The revolution will not be televised because my television has been radicalised
- Reference: 1605510192
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/11/16/radicalised_television/
- Source link:
Its content are just not my cup of tea. I find them errant, offensive, braying, thoughtless and, well, just stupid.
I know we're all supposed to be working on ways to, in the words of the President-elect 'See one another', and I know that a broad media diet is healthiest way to live in the world. But only generous funding from a like-minded think tank makes it possible to publish more radical content than the stuff my TV wants me to watch.
So I'd like my TV to stop this, but I can't figure out how.
I don't think the problem is with me; I'm fairly technically competent, understand how recommendation algorithms collect their data then feed that back to me, and I can also Google around for an answer to a question – in this case, how do I prevent this particular media source from showing up in my recommendations?
Given that we increasingly rely on algorithms to feed our attention with things that we need to know, we need to have a lot more transparency and control over these algorithms
That sounds so simple, and according to the Internet – that eternal font of wisdom – the answer is equally straightforward: just block the source, and voila, your recommendations will sort themselves out. So I did that.
And nothing changed.
Before I tried blocking this source, I'd gone through the laborious process of labeling every one of its videos as not to my tastes every time they appeared as recommendations.
That didn't work, either.
So this recommendation system is clearly flying according it its own desires, while blithely ignoring mine. My television has been hijacked. I don't think this is a bug – but that's not the same thing as saying it's intentional. Instead, I suspect this is the emergent outcome of a confluence of decisions made to square the needs of both commerce and user experience.
Somewhere along the line someone decided that this media source deserved equal billing with less feral voices, and that in the interests of perceived fairness all of them should be presented as equal and equally appropriate for viewers. That this system doesn't allow you to pick and choose your news sources may give it the illusion of fairness, but all news sources are not created equal. They have different values, different editorial standards – and different audiences. Chalk and cheese not in any way equivalent.
Machine-learning models trained on pre-COVID data are now completely out of whack, says Gartner [1]READ MORE
And there's another dimension to this: this source actively promotes disinformation so it's likely that someone consuming its output actually becomes less well-informed about the state of the world, a precarious state of affairs that has become increasingly visible during the pandemic.
And while much debate about media today is a skirmish in the culture wars skirmish or an attempt to claim political high ground, we all now face life-and-death decisions concerning public health, vaccinations, and economy recovery. To add a false voice right now seems both a failure to read the room, and potentially quite dangerous.
So what do I do about my television? It's just a window onto a vast cloud of servers and content and recommendation algorithms. It can't fix this problem. Neither, it seems, can I.
And it's not just me. One of my friends found his partner – newly arrived in this country, and not yet across the various polarities in Australia's media landscape – watching video after video from this provider, as if it was all perfectly normal. That's the trick here: a wolf in sheep's clothing, looking just like all the other grazers – until it takes a bite out of you.
This seems to be happening at scale in many places – an invasion by algorithm, something that has not been discussed, or debated, or put to a vote. Given that we increasingly rely on algorithms to feed our attention with things that we need to know, we need to have a lot more transparency and control over these algorithms. We need to be able to block – and to permit. And we always, always need to know why something is in our feeds. We need to know the chain of logic and association and algorithm and corporate interest that presented us with this steaming pile of video content.
If we don't, we'll soon find our minds stuff full of it. ®
Get our [2]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/23/covid19_pandemic_means_data_from/
[2] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Use a Raspberry Pi.
Exactly this. But also, I don’t trust the IoT providers to keep their stuff updated for as long as I want to keep using it. So I buy dumb, wherever possible, and I don’t let anything connect that isn’t a computer with an OS from a vendor who can be trusted to update over an extended period.
Re: Use a Raspberry Pi.
"I don't understand why anyone would directly connect any IOT crap"
If you don't understand that, then you are clearly not qualified to offer an answer that just as clearly won't work for the majority of people.
Making yourself feel superior to all those people who just enter their wifi password when the TV asks them on first start is really not providing a solution, and is dumb in itself. Those people you yourself claim to "not understand" are still part of society. Not being qualified in basic IT stuff doesn't strip them from that right, just as you not being qualified to properly butcher a cow's carcass doesn't prevent you from eating steak (or not knowing how to drive a harvester through a field of wheat doesn't prevent you from eating bread if you're vegan).
1. Find the "Off" button for the TV
2. Find a reliable dead-tree source for news, opinions etc. (This may take a bit of experimenting, however the time invested is well worth it.)
3. Advantages: You can update your input in bed, in the loo, wherever. You have more control over what you see. You update your reading skills.
quote: "I tried to increase the intelligence of my TV. It has a 'Brightness' button, but that doesn't work"
11600 people
Trump's "Million MAGA march" this weekend.... got 11600 people. Hillbillies with beards screaming racist hate. Just 11600.
So much for the liars. Fox News, Hannity, Carlson, Pirro, Ingrahams, all parroted the Trump lies, only 11600 people believed them. One America Network / Sputnik Russian news? No traction at all.
1%.
"Find the "Off" button for the TV"
This.
Go be that shadow in the sand, go see those 'Leonids' tonight, go dive in that lagoon and have that beach bbq. If it's snowey? Go make that snow angel, go sledding with your kids.
Trump the loser has lost. His lawyers are deserting him, Republicans are distancing themselves, nobody is endorsing his 2024 bid, TV channels are planning their new schedules with their new presenters and their new directions.
Have you noticed anything recently?
Like, 24/7 MISinformation campaigns. Like, the army moving into Liverpool, having a go at children - to find fuck all! Yes, they accidentally used the wrong test-kits. The ones that are more accurate. What a bummer! Let's ignore this and move on...
Re: Have you noticed anything recently?
Such similar posts. Do you have a trump TV connected to the wondernet.
Re: Have you noticed anything recently?
Yes indeed. They let you loose on me. :-(
Re: Have you noticed anything recently?
Thanks for brightening my Monday. And the only ones that let me lose were me mum and dad
You've only just noticed that TV isn't a substitute for education?
Somewhere around the 1950s, most of us figured out that TV is nothing more than a way to sell beer, tampons, razorblades, automobiles, and political bullshit to the GreatUnwashed. Where have you been hiding?
Re: You've only just noticed that TV isn't a substitute for education?
My TV does not try to sell me anything.
But then I mainly watch advertless TV.
Not the One I Was Thinking Of
At first, I thought you might have been talking about Fox News, although I felt your description was perhaps a bit too harsh on them, flawed though they are.
But then I saw you were in Australia.
On YouTube, presumably because I've looked at the odd video concerning the American election result, I've seen several videos recommended from Sky News, and they appear to fit the description you gave.
I no longer rely on BBC News ...
... after they set up a specialist Disinformation department.
Re: I no longer rely on BBC News ...
“Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.”
HJS
A bit late, I think
While i agree with most of the author's sentiments, I find it odd that he is complaining now. This polarizing/radicalizing effect has been with us for a long time and is only getting worse.
The problem is illustrated in this sentence:
Given that we increasingly rely on our algorithms to feed or attention with things that we need to know,
I don't think the solution is to seek to control the algorithms - that is a non-starter. You are there to consume, not give orders. And do you really want an algorithm or faceless corp to know you that well?
Better to do it the old-fashioned way: have a list of sources that you trust and manually peruse them.
The algorithms
The algorithms actually work very well, they're just not for the purpose you assume. The purpose is to maximise network profits. As these primarily come from advertising, maximisation involves pumping out the most sensational material to the largest public, so the accompanying ads pass the eyeballs of the largest number of punters. Pretty much all other considerations are irrelevant unless the network may get sued or prosecuted.
Re: The algorithms
The phrase 'bread and circuses' springs to mind...
BBC
Yet another unsubstantiated comment against the BBC by a whining coward. Why do you waste your breath? Are the BBC perfect? No. Are they WAY less biased than almost any other TV news source available? Yes. Would I trust them over Sky (Faux) News on ANY SUBJECT? Yes. Do I check by viewing various other news sources? Yes. Do I let my personal politics and point of view skew my opinion of a news service? No, the ONLY deciding factor is accuracy. The one thing I like the most about the BBC is that both right and left wingers whinge about it being biased against them in equal measure. I can't think of a better definition of unbiased than that.
Re: BBC
*lol* the BBC has been caught pushing the dullest of propaganda repeatedly. If you didn't notice a change in the past years, you might as well wear a cross to protect you from evil.
Re: BBC
What sort? Care to give an example?
Re: BBC
We should all revise what we expect from the BBC. Think about how you yourself would run it to keep the broad support it needs to keep going. In practice the only way to do this is to keep a broad balance between the main political parties. That is something well worth preserving as no other media outlet needs to do this. But it also has severe limitations, because the truth, even in broad terms, is never balanced.
Most people with an interest in politics think the BBC is biased one way or the other to some degree but still trust it not to tell significant lies. Once the majority stops trusting the BBC in this way, it is finished.
But the best you can expect is that the BBC does not broadcast actual falsehoods. Usually, on the basis of fact-checking organisations, I think it clears this rather low bar.
What is This Recommended For You Crap?
My TV is connected, my PVR is connected, (even my DVD/Blu-ray players are connected, but rarely powered on.) I can log into a range of online providers should I chose to do so, but I have never had any recommendations thrust at me. The only exception is one 'service provider' who emails me lists of films that appear selected to be of no interest.
My biggest issue is digging my way through all the cruft that is listed in the online listings. How the heck does anyone ever find something to watch out of the crap items offered? May be if I missed something that I wanted to see, I can go and hunt for it in the catchup (ketchup?) listings that appear designed to keep items forever hidden from view. Sometimes I get a win, but rarely.
YouTube tends to have some idea of what I have watched and generally presents me with more items related to my interests, I do not want news or political airheads. Conspiracy theorists can go and do one, drink bleach, take cyanide tablets or whatever they are pushing this week, without troubling my braincells: David Icke please note.
I refuse to let my TV connect to the internet and it gives me a profound sense of joy to deny it it's regular protests.
What a dumb thing to say on so many levels.
Why do you get profound joy from frustrating an inanimate object?
Why did you pay extra for a telly that connects to the internet that you didn't want to connect to the internet?
Why do you sound proud of yourself? You might as well have said that you bought a toaster that you refuse to put bread in.
>> Why did you pay extra for a telly that connects to the internet that you didn't want to connect to the internet?
Have you tried buying a telly that *doesn't* want to connect to the internet. The trick is never to allow it to. Ever.
If only there was some mythical way to get your computer to record only the programmes that interest you? One in which you look through the list of new titles and pick the ones to record - just one or maybe the whole series. Then later you choose to watch some of the ones you picked.
Oh there is. MythTV and its imitators.
Use a Raspberry Pi.
Create a firewall the "smart" telly can't go around, blackhole any source you don't want to reward with your brain-CPU-cycles, and get back to watching what you want to watch.
I don't understand why anyone would directly connect any IOT crap to the internet in the first place. It's like the phrase "What could POSSIBLY go wrong?" isn't even in the picture (in picture)...