A List of Lists: Academia Targets Youtubers

6 Dec

What is increasingly disturbing from 2016 to 2020, when the media, and there acolytes spent countless times mocking and ridiculing Trump Supporters, forcing family members to never speak to each other again, and Biden calling for Unity, is not even as close to making my veins travel through my head and kill me instantly. What I find is that most of the left spend time thinking that everyone else is bad but they want us to be like them. They have no other life but Trump these last few years and they expect me to forget. When assholes on twitter degrade me, fine, I don’t care about them and they don’t deserve attention here. What is worrisome is when an academic paper, “Evaluating the scale, growth, and origins of right-wing echo chambers on Youtube” (https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12843) in the name of science is declaring YouTube political channels, such as Stephen Crowder, Rageholic, MILO, and even popular satirist, ItsaGundam, as mislabeled being alt right, is when I almost shit myself laughing at the idiocy the left have become. So, put on your Herbert West Reanimator goggles, and let’s look at this eye cancer together.

Honestly, the list of Youtubers being listed here, for as simply disagreeing with the politics and policies, is what is on trial here. This is a blacklist with contributions from Homa Hosseinmardi, Amir Ghasemian, Aaron Clauset David M. Rothschild, Markus Mobius, and Duncan J. Watts, and as I read it. What I find morally reprehensible is that academia even published this paper. While academic papers are often hidden from the public, it’s this that requires my full attention. In the first paragraph, the paper dictates, that Youtubes “search and recommendation engines make even marginal actors easily discoverable, allowing them to build large, highly engaged audiences at a low cost.”

Yes, it’s easy to set up a webcam and find someone you want to talk to and have some fun. The paper is not wrong in its assumption. I am not a YouTuber, and I have made a few YouTube videos on my own, and while I was marginalized in my viewership (as my channel is nonexistent and less prolific), I was also shown many videos of Styxhexxenhammer666, after I watched Razorfist’s videos, and every time I open it up, it always shows his previous videos. If Youtube hates, for example, Razorfist, they are doing a disservice by showing me his entire back catalogue every time I open up Youtube on my television or computer. Apparently, Styx has claimed that he has been “shadow banned” and most of his material is being attacked by Youtube’s algorithm. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tg0RcKVh50)

What this paper says is true. It’s easy to do, and you can talk about anything you want, and most channels are monetized that reach a certain subscriber and view count. Until 2016. 

The paper also asserts that “For example, it has been reported that starting from factual videos about the flu vaccine, the recommender system can drive users toward anti-vaccination conspiracy videos.” Which is ironic because Styxhexxenhammer666 is not an anti-vaxxer, at all. By the second paragraph, we see where the lies start to unfold. But at the end of the first page, it does walk around the issue of who is really watching and between shows being produced. “Absent such data for a large, representative sample of real YouTube users, it is difficult to evaluate how much radical content is in fact being consumed (vs. produced),” because if context is concerned, this would be a different study all together, “how it is changing over time, and how it is being encountered (from recommendations vs. other entry points).” 

This notion that there are large swaths of “corrupted individuals” being persuaded from individual you tubers is inconclusive too. The nature of the paper is outlined here: “Total consumption of any news -related con- tent on YouTube accounts for only 11% of overall consumption, similar to previous estimates of news consumption across both web and TV [25],” as this is not taking into account that most Youtube viewership are under the ages of 38, and not beyond, very few boomers and Gen-X viewers care about Youtube “and is dominated by mainstream or moderate sources. (ii) Nonetheless, the fraction of YouTube users strongly engaged with far-right channels has increased over the last four years, where consumers of far-right channels tend to show a more-extreme engagement pattern on YouTube, compared to individuals whose majority of consumption is from channels with other political orientations. (iii)” Maybe this idea of traffic on alt right channels is the idea of entertainment value, and not associated with any politics involved, but the way one presents the case, is still the reason why this idea is not presented, because the data would have to represent what is being said and not by blind viewership. As context is not what at stake in the study. “The pathways by which users reach far-right videos are diverse and only a fraction can plausibly be attributed to platform recommendations. (iv) Within sessions of consecutive video viewership, we see no trend toward more extreme content, indicating that consumption of this content is determined more by user preferences than by recommendation. We conclude that while the increasing prevalence and evident appeal of radical content” or entertainment “on YouTube may be a real source of concern, the recent focus on the recommendation engine is overly narrow. Rather, YouTube should be viewed as part of a larger information ecosystem in which extreme and misleading content is widely available, easily discovered, and both increasingly and actively sought out [22].” If we want a clear road to how clusters and traffic of information can be accrued, pick up the book about IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black (https://www.booksamillion.com/product/A16366211066?id=7849683950988), and we can see where this type of language is presented clearly, as Jews were filed away as numbers tattooed on there bodies. Which seems no different today than what data means to this paper. Next this will happen, and no telling what may account for leftists and academia’s logic.

What is relevant is that listing “unavailable videos” for Infowars, also doesn’t conclude that the Alex Jones show is relevant or pretend it even plays a factor in all of Youtube activity. “Previous studies have analysed web browsing dynamics by breaking a sequence of pageviews into sub-sequences called sessions [29]. In this work, we define a YouTube session as a set of near- consecutive YouTube pageviews by a user. Within a session, a gap less than δ minutes is allowed between a YouTube non-video URL and the next YouTube URL, or a gap less than γ minutes is allowed between a YouTube video URL and the next YouTube URL, otherwise the session breaks and a new session will start with the next YouTube URL.”

There data configurations are rather insincere, and the opportunity to mislabel people is why academic papers are only routinely fixed to make a professor smile than to please readers of fiction and fan fiction. As this should be treated as eye cancer, I have my Herbert West Reanimator glasses on, and even Lovecraft would assume the paper is outright masturbatory, pleasing no one, not even me, or you, but careless academics with ivory towers. What I do find repulsive is that while watching time is a factor, the unilateral facade of using proxies to understand viewership is void of all compassion when it comes to the list they have at the end. 

What is problematic is that the actions they take are almost what the machines in the Matrix would have wanted. “An individual is considered a news consumer if, over the course of one month,” as the mere notion of putting people into a calculator is devoid of sympathy “they spend a minimum of one minute watch-time on any of the political channels in our labeled set.” The mere notion of thinking of  Each month we characterized every individual who consumed news on YouTube in terms of their normalized monthly viewership vector νm whose j-th entry, νm corresponds to the i ij fraction of viewership of user i from channel category j (j ∈ {fL, L, C, R, fR}). We then used K-means clustering to assign each individual to one of K communities of similar YouTube news diets, with K in the range from 2 to 12. Using the silhouette method [30], we found the optimal number of communities to be K = 5 (Appendix, Fig. 12).” What this highly configured language presents is no idea for what the entertainment value the person is looking for in the “alt right” content, and how key words can be associated with how much a youtuber comes back to a user, who either says the words people want to hear, or will help them gain more subsribers. “For each of these five clusters we then identified its centroid obtained by averaging the normalized monthly viewership vectors of all cluster members (see Appendix, section F for details). Finally, we labeled each community as ψ(t) (ψ(t) ∈ {fL,L,C,R,fR}) according to the predominant content category of its centroid. As a robustness check, we performed similar analysis with nonzero news consumption and at least five minutes news consumption per month as more relaxed and more strict definitions of “news consumers” (see Appendix, Fig. 18).”

What is seen through all the jargon is that while “clusters” are good for data, the mere notion of reducing viewers to numbers is the mere epitome of how to turn an audience against you. It’s why academics are always seen, and never heard. If they spoke online, or on a YouTube channel, they are going to get criticized, which is what most academics hate. “Trust me bro” as the saying goes. And who says there findings are legitimate as it doesn’t highlight the entertainment value of the videos and always to do with viewership, because entertainment can’t be quantified to academics because the meaning of the word doesn’t matter to them. And a better question is, how many people care what CNN says over Jordan Peterson, who is considered radical, but if believing in common sense is radical, this paper proves that reality, as Dave Rubin said, “is on trial.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0VNVMCf8sA)

What the data fails to capture is that while they do count some of the “logged out viewership” they are merely dressing up the notion that the alt right channels are illegitimate both in there relevant data. The “clusters” they bring up do not take into account people who have to hide there name so that they might not face ridicule from people who would ostracize them for watching Razorfist, or Shoeonhoead, and the limitless youtubers who create videos for a living. But maybe, it is easier to put people as numbers and never think about the experiences a single person has faced, and trying to limit that to mere quantities in a paper, is why the academic world is out of touch with the everyday public.

So out of touch that they use -2 to 0 as an identifier of who is far left, and 1 to 2, which is who represents Republican and alt right channels. Numbers are only good if people think they are numbers, and do not consider themselves individuals with minds that have their own opinions, and thoughts, outside of mainstream media and Youtube channels. The list doesn’t care about who actually watches them, but what they want out of data, and not out of what makes a person think differently. That’s too much work for leftists to consider if the opposition is right in there thinking, and rarely believe otherwise.

Again, they don’t talk about technique of a youtuber’s voice and presence, or the idea of a personality and what youtubers actually do to make there videos worthwhile. If the data would accurately represent “artistic merit” as far as how the videos are edited, production value, linguistic offerings, attitude of the creator, and context, humor levels and what people found “funny” then this would be a different list all together and more work would be involved, creating new data based on context as well as views. The ideas presented here lack sober intuition on what makes youtubers infinitely more accessible than mainstream media and academia will ever be. 

Now here’s the personal anecdotal side saved for the end of the study concerning the paper: I consider myself an asshole, novelist, blogger, gamer, imaginative, loser, extraordinary to some, hated by a few backstabbers, and someone who thinks dangerous ideas are where the culture stands. What is far more insulting to me is that the last five years this has corrupted family members who think that “Orange Man Bad” because of “reasons” is now simmering down to “we want unity.” And then they attack me for my beliefs. Oh, and you expect all to forget the way you acted and everyone with a different opinion these last few years? This of all things makes me wish I was included on the list because of the insidious nature of the liberal media now think is “fine.” And “we’re cool.” 

All of this heightening why no matter what trusted data tests that the contributors give, putting people into quantifying lists is akin to Nazi totalitarian think.

The Nazi’s had there lists too. When Hitler made his list based upon which race was the best, he just listed it with no real consideration of who might be actually worthy by skill, but by race. If the Jews were hated, Arabs were one step above the Jewish race. It takes no effort to make up lists and “cluster” people together who think differently. It takes real effort to understand how people are different and why people are different. No one cares about individual experience anymore. Thinking the same and being the same were important to Hitler and the Progressive Socialist Left. There is no stable confidence of equality with the left, and there terms are limited and change daily.

If Hitler had presented this paper, it would have thrilled the academic world today, because the left, in all there righteousness, echo the very words Hitler created when he began his doomed path in history. Leftists are following the same path too. When using scientific language to erase away the outright hatred Anti-Fa feel toward everyday people, is why the world we see now is two complete opposites faced to head into battle.

Even on page 6 they use the word “label” and that’s when any normal educated person reading this, starts to mistrust the language being written.

If Nietzche proclaimed that “we should step down from our ivory tower and see if we still believe the same things” (paraphrasing as I am but it still exists) I took this idea seriously the last few years. I do think that family and low centralized government are necessity, the party of tolerance doesn’t think so anymore. I, like Nietzche, see the decadence of the left eating themselves alive, as any other would know now, proclaiming dietary regulations. Hate Trump and you will be accepted. Like that paycheck, you better write and think the way we want, cause we will ruin you. Milo Yiannopolous, a gay eccentric thinker, married to a black man, and well rounded person of impeccable taste and perception. Also, if academics are attacked, for there knowledge of the crusades, then why isn’t she on the list? The point is we will all be there soon enough. 

In the pursuit of an enemy, they become one too. All the language in this paper can’t hide the evil they proclaim to hide from. If ItsaGundam, who is African American, who was “raised by homosexuals and queers, and even voted for Joe Exotic twice,” (https://twitter.com/GundamIsHere/status/1334006026291523584) can be on a list for criticizing and satirizing culture, then I should be on the list too.

As I left the tower of totalitarian liberalism, I found that the tower I existed in was almost like being stuck in the tower in Bioshock Infinite, where I was being held hostage by a large mechanical bird, ready to destroy me if I ever left my cage. But that faded quickly, unafraid of all consequences. 

What is worse is the psychological issues this has created in society from the damage the left has done to personal and professional contemporaries, which is also not accounted for in the paper. Maybe Conservatives need a voice too, and not just from FOX cable news network, and Youtube is the only choice left. But there are other alternatives. 

What is more important, and least discussed is the language being used against loved ones. “I’m sad that you like him” and “you’re” or “that’s crazy” meaning Donald J. Trump, is what was my father screamed nonsensically at me. Unity is only good when the left must apologize and do massive course correction to avoid any further calamity. But this plea for “unity” is what Biden is calling for Anti-Fa to stop burning down buildings. And I hope they don’t. Because they also hate Biden too.

I do believe that Trump is one of the greatest presidents of my lifetime. His urgency to bring peace to the Middle East, with bringing the UAE flights into Israel, is not just one accomplishment to talk about. His tax code on small independent contractors has helped everyone who is a part time remote worker, but also, proving that the debt decreased dramatically, while it stagnated and increased under the Obama Administration. What is more reprehensible is the outright lies my family believed that created more of a divide. While this shouldn’t be about me, I just had to say the obvious, as this has affected every Trump supporter who was fired mocked ridiculed at there jobs, and suddenly they want “unity.” 

If the left will come for Razorfist, Milo Yiannopolous, shoe0nhead (who is an avowed Bernie Sanders supporter), unity is not feasible to all sides. And this paper only proves the left will use data and statistics to ridicule and mock Trump Supporters and pretending that what they say are “wrong” and how we should “suck it up” as Whoopie Goldberg admitted on her day time show, the View.

Finally, here’s my spicy offering for unity: As long as you suck up your pee through a straw on your piss beds, and then admit Anti-Fa is real, Joe-Biden and Kamala Cop Harris cheated, take the off the masks, and then I can be unified and hold hands (if you don’t wash your hands at least). Until then leftists, enjoy your short lived victory, because in the long run, you have no family or friends. You have no opinions that are your own. If Milo and the “alt right” (which do not exist) are dangerous, then so am I. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: