The mouth breathing youtube media uh stars own crappy thread

[Redbacks]

All the more reason to encourage the primacy of the individual.

It's important to distinguish between self interest and selfishness. The latter doesn't lead to good outcomes.

 

[Ausage]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html

"Radicalisation" or "extreme" aren't the right words though and I'm instantly sceptical of any journalist using them in the context of the platform. It just suffers from a similar problem to all web content that relies on advertising. Clickbait content, including unpleasant trends like the ridiculous titling you see on some videos (eg. X DESTROYS STUPID SJW!!!), does better than long form, more thoughtful content. That said while candy content does well, more in depth content gets more than enough traffic that creators should be able to make a living, particularly when combined with supplementary income streams like Patreon. The same isn't as true for more traditional forms of web content.

The ratio on views to the $$ that ends up in the pockets of creators is way off too. The numbers some of these people are getting is enough to drive entire industries on traditional media. That a medium sized content creator struggles to make ends meat suggests that someone (either Youtube, the advertiser or both) is making a mint and I think the industry is ripe for a major competitor that puts more money in the hands of creators.

 

[Spark]

You're talking about something different to the phenomenon in that piece though. Sensationalisation isn't radicalisation, sure, but directing someone from an academic lecture on the slave trade to a rant by Holocaust deniers on "white slavery" kind of is.

 

[Ausage]

You're talking about something different to the phenomenon in that piece though. Sensationalisation isn't radicalisation, sure, but directing someone from an academic lecture on the slave trade to a rant by Holocaust deniers on "white slavery" kind of is.

Yeah but as a heavy user of the platform, I don't see a trend there. The journalist was looking to be radicalized as part of the experiment and the algorithm figured that out. I next to never have videos like that pop up.

 

[Spark]

Yeah but as a heavy user of the platform, I don't see a trend there. The journalist was looking to be radicalized as part of the experiment and the algorithm figured that out. I next to never have videos like that pop up.

Yeah that's fair, but I have noticed some very dubious recommendations pop up from time to time (totally unmerited by my viewing history I swear ).

I would be very interested in a controlled study where you have, say, 500 new accounts, seeded by watching anodyne videos on certain topics, and see where the algorithm takes them. In any case, I find Youtube's proposed solution to this problem rather dubious.

 

[Redbacks]

That's not News - Bill Maher

 

[Spark]

So has anyone read the little spat between Ezra Klein and Sam Harris? It's kind of hard to believe Harris published - of his own volition - those private email exchanges in the hope that they would make him look better as opposed to a sanctimonious ****.

Here, for example, is a sample of Ezra Klein in those exchanges:

I disagree with you on this issue, and regret that I couldn’t persuade you your critics are operating in good faith, but I’ve enjoyed your podcast, and sometime, I hope we get the opportunity to interact in a less charged, and more friendly, space.

And here is Sam Harris:

Really, Ezra, intellectual integrity doesn’t need to be this hard…

[...]

Is it safe to assume that you don’t want this exchange published? (You’ll notice that you dodged that point too.) I can understand why you wouldn’t.

Obsession over "PC gone mad" is turning people slightly insane.

 

[harsh.ag]

Disgusting use of commas by Klein there

 

[Ausage]

Harris IS a sanctimonious **** though. I'd even say it's among his most distinguishable traits. I didn't think anything in the emails was much more than Sam on a day ending in Y.

On the issue itself, I haven't heard the podcast being referenced, but Klein's op-ed is pretty deceptive (though better that the original piece that pissed off Harris). He has a fair point that any discussion of genetic differences in IQ that ignores environmental factors is only telling half the story, but it doesn't seem like Murray is arguing anything less. Klein can't seem to bring up quotes where Murray discounts environmental factors, stating only that he and Harris didn't focus on it "enough", ignoring the fact that Harris was having Murray on the podcast precisely because he had been de-platformed (and assaulted) by an SJW mob. That's important because Klein uses the exact same logical tricks in his article that these de-platforming types use to whip something with nothing more than potential for controversy into the most malevolent version of the issue imaginable. Framing the entire purpose of Murray's studies as a continuation of a centuries old movement to prove non whites are inferior, just doing enough to hint at things like eugenics and extermination. He says he's not attributing malevolence to Murray, but when the entire article attributes malevolence to the idea that genetics could have an effect on IQ it doesn't matter if he puts up a qualifying paragraph.

That's the root of Harris' objection to the guy. He clearly sees him as having dishonest intentions, posing as a seeker of truth when he really just wants to pump an ideological agenda. It's hard to impute motive, but I'd say he at least has a case to make on the matter. I thought Klein came across pretty slimy in the exchange. In that context, releasing the emails makes more sense. Still, I get the sense that Harris is not great with empathy and it leads him to misread how people with different foundational ideas (or frankly, a smaller intellect) to him might read a situation entirely differently.

I will say though, I'd prefer to see Harris just have the dissenting researcher on his podcast rather than publishing emails and twitter sniping. I get that he doesn't think it would be a productive discussion (and he's not that interested in the issue itself) but I hate it when the same discussion dodging (that he accused Ezra of) happens on the other side of the fence so I don't enjoy seeing Harris doing it too.

 

[Ausage]

I don't think your samples of the exchange do justice to the context either. This is all in the context of Ezra green lighting an article that (on a generous reading) accused Sam of being duped by an alt-right, racialist (I'm sure Vox's sophisticated readership will respect the difference) pseudo scientist.

 

[Uppercut]

Klein is absolutely dripping in over-the-top earnestness. He reminds me of Ned Flanders. I have a lot of respect for his work but I'm not sure I could handle him in person.

Feel the same about Vox tbh. Reckon the smug tone and unashamed liberal viewpoint disguises the fact that it does some properly good journalism.

 

[harsh.ag]

Agreed wrt Vox. Do good work but their lens makes them unable to understand and appreciate some things.

 

[Spark]

Murray does discount environmental factors, though. I've read a few blogposts by him on AEI saying that it's basically all inherited. With no historical qualifications at all.

I don't think your samples of the exchange do justice to the context either. This is all in the context of Ezra green lighting an article that (on a generous reading) accused Sam of being duped by an alt-right, racialist (I'm sure Vox's sophisticated readership will respect the difference) pseudo scientist.

Yeah I suspect that this is part of where the disagreement comes from and why Klein is so baffled at the tone Harris has taken: Klein isn't Vox's EIC, so he doesn't and can't greenlight anything. He used to be, which is probably where the confusion came from.

 

[Uppercut]

Murray does discount environmental factors, though. I've read a few blogposts by him on AEI saying that it's basically all inherited.

What's the name of that debating technique where you argue something outrageous, retreat to a more defensible position when challenged, then go back to saying the outrageous stuff at the next available opportunity? Murray's made a career out of it.

 

[Spark]

I mean I don't find it impossible that there are some statistically significant variations between population groups wrt intelligence. But Murray's thesis, as opined in his work and his research, is basically that the observable differences in the intellectual, academic etc outcomes between black people and white people could more or less be put down to hereditable differences in g, and the destructive effects of treating them as a subservient caste barred from the basic standards of society, in between intermittent spurts of state-sponsored mass terror committed against them at a population level had disappeared. In ten years.

 

[Uppercut]

I mean I don't find it impossible that there are some statistically significant variations between population groups wrt intelligence. But Murray's thesis, as opined in The Bell Curve and the research he did that supports it, is basically that the observable differences in the intellectual, academic etc outcomes between black people and white people could entirely be put down to hereditable differences in g, and the destructive effects of treating them as a subservient caste barred from the basic standards of society, in between intermittent spurts of state-sponsored mass terror committed against them at a population level had disappeared. In ten years.

Indeed. Also, hundreds of years of selection were heavily influenced by slave/Jim Crow institutions, so even if you took it at face value, it doesn't lead to the ethical conclusion that Murray wants it to lead to.

 

[Spark]

Indeed. Also, hundreds of years of selection were heavily influenced by slave/Jim Crow institutions, so even if you took it at face value, it doesn't lead to the ethical conclusion that Murray wants it to lead to.

It's a very convenient way to posit that "actually, no remedial action for the enormous damage inflicted upon this population for centuries is required, because any differences you see now, one generation later, is basically all down to them simply being intellectually inferior at a population level" as a policy prescription.

 

[Spark]

It's a very convenient way to posit that "actually, no remedial action for the enormous damage inflicted upon this population for centuries is required, because any differences you see now, one generation later, is basically all down to them simply being intellectually inferior at a population level" as a policy prescription.

This happens a lot ofc. "Black people are simply less intelligence, which is why Africa is and will always remain a shithole". Cf James Watson.

 

[Ausage]

The reason I discounted the idea that Murray occilates between reasonable and unreasonable positions is because Klein didn't provide any quotes. If Murray has "made a career out of it" like UC (as distinct from Klein) suggests then I'd have thought the article would be full of quotes. All there was was some boilerplate conservative stuff about the welfare state and affirmative action.

Yeah I suspect that this is part of where the disagreement comes from and why Klein is so baffled at the tone Harris has taken: Klein isn't Vox's EIC, so he doesn't and can't greenlight anything. He used to be, which is probably where the confusion came from.

Possibly from Klein's end, but I'm not sure it made much difference to Harris. Klein didn't really walk back many of the claims in the original article and the whole "we didn't call you racialists and there's no connotations to that word" was pretty slimy/deceptive. Sounded to me that Klein largely sticking by the articles was what wound Harris up.

I think people like Klein don't really realise the scale of the mistrust some people have for journalists, particularly of the unashamedly lefty variety.

 

[Spark]

Why wouldn't Klein stick to the substance of the historical argument being made though? It's one I agree with completely as well.

EDIT: Also I can't really take this idea of Harris being some crusader against dog-whistling (which, let's be real, is essentially the accusation he's making against Klein, albeit not of the conventional sort) given a lot of his other work. He generally pushes hard for things to be taken exactly at face value, which is defensible only if consistent. It doesn't help that he still hasn't engaged on the substance of the critiques.