Media websites have been attacking YouTube’s credibility and their advertisers for some time, and the attacks have only been increasing.
The latest attack by The New York Times,
In their article called “The making of a YouTube radical”, explores the life of a man who became far-right after watching videos on YouTube.
They use right-wing comedian Steven Crowder as one of the people that “radicalized” said man to become far-right.
Many in the media believe that the YouTube algorithm “radicalizes” people by turning them to alt-right videos.
This theory has been based on a piece by “Data and Society” that is nothing more than an opinion piece.
For some reason those in the media that often cite this opinion piece, present this opinion piece as a factual study.
An actual study conducted by Mark Ledwich shows that the algorithm is more likely to recommend left-wing videos to viewers, rather than right-wing videos.
If one would watch videos about E3, it is extremely unlikely that an alt-right or an ISIS recruiting video would be recommended to watch next.
The YouTube algorithm has only one goal and that is to keep people on their platform for as long as they possibly can.
If a person watches a lot of horror videos on YouTube, the algorithm will feed more horror-related videos to the user.
If a person searches and watches videos of Alt-right speeches, then the algorithm will feed them more of the same.
Even though the algorithm was created with the sole purpose of ensuring viewer retention on the site, it has been tweaked over time.
If one would watch a video by right-wing comedian Steven Crowder, they would be recommended channels similar to what Steven Crowder produces.
In this example, it recommends Philip DeFranco, who is a liberal news reporter, PragerU, which is a conservative think tank, LastWeekTonight which is also a liberal comedy show and Fox News.
If a person would watch CNN videos, they’ll be recommended videos by MSNBC, Fox News, ABC News, BBC News and more in the same vein of video content.
This makes radicalization from YouTube videos very unlikely.
Many think that the attacks from Vox, New York Times, and similar outlets have nothing to do with combatting or exposing racism, sexism or bigotry, but rather to try and preserve their own company for as long as they can.
Media companies like Vox and the New York Times had massive lay-offs, due to decreasing interest.
Social Media websites like YouTube attract more viewers, and it is unknown as of yet if that’s due to the size of the website, or because people gravitate more to watching a video, rather than reading a story.
A few days ago CNET launched an attack on YouTube because they were distraught by the fact that some content creators were negative about certain games.
Senior writer, graphical designer.
Studied research and design in Japan for 4 years, lived in the Netherlands for 7 years to work at Endemol, Orlando is the best place.
When in doubt, blame the editor.