings in Chicago, for starters, and that’s just the first examples I found in a ten second Google search.
A friend of mine was giving a play by play of the destruction in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and the way she described losing some of those buildings and the meaning some of them held was heartbreaking.
I thought about my own city, and there’s a lot of really old mom and pops that, if some mob burned the building down, are never going to be rebuilt. My city like the areas of many of those cities, are economically depressed, most things we have out there are 70 years old from the economic good times back when the factories were still running.
It’s easy to discount when it isn’t something you care about being destroyed, but think about it it was your favorite restaurant, favorite gaming bar, favorite corner store or book store. You can say it doesn’t matter, but it matters a whole lot to someone.
CHAZ was in Seattle and it was massively overblown by the media. I live here. It was like two square blocks and mostly full of young people treating it like a festival.
Also worth noting that a study show a lot of the violence was started by cops, and then people reciprocated. Another study noted 90-95% of the protests were peaceful.
Only bigots call them riots, to push a political narrative.
Yeah real politics is complicated and messy but that doesn’t mean we should demonize the act of fighting for our rights. And that is the thing that I am worried about. That people are starting to see fighting for your rights as a bad thing.
Yes. They’re happily ignorant about everyone but themselves. They believe we achieved perfect equality in the 60s. And that Obama marked the end of racism. Not it’s resurgence.
Their own struggles are everyone else’s fault. Everyone else’s struggles are their own fault. It’s stupidity and its final form.
And there are plenty of groups out there that know how to create …engaging… videos, specifically for the purpose of getting people to hate the Other of the Week. Wouldn’t want the peasants to figure out who’s really screwing them…
Honestly, the anti-establishment left and the anti-establishment right have a lot they could agree on if there wasn’t so much media pointing out the few things they disagree on (or inventing things to disagree on)
Add comment