Just read an article in the NYT about yet another young man who escaped the brainwashing of the alt-right on YouTube and emerged--victoriously, it is implied--as a left-wing YouTube personality ultimately.
I think it's a good piece because it lays out the culpability of the YouTube algorithm convincingly. I generally have a dim view of the argument that our fraught political landscape is shaped by, or a result of the dereliction of, these massive tech companies. I believe that information openness and freedom of speech is essential, possibly the only route to, peace and stability and a positive politics. I also think that every shift in technology or institutions is followed by a period of adaptation, after which equilibrium generally regains in a plain that is newly, thanks to technology, more elevated than it was before. Anyway, this article helped me understand the algorithms of YouTube as more of a catalyst than a platform, and as far as that argument goes, I accept that they played a role in getting loser kids to watch more engaging content.
Ultimately, though, I am pretty zealous about the need to combat ideas with other ideas. I take a very wide view of free speech, because my thought is that you should be able to throw anything you want out there; if it finds purchase, you might have hit on a strain of conversation that needs to be had, if not an outright truth that doesn't go acknowledged.
Just wanted to preserve this article in this horribly-written blog post because at the end it offered a light at the end of the tunnel. There are now left-wing YouTubers who "speak the native language" of the platform and refute the extreme right-wing stuff point by point. I've seen some of ContraPoints, and I really like her. She roots her discourse in an imitable realness that is, ultimately, the language of not only YouTube, but of the rising generation.
I think the real element that engages people who grew up in a completely unmanageable information overload is authenticity. I appreciate the need for careful communications in a previous era, when the gatekeepers of information had more power to twist your joking comment into a heinous offense on paper, if they were so inclined. Those gatekeepers have been deposed, though, and what cuts through the noise right now is someone who simply doesn't have time for bullshit. You can't advertise to our generation as much as they have and not expect us to develop a bullshit meter. So we have, and people unafraid to state daring opinions and back them up with some kind of conviction are very compelling. They are still promoting ideas, though, and to kill an idea, you need to quash it with another idea.
I oppose censorship and I don't want to vest tech companies with the role in society that only critical thinking can fill. This article tells me there is hope that equilibrium in YouTube discourse might be reached before elites freak out and take the lazy path, which would probably be to pass regulations that enshrine Facebook and Google as the public square, with a responsibility to the public square.
No comments:
Post a Comment