zlacker

>>furcyd+(OP)
I don't think this is incentivizing bad behavior. It's merely showing the viewer more of what they are already watching with a gradual introduction to broader material. The example of a youtube serving content to "pedophiles" is borderline asinine. The neural network is just making suggestions on viewing, it's not telling people to watch. In regards to the complaint that "adult" content is being served to adolescents, there is an option to filter out sensitive content all together.

Also, as a parent to 4 children myself, the idea of letting my kids loose on the internet completely devoid of any supervision is ridiculous. When did it become youtube's responsibility to parent the children in its audience? Should we also ban HBO, Amazon, and Netflix from providing recommendations because it might be a child in front of the screen?

This is just another pointed attempt to censor free speech via the abuse of technology companies. The idea being that the platform will be restrictive if they are constantly badgered about it.

>>restin+oh
> just making suggestions on viewing, it’s not telling people to watch

I’m not sure I get the difference between suggesting content and telling people what content to watch. Were you trying to drive a different point ?

That aside, it seems your argument is that youtube being neutral in recommending videos shelters them from blame, while the article is basically about why being neutral is harmful.

I personaly think anything dealing with human content can’t be left neutral, as we need a bias towards positivity. Just as we don’t allow generic tools to kill and save people in the same proportion, we want a clear net positive.