The intellectual dark web

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by nik-

I'm fine with these guys getting banned, but I think the necessary change is to YouTube's algorithm so if someone views some reprehensible video it doesn't proceed to pummel them head first down the rabbit hole to keep their emotional levels ramped and thus their engagement time higher.

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.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

So I watched this. Then I watched the next one from the same channel.... auto play into a 3rd. With a 45 minute ad... a man telling men what toxic things women “really want”. Dropped a couple buzz words like “simp”... wtf YouTube?

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Bro, never EVER ride the algorithm.

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Yup I got a glimpse of what Corsi was talking about a few weeks ago. Yikes.

Yeah, this #### can be dangerous.

(Total side track topic, you’re right. Sorry).

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As PepsiFree noted, this is a huge problem with YouTube's algorithm. It doesn't choose what to show you based on what it thinks you'd enjoy. It chooses the next video based on "engagement", and videos expressing extremist political views (especially extremist right-wing views) tend to drive much higher engagement metrics than other types of videos.

A few years ago, I went looking for a review for a video game I was thinking about buying. After loading the video I was looking for, I took a glance at the recommended videos section on the right. The first two recommendations were other videos about the same game, which makes sense. The third was a video about a different game within the same genre. The fourth video was "Watch Ben Shapiro DESTROY a College Feminist with FACTS and LOGIC". After that it went completely off the cliff into right-wing crazytown.

If you're older than ~25 or so, you probably use YouTube by either clicking a direct link someone sent to you (or posted on this forum) or by manually browsing directly to the YouTube homepage and typing a query into the search bar. That's not how young people use YouTube. They have a selection of channels and content creators they follow and then let the autoplay next video feature determine what they see next. Since the algorithm invariably leads to someone expressing extremist views within the first few recommendations, I see this becoming a vector by which easily impressionable kids and teenagers are radicalized.

Relocating this conversation.

[nik-]

#### man, I was just joking!

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by nik-

#### man, I was just joking!

Haha I took that from the nerds comment, but you weren’t wrong either. It’s a direct continuation of the same topic.

I wasn’t afraid of backlash, I was looking for further comment.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

#### man, I was just joking!

Take it to the... uh... stand up comedy thread? nerd?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Take it to the... uh... stand up comedy thread? nerd?

It's too rapey in there.

[Itse]

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.

[Cliche]

bari-weiss-resignation-new-york-times-1234706072/

“Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor,”

“Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.”

“Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.”

She does have a joe rogan episode (1415)


https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/media...mes/index.html

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Her actual resignation letter is here.

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Everything in that letter that can be gleaned from an outside look at the current state of the NYT is entirely correct. Everything that relates to internal politics is unfortunately unsurprising. The paper of record has, more and more, become an utter parody of itself and seems determined to validate as many of the outlandish things right-wingers allege about it as it can.

Originally Posted by Bari Weiss

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

What a waste.

[White Out 403]

sad. ill be unsubscribing from the daily. its getting hard to find a place to get decent news and opinion. i like 538 but they have this one shrill woman who's horribly anti conservative and doesn't try to be neutral at all

[Lanny_McDonald]

Bari Weiss plays the victim card? Shocking. She should stop claiming to be of a particular mindset or political affiliation and instead observe her own words and actions. The results of the slightest bit of introspection would likely surprise her and hopefully cause a change or course.

[Nyah]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1283084318110294018?s=09

You don't have to agree with her, you don't have to like her writing. If her allegations on the editorial process at the NYT is true however, it's incredibly disturbing. Press should always be tackling unpopular, even controversial topics. The press bending over to Twitter mobs, "woke" activists and "right-think" only writers seems very Orwellian.

Her allegations need to be proven, obviously. Again though, if they're true, it's really messed up.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

You're acting like anything she said was at all surprising. This isn't some new revelation that's never been talked about before. Hell, people have reported on actual NYT slack conversations in the past year or so. Not sure what you thought was going on there.

Anyway, the character assassination to discredit her point has begun in earnest, so expect no lessons to be learned here.

[PsYcNeT]

Bari Weiss has been assassinating her own character for years, continually pretending to take a stand on issues but immediately cozying up to disgusting characters to avoid losing her press pass and "access".

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You're acting like anything she said was at all surprising. This isn't some new revelation that's never been talked about before. Hell, people have reported on actual NYT slack conversations in the past year or so. Not sure what you thought was going on there.

Anyway, the character assassination to discredit her point has begun in earnest, so expect no lessons to be learned here.

I’m not sure how you want people to feel. “Check our this Bari Weiss resignation! But don’t be surprised because we knew all this already, and don’t listen to her critics because they’re just assassinating her character.”

Maybe just let people respond to it however?

It seems like a fairly toxic place to be, and Weiss seems like a fairly toxic person to be around. Here I would’ve thought they’d make a good match.

[PsYcNeT]

I mean it always felt like her and Bedbug Bret Stephens were just there to crank out the dumbest opinion pieces possible to generate Twitter interactions.

[CliffFletcher]

Anyone who thinks these internal purges of wrongthink in newsrooms is normal is kidding themselves. We're witnessing a fullblown moral panic in the media. Journalists have traditionally been a pretty cynical but collegial bunch, and denouncing your own colleagues at a paper was unheard of. But we're seeing it more and more.

Like the liberal reporter who tweeted a comment from a black protester who wished more attention was paid to black-on-black violence. Some colleagues were outraged at the tweet, and only after the mandated confession of guilt and moral expatiation was he allowed to return to work.

When did journalists become so censorious and intolerant of dissent? I expect it has something to do with the near-collapse of the industry over the last 15 years, and the dramatically narrowed prospects of those entering the vocation. No longer able to plausibly offer prospects for regular employment, journalism must attract people for other reasons today. Presumably, social advocacy is near the top of the list.

Another observer has noted that the primary loyalty of reporters today is to their social media tribe, not their employer and colleagues. And we know that extreme partisanship has become the norm among the extremely online.

What I still don't understand is why so many educated people (and it is the educated professionals we're talking about - studies show the blue collar and working class have much more politically diverse workplaces and tolerance of different political POVs) have come to believe that they're morally tainted just by working in the same place as someone who disagrees with them politically. As if they can become contaminated by association.

[PsYcNeT]

[Cliche]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1138210949461159936


https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...tical-cartoons

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Anyone who thinks these internal purges of wrongthink in newsrooms is normal is kidding themselves. We're witnessing a fullblown moral panic in the media. Journalists have traditionally been a pretty cynical but collegial bunch, and denouncing your own colleagues at a paper was unheard of. But we're seeing it more and more.

Well that was back when reporters were paid to do the same thing - go out and do actual reporting and follow a story where the facts lead them. Mass media has changed dramatically. Mass media is now a profit center and the opinion pages have been loaded with various firebrands and bomb-throwers construed to be or claiming to be journalists. You can call this the Fox News Effect. Fox lives on an aggressive blend of injecting opinion into news and giving the impression of doing journalism. The success they have achieved has pretty much altered the course of journalism and split the workforce. Journalists (the real ones) don't like being tarred by the same brush as these agents provocateur so there is going to be natural friction. If the news rooms would go back to focusing in on news instead of infotainment this problem would cease to exist.

Like the liberal reporter who tweeted a comment from a black protester who wished more attention was paid to black-on-black violence. Some colleagues were outraged at the tweet, and only after the mandated confession of guilt and moral expatiation was he allowed to return to work.

Ah yes, its always the liberals.

When did journalists become so censorious and intolerant of dissent? I expect it has something to do with the near-collapse of the industry over the last 15 years, and the dramatically narrowed prospects of those entering the vocation. No longer able to plausibly offer prospects for regular employment, journalism must attract people for other reasons today. Presumably, social advocacy is near the top of the list.

It has everything to do with the loss of the Mayflower and Fairness Doctrines. When the media was no longer compelled to tell the truth to the public (thanks Fox News) the legitimacy of their work became open to question and them open to ridicule. When truth doesn't matter, and alternative facts become the basis for an industry, then intolerance is sure to develop and quickly spread. When there are two sets of rules in anything, what is certain to happen?

Another observer has noted that the primary loyalty of reporters today is to their social media tribe, not their employer and colleagues. And we know that extreme partisanship has become the norm among the extremely online.

Yeah, that's bull####. You're conflating the opinion pages with the news section. The vast majority of reporters do what they do in pursuit of the facts and sharing that information with the reader. Unfortunately most news rooms are now run by people without backgrounds in journalism and more focused on entertainment and ratings. Those individuals who control the news hole are the ones who determine whether something makes the cycle or not, and they are the ones who have a finger on the social media feed. If a reporter takes to twitter it is likely because these gatekeepers are spinning a story or holding an important issue back in favor of some other less important but more salacious story. If reporters have a tribe it is the one in search of truth.

What I still don't understand is why so many educated people (and it is the educated professionals we're talking about - studies show the blue collar and working class have much more politically diverse workplaces and tolerance of different political POVs) have come to believe that they're morally tainted just by working in the same place as someone who disagrees with them politically. As if they can become contaminated by association.

Oh look, another Cliff Fletcher attack on educated people. Going to need to see some of these studies, because that does not align with observable behaviors. Education is the door way to diversity of thought and opinion. Go to a worksite and check out the bumper stickers. Not likely to find a diverse bunch in any shape or fashion let alone politically.