She’s almost 70, spend all day watching q-anon style of videos (but in Spanish) and every day she’s anguished about something new, last week was asking us to start digging a nuclear shelter because Russia was dropped a nuclear bomb over Ukraine. Before that she was begging us to install reinforced doors because the indigenous population were about to invade the cities and kill everyone with poisonous arrows. I have access to her YouTube account and I’m trying to unsubscribe and report the videos, but the reccomended videos keep feeding her more crazy shit.
This is a suggestion with questionable morality BUT a new account with reasonable subscriptions might be a good solution. That being said, if my child was trying to patronize me about my conspiracy theories, I wouldn’t like it, and would probably flip if they try to change my accounts.
Yeah the morality issue is the hard part for me… I’ve been entrusted by various people in the family to help them with their technology (and by virtue of that not mess with their technology in ways they wouldn’t approve of), violating that trust to stop them from being exposed to manipulative content seems like doing the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Really? That seems far-fetched. Various people in the family specifically want you not to mess with their technology? ??
If the algorithm is causing somebody to become a danger to others and potentially themselves, I’d expect in their right state of mind, one would appreciate proactive intervention.
eg. archive.is/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/12/fox-news-brain-meet-the-families-torn-apart-by-toxic-cable-news
I think this is pretty much what it boils down to. Where do you draw the line between having the right to expose yourself to media that validates your world view and this media becoming a threat to you to a point where you require intervention?
I’ve seen lots of people discussion their family’s Qanon casualties to recognize it’s a legitimate problem, not to mention tragic in many cases, but I would still think twice before ‘tricking’ someone. What if she realizes what’s happening and becomes more radicalized by this? I find that direct conversation, discussion, and confrontation work better; or at least that worked with family that believes in bullshit.
That being said, the harmful effects of being trapped in a bubble by an algorithm are not largely disputed.
Wondering if a qanon person would be offended at you deradicalise them seems like overthinking - it’s certainly possible, but most likely fine to do anyway. The only cases where you’d think twice is if something similar has happened before and if this person has a pattern of falling into bad habits/cultish behaviour in the past. In which case you have a bigger problem on your hands or just a temporary one.
Consider it from a different angle - if a techy Q-anon “fixed” the algorithm of someone whose device they had access to due to tech help. That person would rightfully be pissed off, even if the Q-anon tech nerd explained that it was for their own good and that they needed to be aware of this stuff etc.
Obviously that’s materially different to the situation at hand, but my point is that telling someone that what you’ve done is necessary and good will probably only work after it’s helped. Initially, they may still be resistant to the violation of trust.
If I think of how I would in that situation, I feel a strong flare of indignant anger that I could see possibly manifesting in a “I don’t care about your reasons, you still shouldn’t have messed with my stuff” way, and then fermenting into further ignorance. If I don’t let the anger rise and instead sit with the discomfort, I find a bunch of shame - still feeling violated by the intervention, but sadly realising it was not just necessary, but actively good that it happened, so I could see sense. There’s also some fear from not trusting my own perceptions and beliefs following the slide in reactionary thinking. That’s a shitty bunch of feelings and I only think that’s the path I’d be on because I’m unfortunately well experienced in being an awful person and doing the work to improve. I can definitely see how some people might instead double down on the anger route.
On a different scale of things, imagine if one of my friend who asked for tech help was hardcore addicted to a game like WoW, to the extent that it was affecting her life and wellbeing. Would it be acceptable for me to uninstall this and somehow block any attempts to reinstall? For me, the answer is no. This feels different to the Q-anon case, but I can’t articulate why exactly
Better to be embarrassed temporarily than lose a decade of precious time with your family on stuff that makes you angry on the internet.
You’re seeing a person who freely made choices here, perhaps like the gamer, but I see a victim of opportunists on youtube, who may have clicked on something thinking it was benign and unknowingly let autoplay and the recommendations algorithm fry their brain.
You probably think the gamer situation is different because they, unlike the boomer, are aware of what’s happening and are stuck in a trap of their own making. And yes, in such a situation, I’d talk it out with them before I did anything since they’re clearly (in some ways) more responsible for their addiction, even though iirc some people do have a psychological disposition that is more vulnerable that way.
edit: I want to clarify that I do care about privacy, it’s just that in these cases of older angry relatives (many such cases), I prioritise mental health.
I guess despite them being Qanon, I still see and believe in the human in them, and their ultimate right to believe stupid shit. I don’t think it’s ever ‘overthinking’ when it comes to another human being’s privacy and freedom. I actually think it’s bizarre to quickly jump into this and decide to alter the subscriptions behind their back like they’re a 2 year old child with not even perception to understand basic shit.
Nobody said this had to be an instant/quick reaction to anything. If you can see that somebody has ‘chosen’ to fall into a rabbithole and self destruct, becoming an angrier, more hateful (bigoted) and miserable person because of algorithms, dark patterns and unnatural infinite content spirals, I’d recognise that it isn’t organic or human-made but in fact done for the profit motive of a large corporation, and do the obvious thing.
If you’re on Lemmy because you hate billionaire interference in your life why allow it to psychologically infect your family far more insidiously on youtube?
Exactly, no one said that.
I reworded my comment to clarify (my original wording was a bit clumsy).
I don’t really think they’re a danger to others anymore than their policy positions in my option are harmful to some percentage of the population. i.e. they’re not worried about indigenous populations invading and killing people with poison arrows, but they do buy into some of the anti-establishment doctors when it comes to issues like COVID vaccination.
It’s kind of like “I don’t think you’re a great driver, but I don’t think you’re such a bad driver I should be trying to subvert your driving.” Though it’s a bit of a hard line to draw…
Well, I assume neither you or I are psychologists that can determine what one person may or may not do. However these algorithms are confirmed to be dangerous left unchecked on a mass level - e.g. the genocide in Burma that occurred with the help of FB.
Ultimately if I had a relative in those shoes, I’d want to give them the opportunity to be the best person they can be, not a hateful, screen-addicted crazy person. These things literally change their personality in the worst cases. Not being proactive is cowardly/negligient on the part of the person with the power to do it imo.
After watching a hospice patient cry because (according to her) the Dr interviewed on Fox News talked about how he doesn’t do abortions anymore after performing a late term abortion where the mother went into labor and delivered the baby before he could kill it, so he cleaned up the baby and consoled it as he discussed with the parents their options on how to dispatch it after the fact. She was inconsolable. But in drinking Fox’s Kool aid, it was the only channel she would watch.
For moral reasons I will take any opportunity to nudge the vulnerable away from the harm certain entities create.
After watching a hospice patient cry because (according to her) the Dr interviewed on Fox News talked about how he doesn’t do abortions anymore after performing a late term abortion where the mother went into labor and delivered the baby before he could kill it, so he cleaned up the baby and consoled it as he discussed with the parents their options on how to dispatch it after the fact. She was inconsolable. But in drinking Fox’s Kool aid, it was the only channel she would watch.
I don’t understand what happened in this story.
I think it’s hard to have a universal morality. I wouldn’t want my family forcing their moral judgements on me if the roles were reversed. e.g. I’m not a car guy, but my family members wouldn’t (even if they could) make it so it only drives to “approved” locations.
Like the other commentor said, I think it’s better to talk about these issues, though that too can be hard, I can’t say I’ve made much visible traction.
Maybe not so far fetched. I work in hospice, with the vast majority of the patients I see in their 75-95+yo range. While most have no interest in technology, it’s not uncommon for the elderly to have “that grandchild” that helps everyone set up their cell phone, “get the Netflix to work,” set up Ring doorbells, etc. I’ve even known some to ask their grandchild to help their equally elderly neighbor (who doesn’t have any local family) with their new TV. It’s a thing.
Invidious or Freetube if she’s on a personal computer.
i dont know but im just glad youre alive bc the fish bumped you out of the water with its nose
Great advice in here. Now, how do I de-radicalize my mom? :(
I too faced this dilemma. So I uninstalled every ad blocker and made it very tedious videos. It kinda helped.
I had to log into my 84-year-old grandmother’s YouTube account and unsubscribe from a bunch of stuff, “Not interested” on a bunch of stuff, subscribed to more mainstream news sources… But it only works for a couple months.
The problem is the algorithm that values viewing time over anything else.
Watch a news clip from a real news source and then it recommends Fox News. Watch Fox News and then it recommends PragerU. Watch PragerU and then it recommends The Daily Wire. Watch that and then it recommends Steven Crowder. A couple years ago it would go even stupider than Crowder, she’d start getting those videos where it’s computer voice talking over stock footage about Hillary Clinton being arrested for being a demonic pedophile. Luckily most of those channels are banned at this point or at least the algorithm doesn’t recommend them.
I’ve thought about putting her into restricted mode, but I think that would be too obvious that I’m manipulating the strings in the background.
Then I thought she’s 84, she’s going to be dead in a few years, she doesn’t vote, does it really matter that she’s concerned about trans people trying to cut off little boy’s penises or thinks that Obama is wearing ankle monitor because he was arrested by the Trump administration or that aliens are visiting the Earth because she heard it on Joe Rogan?
I did the same thing, although putting some videos with other things will declutter the algorithm too
If it’s on the phone, clear the cache and log out of the phone. It will reset the recommendeds to the shitty defaults. If it’s on PC, clear cookies and cache. How you choose to handle the account itself is entirely up to you.
Oof that’s hard!
You may want to try the following though to clear the algorithm up
Clear her YouTube watch history: This will reset the algorithm, getting rid of a lot of the data it uses to make recommendations. You can do this by going to “History” on the left menu, then clicking on “Clear All Watch History”.
Clear her YouTube search history: This is also part of the data YouTube uses for recommendations. You can do this from the same “History” page, by clicking “Clear All Search History”.
Change her ‘Ad personalization’ settings: This is found in her Google account settings. Turning off ad personalization will limit how much YouTube’s algorithms can target her based on her data.
Introduce diverse content: Once the histories are cleared, start watching a variety of non-political, non-conspiracy content that she might enjoy, like cooking shows, travel vlogs, or nature documentaries. This will help teach the algorithm new patterns.
Dislike, not just ignore, unwanted videos: If a video that isn’t to her taste pops up, make sure to click ‘dislike’. This will tell the algorithm not to recommend similar content in the future.
Manually curate her subscriptions: Unsubscribe from the channels she’s not interested in, and find some new ones that she might like. This directly influences what content YouTube will recommend.
You can’t “de-radicalize” your mom because your mom has never been “radicalized” in the first place - if she was, she’d be spray-painting ACAB on the walls and quoting Bakunin or Marx at everyone.
Your mom has been turned into a reactionary - pretty much the opposite of that which is radical. And since you have access to your mom’s youtube account, it’s radical content that is required to start levering open the cognitive dissonance that right-wing content attempts to paper over.
However, it can’t just be any radical content - it has to be radical content that specifically addresses things that are relevant to your mom. I’ll use my own mom as an example… she has always been angry about the fact that my (late) father essentially tossed away the family’s nest-egg in his obsessive attempts to become a successful business owner - I showed her some videos explaining how this neolib cult of business-ownership was popularized by the likes of Reagan and Thatcher (which she had no difficulty believing because my dad was a rabid right-winger who constantly brought these two fuckheads up in conversation during the 80s) which led to a lot of good conversations.
Obviously, your mom will not be as receptive to new information as mine is - so you may have to be a bit sneakier about it. But I don’t see too many other options for you at this point.
Radicalization !== Radical Marxist. Don’t forget radicalism the ideology!. But yes, definitions can change: etymolically and in modern language radicalism politically is to be pushing for a change at the root of something. I think it is pretty fair to say OPs mom could fit this. Radicalism does not have to be and often is not leftist.
Furthermore, in my opinion, reactionary is not a descriptive word- it is wholely used as an insult. It doesn’t describe an ideology, it is just a prejorative used to insult ideological opponents. You can again tell by the fact that nobody uninronically considers themselves a reactionary.
radicalism politically is to be pushing for a change at the root of something
You mean that thing right-wing ideology exists to prevent? There is no such thing as a “right-wing radical” - right-wing ideology exists to protect the status quo and destroy or co-opt that which advocates “change at the root…” it has no reason to exist otherwise.
I think it is pretty fair to say OPs mom could fit this.
The paranoid racism displayed by OP’s mom isn’t “radical” - it’s bog-standard right-wing white supremacist colonialist paranoia.
You can again tell by the fact that nobody uninronically considers themselves a reactionary.
They also generally do not self-identify as fascists or white supremacists, and you can easily anger most right-wingers even by just calling them right-wingers - so your point is… what?
You mean that thing right-wing ideology exists to prevent?
Right wing !== The status quo
There is no such thing as a “right-wing radical”
You did not click the link. You did forget Radicalism.
right-wing ideology exists to protect the status quo and destroy or co-opt that which advocates “change at the root…”
So in a socialist country is advocating for liberalism or monarchism or whatever left-wing and advocating for socialism right wing? Were the Nazi’s left-wing in the Weimar Republic?
The paranoid racism displayed by OP’s mom isn’t “radical”
Iirc there was no mention of racism, and I assume based on the mention of “videos in Spanish” that OPs mom is more than likely Latina. But yeah, QAnon is pretty radical seeing as they definitely aren’t the status quo.
They also generally do not self-identify as fascists or white supremacists
There are plenty who do, but I’ve never heard of someone identifying as reactionary.
you can easily anger most right-wingers even by just calling them right-wingers
I’ve never seen a right-winger being upset by that. Maybe because your definition of right-wing differs a lot from what most people would consider right-wing, they feel they are being mislabeled or mischaracterized.
Right wing !== The status quo
Riiight… I forgot the status quo requires centrists - not right-wingers - to do all the dirty work of violently maintaining the status quo. Because… reasons.
Were the Nazi’s left-wing in the Weimar Republic?
Did you see the Nazis promising capitalists that they would dismantle capitalism? No? How many of those Weimar capitalists got rich and fat off all the slave labor the Nazis provided them? You seem to have a weird idea what the term status quo means.
But yeah, QAnon is pretty radical seeing as they definitely aren’t the status quo.
There is nothing “radical” about QAnon - again, there is no such thing as a “radical right-winger.”
I’ve never seen a right-winger being upset by that.
Lol! Why do you think they refer to themselves as “conservatives” and not right-wingers?
I think it’s sad how so many of the comments are sharing strategies about how to game the Youtube algorithm, instead of suggesting ways to avoid interacting with the algorithm at all, and learning to curate content on your own.
The algorithm doesn’t actually care that it’s promoting right-wing or crazy conspiracy content, it promotes whatever that keeps people’s eyeballs on Youtube. The fact is that this will always be the most enraging content. Using “not interested” and “block this channel” buttons doesn’t make the algorithm stop trying to advertise this content, you’re teaching it to improve its strategy to manipulate you!
The long-term strategy is to get people away from engagement algorithms. Introduce OP’s mother to a patched Youtube client that blocks ads and algorithmic feeds (Revanced has this). “Youtube with no ads!” is an easy way to convince non-technical people. Help her subscribe to safe channels and monitor what she watches.
Not everyone is willing to switch platforms that easily. You can’t always be idealistic.
That’s why I suggested Revanced with “disable recommendations” patches. It’s still Youtube and there is no new platform to learn.
How do you disable algorithmic feeds in revanced? This sounds perfect…
Ooh, you can even set the app to open automatically to the subscription feed rather than the algo driven home. The app does probably need somebody knowledgable about using the app patcher every half-dozen months to update it though.
Also consider - don’t sign in to YouTube. Set uBlock, and Sponsorblock, too - so when youtube does get watched, the ads and promotions get skipped.
Everyone here is missing the point - by signing in to YouTube, you give Google more power to dominate your life.
With a simple inoreader extension in Firefox, you can visit a youtube/youtuber/video page and subscribe the feed.
Search interesting channels and save them to Feedly, or Inoreader.
Pin those to Firefox, so that your feeds are always refreshed and visible.
How does revanced remove the algorithm stuff? I have been using it for a long time but never saw this feature
I don’t know for sure, because I actually like my algorithmic recommendations on YT (I’ve done a good job of carefully curating it to show me a good stuff). But if I had to guess, I’d say it removes “related videos” from its watch page, and removes the “home” tab. So it will show search results and subscriptions, but not the general algorithmic content.
There should be a patch for it that hides the “recommended” feed in the homepage. I’m not certain because I never use Youtube with an account or the official website/app, so I don’t get targeted recommendations.
Greasemonkey with scripts that block key words or channels. This is the only real option next to taking away YouTube from the old bat.
HEAVY use of “Don’t Recommend Channel” is essential to make YouTube tolerable. Clobber all the garbage.
Yeah “Not interested” doesn’t do a damn thing.
It’s like a “don’t recommend this specific video … for a few months” button
More like “alright chief, don’t care” from my experience.
BlockTube extension is also a must. It will make sure a video or channel NEVER appears again, no matter what.
the damage that corporate social media has inflicted on our social fabric and political discourse is beyond anything we could have imagined.
This is true, but one could say the same about talk radio or television.
Yes, I agree - there have always been malevolent forces at work within the media - but before facebook started algorithmically whipping up old folks for clicks, cable TV news wasn’t quite as savage. The early days of hate-talk radio was really just Limbaugh ranting into the AM ether. Now, it’s saturated. Social media isn’t the root cause of political hatred but it gave it a bullhorn and a leg up to apparent legitimacy.
Social media is more extreme, but we can’t discount the damage Fox and people like Limbaugh or Michael Savage did.
Talk radio or television broadcasts the same stuff to everyone. It’s damaging, absolutely. But social media literally tailors the shit to be exactly what will force someone farther down the rabbit hole. It’s actively, aggressively damaging and sends people on a downward spiral way faster while preventing them from encountering diverse viewpoints.
And it sucks people back in like a breadcrumbing ex when it hasn’t seen you active recently.
I agree it’s worse, but i was just thinking how there are regions where people play ONLY Fox on every public television, and if you turn on the radio it’s exclusively a right-wing propagandist ranting to tell you democrats are taking all your money to give it to black people on welfare.
Well it’s kind of true.
Actually, liberal taxes pay for rural white America.
Uh, no. For one, Republicans spend like fuck, they just also cut taxes so they end up running up the deficit. Social welfare programs account for a tiny fraction of government budgets. The vast majority is the military and interest payments on debt.
Agreed, Ted Kaczynski was right about technology evidently.
It was just in the news that he was an MK ULTRA subject. Fucked up shit.
He was pretty good at math too
Populism and racism is as old as societies. Anciant Greece already had it. Rome fell to it. Christianism is born out of it.
Funnily enough, people always complained about how bad their society was because of this new thing. Like 5 thousand years ago already. Probably earlier even.
Which is not to say we shouldn’t do anything about it. We definitely should. But common sense won’t save us unfortunately.
Replace her existing account with a new one. Make up some excuse. Use the don’t recommend channel option when a bad recommendation comes up.
Delete all watched history. It will give her a whole new sets of videos. Like a new algorithms.
Where does she watch he YouTube videos? If it’s a computer and you’re a little techie, switch to Firefox then change the user agent to Nintendo Switch. I find that YouTube serve less crazy videos for Nintendo Switch.
This never worked for me. BUT WHAT FIXED IT WAS LISTENING TO SCREAMO METAL. APPARENTLY THE. YOURUBE KNEW I WAS A LEFTIST then. Weird but I’ve been free ever since
This comment made me laugh so hard and I don’t know why… I love it!
in my head, I read it like someone was talking, and then had to start shouting over the sound of a train passing by, then return to normal volume as it passed
Or like someone whose SCREAMO METAL SUDDENLY TURNED ON AND THEY COULDN’T HEAR themselves thinking anymore.
change the user agent to Nintendo Switch
You mad genius, you
