#YouTube Algorithms

[challzworld-blog]

YouTube: The Wild, Wacky Wonderland of the Internet

If the internet were a high school, YouTube would be that one kid who somehow knows everything, from how to fix a car to the exact mating habits of penguins, while simultaneously falling off a skateboard in the most spectacular fashion possible. YouTube is where you go to learn how to cook a perfect steak, only to end up watching a 3-hour documentary on the history of spoons. It’s a rabbit hole…

[prokopetz]

My YouTube recommendations have for some inexplicable reason become a solid wall of different pirated DVD rips of the opening number from the 1972 Bob Fosse adaptation of Cabaret, and frankly I'm not sure how much more of Joel Grey pogging at me I can take.

[maximizeyourmedicare]

Subscriber Offer: Free Copy and Medicare ABCs Webinar

Subscriber Offer: Free Copy and Medicare ABCs Webinar September 28, Noon ET Paid subscribers will receive a URL where the webinar will be available. New regulations require me to tell others whether your information will be distributed in any way: we have never distributed your information to others, we are not about start doing so. Lemme repeat what should be obvious. While there is no doubt…

[sleepymccoy]

what was done to make the legalization of gay marriage damaging there?

They ran a plebiscite, which is like a non mandatory opinion poll for the country

The thing was, the public demand from queer groups for gay marriage to be legal was so so high in 2017. 2017! Not ten years ago, of course it was common to be okay w gay marriage.

The Labor party were in opposition and had fairly calmly promised to legalise next time they were in power. The Coalition, who were in power, reaaallly didn't want to tho. Cos they're homophobes. But demand was so high that had to do something, so they did a plebiscite

Firstly, gay rights is not such a complex matter that the government can't figure it out themselves. We vote for them to represent us, this was the coalition going mmmm I don't wanna represent that, gross. Can the population do it for me?

Secondly, queer people are a minority. We're meant to be protected by the government. The government, the coalition, did not protect their citizens

What it meant was a public debate, with tv required to air equal weight to each side. And the coalition, the Australian government, ran vote no ads

So we had a big old public debate. With the coalition getting to hate on gay kids and tag it with 'sponsored by the Australian government, Canberra' tag at the end. It's very hard to find examples of this now, but different ads ran all night long. The love the community tried to pour out was not worth the hate that was supported to speak

This is an ad that ran before the plebiscite was announced, explaining the danger it could have

Here's the foreign minister being shown an ad that tells people to vote no, and her saying it's fine for that to play on prime time tv. It's wild, watch it

No gay organisation wanted the plebiscite. Once it happened they pulled their socks up and campaigned, of course, but it was devastating and devisive. I started wearing a rainbow flag as a wee 22ish year old and people threw slurs. The cruelty was on the street like it never had been before, and didn't need to be

The plebiscite passed with a yes vote

I can remember a lot of reporting around how 61.6% (yes votes) of 79.5% (total votes) is less than half. Less than half of the country gave enough of a shit to vote yes put the letter back in the mail box. Cunts.

The government then didn't pass it into law! No, they had a conscience vote, which means the ministers are not required to vote down party lines but can vote freely with no repercussions. Labor, in opposition, voted mostly yes. The coalition split the vote, but it did get over and gay marriage was dragged into law

Obviously it's good that we have gay marriage

Idve prefered we didn't subject our community to government sponsored vitriol for it. And I won't forgive the coalition ever. They are cowards. I would have absolutely preferred to wait three years and make an election of it

And I hate that they get to say they moved the country forward with this liberal equal rights agenda. Cos they didn't. They looked at their job, which is to make law, and found a novel way to step on the queers a little before doing that

[c-rowlesdraws]

Yes yes yes yess yes yes

[riacte]

youtube algorithm is so ass that when i searched up rendog hermitcraft 10 a false episode showed up instead

[moonshaunted]

Whoever runs the kitchen nightmares YouTube channel is my hero

[rachandroll]

lol at youtube that's kind of funny I wonder what song they picked—

ld;fkaslfklasf;lalds yes the one where the dramatic bisexual fishes for a kiss from her lesbian lover, of course, silly me

[bleaksqueak]

It is so unbelievably frustrating how the algorithm timeline keeps defaulting in a place that has been free of algo bullshit for so long. I cannot tell if it’s a glitch or if they’re just pushing it intentionally. It’s at least easy to go back to the following feed, but with bluesky users more and more depending on the discover feed and tumblr defaulting to the algorithm timeline it just feels like ‘be twitter’ is the shitty destiny being pushed everywhere.

Important video anyone should give a watch:

[l-in-the-light]

About his "trigger warnings"

I mentioned here on tumblr that I used to have a number one favourite book writer. I guess not anymore. After all the SA allegations and other stories that got leaked by people around him (his collegues, co-workers etc.), I realized he's an abusive asshole and I owe you all to say that openly here. And some of the assaults date back decades now, which means he didn't just wake up one day and changed into an asshole, he most likely was always one.

I read the foreword to his book Trigger Warning again. I feel like I took a peek beyond his fake persona there. He writes about trigger warnings like it's some exotic curious little trend that kids on the internet came up with, finds it a bit peculiar like a daddy trying to understand their kid's hobbies, then proceeds to use them like a funny teasers for his short stories ("can you find the big tentacle hidden among the pages somewhere?"), only to finish it all up with a punch straight to your face: real life doesn't have trigger warnings, so always watch out for yourself. On the surface level? This all sounds like a slightly misguided, maybe even witty intro. Nothing is said with malice, right? And yet, the message underneath it all was always to discredit trigger warnings as a concept. That's why that delivery line is at the very end of that intro. You're supposed to be lulled into agreeing how silly it all is. I dunno if he did it on purpose or did it without thinking much about it, by habit, but that intention is there and it's disguised with concern and attempts to sound kind. A peek beyond the nice guy mask. No wonder I could never finish that anthology of short stories. The cognitive dissonance caused by the foreword sticked with me like a bad aftertaste. My intuition told me this was all wrong, I just couldn't find the words to express it.

And you know why it works so well as a disguise and why we tend to believe he didn't do it on purpose? Because hey, he just said the facts, the truth! Reality indeed doesn't have any trigger warnings, what's wrong with saying that! Yes, that statement is true. Using real statements in carefully woven context to sell a lie, is an example of an excellent manipulation. So allow me to untangle it or, in other words, to reveal the magic trick behind it.

Why do trigger warnings exist? Isn't Gaiman right, aren't they counterproductive, you might think, because by avoiding triggers you will never get better at dealing with them? Indeed, here's the catch, because the answer isn't a simple yes or no here. Yes, often to recover from trauma, you need to expose yourself to it in some way - like for example, through exposure therapy (or even just classic psychotherapy). But also No, because there's no rule that says you will officially recover only after you're fine reading fiction about sexual assault (for example)! Some triggers will dimnish, some will not, and the best you can do for the latter is to avoid them altogether. Triggers are extremely personal, but you can learn to manage them, in ways that respect your own boundaries, but never by giving up your right to selfcare. You see the difference?

Back to therapy bit for a moment. To recover, often you need to go through with it. But here's the thing - you do it in *controlled environment*, accompanied by a specialist that is there to help and calm you down afterwards. And you only start to do that once you feel *ready* to face it. Now compare it to a situation of reading a book (yes, a book, which usually never has any trigger warnings, because that's such a silly fanfiction thing). You come upon your trigger without any warning, preparation or support around you, you're left with the aftermath of possible panic attack or other symptoms completely on your own. It might take you weeks to recover from it, because perhaps you weren't yet in any therapy that could help you manage your triggers more effectively. But then you tell yourself it's fine, minimizing your own emotional reactions, because *it was just a book*. But, you realize, even years later you still remember it and you might finally accept the harsh truth that you're still not fine with it.

Now imagine same situation, but the book did have trigger warnings listed. For example, about sexual abuse. You would see that and leave the bookstore without the book, because you would know you're not *ready* for that. And it's fine not to be ready, be it yet or ever. This is about consent and selfcare, both are essential to process through trauma and recover. The books without trigger warnings rob selfcare, consent and a choice from us. They teach us we should always ignore our triggers and push through. It's sadly a reality that is widely accepted so Gaiman is right, nothing in reality will flash you a warning. But he's also wrong: it doesn't mean we can't make the life a tiny bit easier for those of us who are traumatized, instead of leaving them with all of that on their very own. This part, he doesn't want you to even consider. He doesn't want you to imagine the positive side of living in a world in which real books warn you about triggers, because then it would prove that it *can* become a reality in which real things (like books) warn you of triggers. They can't shield you from everything, but that's also not the point: it's just to make some things feel more safe, for everybody.

(As a side note, being triggered is not the same as stepping outside your comfort zone - those are two different matters! Though yes, stepping outside your comfort zone in an extreme way CAN become traumatic as the result as well).

I guess Neil Gaiman just thinks some people are too sensitive and should just get over themselves. You don't need those warnings, they won't protect you anyway. Have you tried not getting traumatized? How dare you think your selfcare is more important than reading my questionable fantasies? You're missing out if you skip my book (that has no proper trigger warnings) and you have only yourself to blame! I provide you a safe environment to explore your traumatic triggers, you should be grateful! And how is your book providing a safe environment exactly, author? Did you even try to put a safety net there for your reader? Do you even care? Of course you don't. But you will pretend like you do: by providing a very ingenuine effort that is mostly meant to be a pat on your own back for cleverly dismissing the very concept of trigger warnings, while pretending to play along with it and exposing their lack of power in the process. Disguised as a coincidence, lack of understanding or unskillful attempt written by a slightly ignorant daddy-like figure. What an irony that you do it by nearly surgically focusing on the blind spots of the concept, proving at the same time you do know the mechanism behind it pretty well. You knew what you were doing and how you were doing it.

Or at least, this is how I see it: I might be wrong on the details, but I'm sure I caught the gist of the manipulative behaviour there. An abuser always wants you to step out of your comfort zone, get surprised by a trigger, and to make sure you're outside your safety net. Because then you're an easier target, more likely to agree to harmful things (be it real actions or just harmful beliefs delivered to you by the author of a book, like in case of *trigger warnings being pointless*). They want to groom you into thinking that you're just being silly and see things that aren't there.

Trigger Warning's foreword is exactly that and I feel disgusted, now that I finally recognize my own feelings about it. I probably didn't find words for it before, because I wanted to believe Gaiman had good intentions behind it, they just didn't work out very well. Except that was never the case and that's why it never felt right. That good intention was never there, but it sure *looked* like it was. Also it took me way too long to realize people do things like that on purpose. You know what, Gaiman? Thanks to gaslighting efforts like yours it took me also way too many years to accept that selfcare IS OKAY.

So many people now think nothing was ever genuine about Neil Gaiman because his nice guy mask slipped. A mask he used to hide his autism behind and appear neurotypical/feel accepted thanks to it. Whenever a really advanced mask like that slips, the cognitive dissonance becomes a huge gap between a mask and actual self in perception of other people. Still, your autism is not an excuse for things you do and say, and definitely doesn't excuse assault as simple miscommunication - and yes, he did try to justify lack of consent this way. "I'm autistic, I read the body language wrong and wasn't even aware of it". Hey, you could have, like, asked. There's no shame in getting confirmation in words :P but it's just a poor excuse anyway, the truth is he didn't care if it was wanted or not, as long as he got adoration and powertripping thrill out of that, and that's the best case scenario here.

I believe the allegations. I won't be able to read Gaiman's books anymore, I honestly can't see them the same way I used to anymore. I loved Coraline and The Graveyard Book, and Smoke and Mirrors. I feel disgusted knowing that he openly claimed to be a feminist while at the same time assaulted so many people and used emotional manipulation so they won't #metoo him. He even went as far as to claim "always believe the victims", but once the allegations flew his way, what did he do? Blamed the victims, even called them mentally ill! I also feel now like his books are also just full of deception, meant to hide harmful beliefs under quirky words and imaginative tales. And I might never be able to stop feeling this way and I don't owe him a second chance anyway.

Good Omens stays in my heart though, because sir Terry Pratchett put a lot of work into it and it shows. I feel like I would show him disrespect if I discarded it. Let's say it becomes a Gaiman Who Might Have Been But Never Was, for me.

[prokopetz]

In ongoing the-Algorithm-trying-to-figure-out-what-the-fuck-I-do-for-a-living news, my sponsored YouTube search results now consist exclusively of promotional videos for aerospace machining firms, which implies several fascinating things about its present conclusions.

[wintermav]

YouTube doing me dirty bc I didn’t search for this and now I’m 😭

[reasonsforhope]

"Is social media designed to reward people for acting badly?

The answer is clearly yes, given that the reward structure on social media platforms relies on popularity, as indicated by the number of responses – likes and comments – a post receives from other users. Black-box algorithms then further amplify the spread of posts that have attracted attention.

Sharing widely read content, by itself, isn’t a problem. But it becomes a problem when attention-getting, controversial content is prioritized by design. Given the design of social media sites, users form habits to automatically share the most engaging information regardless of its accuracy and potential harm. Offensive statements, attacks on out groups and false news are amplified, and misinformation often spreads further and faster than the truth.

We are two social psychologists and a marketing scholar. Our research, presented at the 2023 Nobel Prize Summit, shows that social media actually has the ability to create user habits to share high-quality content. After a few tweaks to the reward structure of social media platforms, users begin to share information that is accurate and fact-based...

Re-targeting rewards

To investigate the effect of a new reward structure, we gave financial rewards to some users for sharing accurate content and not sharing misinformation. These financial rewards simulated the positive social feedback, such as likes, that users typically receive when they share content on platforms. In essence, we created a new reward structure based on accuracy instead of attention.

As on popular social media platforms, participants in our research learned what got rewarded by sharing information and observing the outcome, without being explicitly informed of the rewards beforehand. This means that the intervention did not change the users’ goals, just their online experiences. After the change in reward structure, participants shared significantly more content that was accurate. More remarkably, users continued to share accurate content even after we removed rewards for accuracy in a subsequent round of testing. These results show that users can be given incentives to share accurate information as a matter of habit.

A different group of users received rewards for sharing misinformation and for not sharing accurate content. Surprisingly, their sharing most resembled that of users who shared news as they normally would, without any financial reward. The striking similarity between these groups reveals that social media platforms encourage users to share attention-getting content that engages others at the expense of accuracy and safety...

Doing right and doing well

Our approach, using the existing rewards on social media to create incentives for accuracy, tackles misinformation spread without significantly disrupting the sites’ business model. This has the additional advantage of altering rewards instead of introducing content restrictions, which are often controversial and costly in financial and human terms.

Implementing our proposed reward system for news sharing carries minimal costs and can be easily integrated into existing platforms. The key idea is to provide users with rewards in the form of social recognition when they share accurate news content. This can be achieved by introducing response buttons to indicate trust and accuracy. By incorporating social recognition for accurate content, algorithms that amplify popular content can leverage crowdsourcing to identify and amplify truthful information.

Both sides of the political aisle now agree that social media has challenges, and our data pinpoints the root of the problem: the design of social media platforms."

And here's the video of one of the scientsts presenting this research at the Nobel Prize Summit!

-Article via The Conversation, August 1, 2023. Video via the Nobel Prize's official Youtube channel, Nobel Prize, posted May 31, 2023.

[phizzyfrog]

Idk if anyone has noticed this yet (took me a 3rd playthrough to notice) but at the beginning of the game as Catfish is narrating you can see Huggin’ Molly hidden in the mountain in the foreground of the storybook, she’s watching Lacey as she drives home to Hazel 🥹🥹🥹 and its crazy bc I was wondering post-game how Huggin’ Molly knew that Lacey was in danger but playing the game again with wiser eyes really helps answer some ‘plot holes’ *heavy quotations*

And you know what, thats why I don’t trust game reviews anymore, especially by angry anti-woke white men

Anyway, PLEASE PLAY THIS GAME, and then play it again and again and again; and if you’re playing for free on Xbox Game Pass and if you can afford it, please buy the game!

[secondwheel]

Mad video suggestions

[dollsahoy]

Oh, look, another Murder Him video. Harder rock this time.

This band may have a theme (this one's heavier)

one more (no death in this one)