,
5 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
The whole story attempts to redirect responsibility for this one person's choices to Youtube in order to advance a narrative that the reporter created.
Hearing bad speech doesn't make you agree with it. It's a complete cop-out to blame radicalization on Youtube's algorithm.
Hearing bad speech doesn't make you agree with it. It's a complete cop-out to blame radicalization on Youtube's algorithm.
The goal here is to create support for the idea that social media companies are responsible for banning certain speech because that speech is dangerous. That doesn't prevent radicalization, it encourages it.
The way to counter bad speech is with good speech.
The way to counter bad speech is with good speech.
Also, one person (or even a few dozen) isn't a good sample size on which to make determinations about how a social media platform is impacting society. Is it possible there are other factors that led Cain down that path?
Note Roose is only interested in one type of radical. How many people become left-wing radicals at certain colleges?
Should we rethink Universities because they are radicalizing some people?
What about Mosques?
See the problem with judging by impact on a small group...
Should we rethink Universities because they are radicalizing some people?
What about Mosques?
See the problem with judging by impact on a small group...
Last point: Note the subject of the article hasn't really changed. He just became obsessed with left-wing Youtube personalities instead of the right-wing ones, which Roose sees as a positive. Their speech won him over.
Thus maybe the problem isn't with the youtube algorithm?
Thus maybe the problem isn't with the youtube algorithm?
