painting of an algorithmic god parsing judgment on channels

In January 2019, YouTube announced that they will be cracking down on conspiracy theories by changing search results and suggested videos to reduce the spread of “borderline content”, that “comes close to — but doesn’t quite cross the line of — violating our Community Guidelines”. This includes suggestions to videos “promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness” or “making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11”, that could “misinform users in harmful ways”. This came after repeated criticism from the mainstream media that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm is an engine for far-right radicalization and fake news.

It is a widespread view that people are pulled into a rabbit hole of disinformation by YouTube’s recommendation algorithm, which recommends them one extreme video after another. I have previously tried to show how this picture is not accurate, but matters of accuracy don’t prevent YouTube from taking measures to respond to the media backlash.

Wanting to limit the influence of these videos seems reasonable at first, but what about that ambiguous phrase, “borderline content”? It seems designed to be meaningless. Given how the media has mischaracterized non-woke channels, I was suspicious that in an effort to appear to be cracking down on these channels they would show a strong left-wing bias and that they would use this ambiguity as a cover for arbitrary ad-hoc censorship.

This is important, because the algorithm that determines suggested videos has become an influential but underappreciated part of politics. A Pew survey found that 18% of US adults consume news through YouTube, and — according to YouTube Chief Product Officer Neal Mohan — 70% of the watch time is from YouTube’s suggested videos.

So when YouTube makes changes to its algorithm, it has the effect of a gentle breeze, influencing what everyone watches and ultimately what ideas get expressed. I don’t think Google went out seeking this kind of soft power, but unfortunately, an important part of the new media landscape is now formed by people with hazy incentives behind closed doors.

The effect of YouTube’s new algorithm is hard to determine, which is partly deliberate. This is because the company is caught in a bind: how can they give the impression that YouTube is a free and open platform, able to be used by anyone, while at the same time appease the censorious media, which has always viewed the platform as a boon for right-wing radicalization and conspiracy theories? This bind prevents them from drawing any concrete lines at all and leaves creators in the dark as to whether they should make an edgy joke in their videos or not, for fear of being labeled “borderline”.

The only way to find out what YouTube’s conspiracy crackdown really means is to go straight to the data. By closely monitoring their recommendations, I hope to be able to piece together patterns about how they are influencing politics. Who are the real winners and losers of Youtube’s conspiracy crackdown?

Loser: Deep-State Conspiracy Channels

According to my research, if YouTube’s intention was to limit the exposure of conspiracy channels and promote more authoritative news sources, they have somewhat succeeded. Recommendations to deep-state conspiracy channels like Next News Network have drastically reduced. This is a right-wing channel run by prominent conspiracy theorist Gary Franchi, which currently has 1.2 million subscribers.

Jesselyn Cook and K. Sophie Will have previously reported on the drastic reduction in recommendations to conspiracy channels. They provided me with their list of these channels and I provided them with the recommendation data. I think the list is legitimate. They cluster channels together by recommendations, and after watching a random set of their videos, I think that they do fall in line with what any sensible person would regard as fake news. Check them out for yourself and make up your own mind.

Here is a detailed look at the portion of impressions these channels received during the year. “Impressions” is an estimate for the number of times a suggestion has been seen (not necessarily clicked).

Despite the announcement being made in January, it appears that the recommendation algorithm wasn’t significantly changed until April. After April, these channels received close to nothing.

A noteworthy change is the portion of recommendations that now go to Fox News rather than similar deep-state conspiracy channels — a mild improvement as Fox News only sometimes peddles in hyper-partisan conspiracy theories.

According to Jesselyn Cook and K. Sophie Will, since January, Fox News’ main YouTube channel has seen its total monthly views more than triple. This is a startling result, perhaps one contrary to the desires of the liberal media.

No Change: Left/Center/Right

It turns out that my worst fears were unfounded. The portion of recommendations across the left/right political divide is very stable. I know most people reading this will think the following graph shows left-wing bias. But if you take into account the views of destination videos, there isn’t much in it.

So far it seems that there is little to complain about. Conspiracy channels have been specifically targeted and there appears to be no political bias. But the changes have also had effects outside the immediate intentions of YouTube. These — according to my own data collection — are some of the unintentional outcomes of the changes to the algorithm:

Recommendations to cable news channels, like Fox and MSNBC, have increased.

Suggestions to a seemingly random selection of independent YouTubers have reduced.

Winner: Corporate Media

The changes have been a big gift to corporate media — who have a large presence on YouTube — at the expense of many independent YouTube creators. Channels that re-publish their videos from cable or TV went from an estimate of around 50% impressions to 73%.

This is bad news for many YouTube creators like David Pakman, a politically progressive talk show host that is careful about the quality of information in his show. These changes have increased recommendations towards hyper-partisan channels like Fox and MSNBC who regularly misrepresent current events and promote conspiracy theories.