Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Couldn't have said it better. The issue with something like this isn't so much Molyneux being "silenced" as Youtube getting kudos for doing right by the people who want Molyneux silenced, while continuing to push content in a manner that is obviously harmful. The whole business model is the problem. Banning Molyneux makes, effectively, zero difference in that regard. With or without him, crazy town Youtube is alive and well and still being pushed by the algorithm.
|
While I generally agree, I will play YouTube's advocate a bit here.
It's a step in the right direction, and considering how much power they wield over who gets to have their voices heard, it's not necessarily a bad thing that they are moving slowly in this area.
We also have to remember that since the algorithms are mostly secret, it would be difficult for YouTube to advertise if they were trying to make changes to their algorithms.
I'm also thinking this is likely not a trivial issue to fix, technically speaking. When there is way too much content to label and identify by hand, how does a machine make a difference between "this guy is looking at Iron Maiden videos, let's show him interviews by people in that band and other similar bands, metal guitar lessons, more metal videos etc." and "this guy is looking at Stephan Molyneux videos, let's show him more stuff that will convince him women are bad, white genocide is real and Hillary Clinton is a lizard". There's likely no clear difference between those two rabbit holes when an algorithm is looking at them.
On top of that, targeted ads are where YouTube makes it money. If you watch creepy misogynist videos, that message will quickly be emphasized with creepy misogynist ads.
I'm honestly not sure what other low hanging fruits there are than outright banning the worst, most popular channels. The most popular channels are after all the only ones it's realistic to keep a close eye on, because there's a limited amount of them.