As Germans Seek News, YouTube Delivers Far-Right Tirades

I suppose this is what people do in YouTube, Facebook and twitter. I like YouTube for listing to music, but never end up down the rat holes described here. Perhaps all these various platforms are just no longer appropriate. They’ve become like some kind of obscene material with no redeeming social value at all. I guess I have to quit YouTube now. Never did use fb or twitter. Don’t think I’m missing anything.

Would it be so awful to require Google’s YouTube and others to use neutral algorithms? According to the article, such algorithms would result in a complete spread, from mainstream news to the fringes. A little less greed by social media companies could go a long way to restoring a little tolerance and civility.

YouTube is the same as the German MSM but in reverse. In the US, the news is polarized - MSM being left-leaning and Fox news, right. In the US, an independent thinker can at least have a choice of new outlets and can read pieces from both poles, and come to his/her own conclusions. The German news is only one-dimensional - left leaning. There is no equivalent to Fox, so the independently-minded Germans do not have much of an alternative. No wonder then about YouTube, it is filling a huge gap.

Did the Youtube personalities find joy in being cruel to old brown men? Perhaps saying they were only fit to live underground like goblins? Because that would be a really funny joke, wouldn't it.

YouTube, like Google, FB, and twitter, is in business to make a profit. As most don't subscribe to any paid content (do any?), the only way they survive is through ad content. To enhance monies made from ads, they must keep us watching, clicking on the next story - and they become more and more 'emotional' as one stays on the site. I use ad blockers, but those don't seem to work with these companies. But, it would be more honest to ask 'why' people gravitate to these emotional, if exaggerated or untrue, stories. Most of us wouldn't read a story about how Trump was really born on Mars, but we would read a story about 'immigrants' attacking women. Why? Because, in reality, there are more attacks on women in countries where the immigration influx was/is left unabated. The Nordic countries will not even track the perpetrators backgrounds; will not let it be document or reported. People living in those countries are not stupid. When news doesn't come objectively, it comes via word of mouth. With, or without the likes of YouTube. The real root cause is trying to assimilate economic immigrants that are not educated, not interested in western ideals (except for free stuff and access to money), and believe that host countries should accommodate them, not the other way around. You can outlaw all social media, shut it down yesterday, but you will not stop the angst brought on by intolerant immigrants that offer nothing of value to the host country.

Why would anyone go to YouTube for news and expect accuracy? If the media only goes after information on social media, we would not have endless stories of Trump's drivel and a closed system of information. Get out from behind the computer screen and pound the beat for news.

All these so-called-social media companies, run by ayn randian libertarians without much concern for anyone but themselves (remember rand’s aggrandizing of selfishness) don’t seem to give one whit of care that their algorithms promote those who care not a whit about liberty, except their own. It is truly shameful.

Oh I forgot to add, Trump probably watched this video already...can't wait for the tweet.

Social media sensationalizes EVERYTHING. That is its SOLE purpose because it is essentially nothing but a MARKETING TOOL. The reality is that these channels do NOT care what it markets. The algorithms ensure that once something starts to build, it keeps building until it goes viral. Isn't that the purpose of marketing? And this is the greatest invention of the current era? As a way to disseminate curated and legitimate information, it is failing because it is so pervasive yet random and without content editing. What the ethos of the Internet has encouraged is replacing freedom with CHAOS and propaganda for knowledge. This is how all human civilizations in history started their declines.

Our problems all began when we started depending on moving pictures instead of print to deliver the news. That was in the 1950s, with the advent of television. Up until then the spread of print media promised that that democracy would spread too, and with it, the Enlightenment dream of a universal civilization. Instead, the arc bent downward, with a new ruling class deploying moving images to effect localized changes, some for the better. With the internet, though, the tools have been stolen from the ruling class. The only real solution is to educate the next generation of voters to return to the printed word.

In some sense I feel that the essential views expressed by the author and the comments are correct: the extremist fringe(s) especially and the complicity of the conservative and a significant part of the neo-liberal elites were if not only an aid but also a major contributing factor in the rise of the far right. That is, it's rise not only in Germany but also in as telling examples as Great Britain's Brexit, or Italy's coalition, positioning itself as hostile to even legal immigration from African countries etc. Yet, to me it remains clear that the portrayal of this caustic feeling of trust in the dichotomy of an extra-popular struggle of the left against the right is not only misleading, but also harming. The resistance of the people coming together in Chemnitz should not be described as left-wing, but rather anti-fascist, as well as also anti-defamationist in long brewing defence of german nationals of turkish heritage. This emergence of hatred is not limited to, but quite prevalent on social media. YouTube, as described in the article, offers an array of characters trying to frame any and all occurrence in the frame of imminent take-over of migrants and non-western cultures etc. And this is where a standard of journalism demanded by every outlet has to set apart the vile and toxic comments and conspiracies perpetrated by an in some cases dangerous right wing insurgency and the significantly less viewed and less malicious commentary by the left. This sadly applies here.

We learned of the New Years Eve sexual assaults in Cologne Germany in the pages of the New York Times roughly 5 days after they had occurred. We learned in subsequent months not only that German police and news organizations colluded to avoid publicizing what had happened in Cologne, but that the same types of attacks had occurred in cities all over Europe. In each case, the news organizations of these countries were hesitant to report what had occurred. When well-meaning governmental organizations and news organizations decide that they must effectively censor the news and use it the way one would a ministry of propaganda, by suppressing news of events which don't comport with desired political goals, the populace will begin to ignore the official news and gravitate towards alternative news sources. In the past, this proneness to conspiratorial thinking was something that predominantly plagued countries without a free press, but nowadays it has metastasized to the US and the EU. At the end of the day, the solution to this isn't to rail against bigotry, racism and far right movements, but to demand greater objectivity and less bias (and suppression of relevant events and details) from our news organizations.

"A YouTube spokeswoman declined to comment on the accusations, saying the recommendation system intended to “give people video suggestions that leave them satisfied.”" Gee, sounds like a cigarette company spokesperson back when they were denying the link to cancer and all the other illnesses their product causes. "Google Removes 'Don't Be Evil' Clause From Its Code of Conduct" https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-f...

To be crystal clear about this, these Activists in Germany were protesting because a man and his friends we stabbed DOZENS (yep dozens) of times resulting in one mans death and the other two's hospitalization. This happened when these Good Samaritans were stopping these migrants from harassing a woman. It is very telling that the response from the migrants was violence. But I guess you can label all of the people who are tired of the violence and harassment "Far Right". Whatever fits your narrative right.... right.

Nowhere in this article do I see any published, peer reviewed research cited. It is based on the work of one independent "analyst", Ray Serrato. Or is this the work funded by Democracy Reporting International? https://democracy-reporting.org/teammembers/raymond-serrato/. DRI is a non-profit organization of perhaps only one but not more than 30 people scattered throughout the globe, (including six shareholders) led by Michael Meyer-Resende, and funded by the EC, and EU. https://www.devex.com/organizations/democracy-reporting-international-45399 Why not interview DRI directly? There must be other researchers that do credible work that the writer can also interview. https://democracy-reporting.org/team/ The internet is not prison. I can easily research any subject of interest, and freely visit other websites as I am doing now. Forgive me, but his is a serious subject that is not well served by the superficial reporting in this article, which is equally as bad as the propaganda machine it seeks to criticize.

I don't think that YouTube's extreme recommendations are limited to politics. If I click on any video I will most likely receive recommendations for videos on similar topics with titles indicating more extreme content. A lot of those titles typically contain words like 'extreme', 'insane' or 'crazy' and something in relation to the last couple videos I watched. In my opinion, this is problematic, because it leads users to content promoting dangerous or politically extreme behavior and views. I have to add that I disabled my viewing history a long time ago and have since found the recommendations to be better than before, still extreme as I described above, but seemingly less so.

Congrats to Angela Merkel you ruined a whole continent Wait to Sunday's Election in liberal Sweden. It's a shame what one person could.

I have six siblings. We are from a rural area but are progressive. My brother moved to California and was kind of isolated, and I think he just sat on YouTube in his spare time. It radicalized him. He became extremely right wing. Unapologetically racist, misogynistic, xenophobic... pro-guns, anti-welfare, pro-Christian... all of it was the Republican platform, but on steroids. This is absolutely being used as a brainwashing tool. YouTube is a megaphone, and its algorithms help promote sensationalism. These groups are using it to wage war on reality. Where is the accountability? They spread lies. These lies are creating real world problems. They are distorting reality. And I do not see the equivalent on the left. I see sensationalist labels on videos favoring liberal views: "Elizabeth Warren Destroys Trump Lackey" (all in red caps)... But then the video is just a United States Senator questioning someone. It is not some old British guy in a 1980s looking classroom talking about how the left has been commandeered by former Soviets to destroy the west through tolerance and diversity. They promote tribalism and conspiracies. My brother actually said "there is virtue in hating the right things." This is so much uglier and more powerful and more pervasive than your article actually acknowledges. I have seen it nearly ruin a person, and most days I feel like I am trying to save my brother from a cult. This has to stop.

Turns out that no, we all can't just live together. Some of us want to live with people that share our own culture and background and you know what ? That's ok too

The internet giants have zero interest in promoting legitimate, boring news. News organizations have reputation to worry about. Reporters attach their names to an article. Recommendation engines and social media feeds are faceless. These companies want to be seen as network providers, not news organizations. Fine. Then take a page from how AT&T was handled, when it was the monopolist. Regulated as a public good. With attention to how it served everyone. Social media spreads person to person, unlike broadcast or newspapers. Person to person media degrades, as the game of telephone shows. It's rumor. No one plays the game of telephone to hear straight talk. The point is to hear how distorted reality gets. Rumors attract interest because they disclose dangerous, damaging information. The growth of cable TV was based on getting them riled up. Even regular broadcast says "if it bleeds it leads." The problem was barely contained before the internet. Now Pandora opens. We need to put a sieve over it. Not censorship. Algorithms need to follow laws. News sources need to pass review. Today's algorithms are based on the citation model. But citations are peer reviewed. We need some kind of peer review online.

The freedom of speech protects desinformation, we can not fight it straight, youtube knows that. We have to counter them by forcing a diverse content to the audience. Force them to play a news feed from a reliable source, that can not be skipped, before any video. If they still delude the people to some violent content, make the news feed last longer, or talk about economics. That should add some pain and maybe, maybe the CEOs of youtube may rethink their strategy.

Who in their right mind goes to Youtube for news?