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.

  • fennec@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    At this point I would set up a new account for her - I’ve found Youtube’s algorithm to be very… persistent.

      • ubergeek77@lemmy.ubergeek77.chat
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You can make “brand accounts” on YouTube that are a completely different profile from the default account. She probably won’t notice if you make one and switch her to it.

        You’ll probably want to spend some time using it for yourself secretly to curate the kind of non-radical content she’ll want to see, and also set an identical profile picture on it so she doesn’t notice. I would spend at least a week “breaking it in.”

        But once you’ve done that, you can probably switch to the brand account without logging her out of her Google account.

        • AvoidMyRage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I love how we now have to monitor the content the generation that told us “Don’t believe everything you see on the internet.” watches like we would for children.

          • ubergeek77@lemmy.ubergeek77.chat
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            We can thank all that tetraethyllead gas that was pumping lead into the air from the 20s to the 70s. Everyone got a nice healthy dose of lead while they were young. Made 'em stupid.

            OP’s mom breathed nearly 20 years worth of polluted lead air straight from birth, and OP’s grandmother had been breathing it for 33 years up until OP’s mom was born. Probably not great for early development.

      • Historical_General@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Delete watch history, find and watch nice channels and her other interests, log in to the account on a spare browser on your own phone periodically to make sure there’s no repeat of what happened.

  • 001100 010010@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m a bit disturbed how people’s beliefs are literally shaped by an algorithm. Now I’m scared to watch Youtube because I might be inadvertently watching propaganda.

      • Mikina@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s even worse than “a lot easier”. Ever since the advances in ML went public, with things like Midjourney and ChatGPT, I’ve realized that the ML models are way way better at doing their thing that I’ve though.

        Midjourney model’s purpose is so receive text, and give out an picture. And it’s really good at that, even though the dataset wasn’t really that large. Same with ChatGPT.

        Now, Meta has (EDIT: just a speculation, but I’m 95% sure they do) a model which receives all data they have about the user (which is A LOT), and returns what post to show to him and in what order, to maximize his time on Facebook. And it was trained for years on a live dataset of 3 billion people interacting daily with the site. That’s a wet dream for any ML model. Imagine what it would be capable of even if it was only as good as ChatGPT at doing it’s task - and it had uncomparably better dataset and learning opportunities.

        I’m really worried for the future in this regard, because it’s only a matter of time when someone with power decides that the model should not only keep people on the platform, but also to make them vote for X. And there is nothing you can do to defend against it, other than never interacting with anything with curated content, such as Google search, YT or anything Meta - because even if you know that there’s a model trying to manipulate with you, the model knows - there’s a lot of people like that. And he’s already learning and trying how to manipulate even with people like that. After all, it has 3 billion people as test subjects.

        That’s why I’m extremely focused on privacy and about my data - not that I have something to hide, but I take a really really great issue with someone using such data to train models like that.

        • Cheers@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just to let you know, meta has an open source model, llama, and it’s basically state of the art for open source community, but it falls short of chatgpt4.

          The nice thing about the llama branches (vicuna and wizardlm) is that you can run them locally with about 80% of chatgpt3.5 efficiency, so no one is tracking your searches/conversations.

    • nLuLukna @sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Reason and critical thinking is all the more important in this day and age. It’s just no longer taught in schools. Some simple key skills like noticing fallacies or analogous reasoning, and you will find that your view on life is far more grounded and harder to shift

  • fuser@quex.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    the damage that corporate social media has inflicted on our social fabric and political discourse is beyond anything we could have imagined.

  • Ozymati@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Log in as her on your device. Delete the history, turn off ad personalisation, unsubscribe and block dodgy stuff, like and subscribe healthier things, and this is the important part: keep coming back regularly to tell YouTube you don’t like any suggested videos that are down the qanon path/remove dodgy watched videos from her history.

    Also, subscribe and interact with things she’ll like - cute pets, crafts, knitting, whatever she’s likely to watch more of. You can’t just block and report, you’ve gotta retrain the algorithm.

    • sergih123@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, when you go on the feed make sure to click on the 3 dots for every recommended video and “Don’t show content like this” and also “Block channel” because chances are, if they uploaded one of these stupid videos, their whole channel is full of them.

  • Andreas@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • eee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not everyone is willing to switch platforms that easily. You can’t always be idealistic.

      • Andreas@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s why I suggested Revanced with “disable recommendations” patches. It’s still Youtube and there is no new platform to learn.

    • Historical_General@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • Vex_Detrause@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can go into the view history and remove all the bad videos.

    My mom has a similar problem with animal videos. She likes watching farm videos where sometimes there’s animals giving birth… And those videos completely ruin the algorithm. After that she only gets animals having sex, and the animal fighting and killing eachother.

  • djm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sorry to hear about you mom and good on you for trying to steer her away from the crazy.

    You can retrain YT’s recommendations by going through the suggested videos, and clicking the ‘…’ menu on each bad one to show this menu:

    (no slight against Stan, he’s just what popped up)

    click the Don’t recommend channel or Not interested buttons. Do this as many times as you can. You might also want to try subscribing/watching a bunch of wholesome ones that your mum might be interested in (hobbies, crafts, travel, history, etc) to push the recommendations in a direction that will meet her interests.

    Edit: mention subscribing to interesting, good videos, not just watching.

    • BrerChicken @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You might also want to try watching a bunch of wholesome ones that your mum might be interested (hobbies, crafts, travel, history, etc) in to push the recommendations in a direction that will meet her interests.

      This is a very important part of the solution here. The algorithm adapts to new videos very quickly, so watching some things you know she’s into will definitely change the recommended videos pretty quickly!

      • Historical_General@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        OP can make sure this continues by logging into youtube on private mode/non chrome web browser/revanced YT app using their login and effectively remotely monitor the algorithm.

        (A non chrome browser that you don’t use is best so that you keep your stuff seperate, otherwise google will assume your device is connected to the account which can be potentially messy in niche cases).

  • clockwork_octopus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kittens are good. Maybe some BBC stuff? Get her into the nature shows. Damn near anything on BBC Earth should be great for that.

    Diy building stuff: Simone Goertz is awesome, as is Laura Kampf.

    For some super chill diy, check out SteadyCraftin

    ClickSpring builds super cool old shit and is just beautiful to watch.

    Either The Action Lab or Steve Mould should work for understanding science.

    For fun experiments and sciencey things, Mark Rober is entertaining.

    Want something food related? I’ve heard good things about Tasting History (Max Miller), haven’t checked him out myself, though. Or James Hoffman does a great show all about coffee.

    Does she knit or crochet? There are hundreds of channels about yarny things - Tiny Fiber Studios does stuff like that.

    Or maybe she likes other things. Sashiko Story teaches the art of sashiko (Japanese embroidery). The Violet Unicorn teaches weaving.

    How about music? Tim Reynolds is incredible, as is Marcin.

    • niktemadur@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe some BBC stuff?

      Gardener’s World, the way the show is presented is soothing yet fascinating at the same time. There are a lot of full episodes on YouTube, and it is healthy content for a 70-year old mind… or much younger, even.

      • Historical_General@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just stay away from bbc news politics coverage of the uk, it’s dogshit, almost as bad as the tabloids. world coverage and other fun stuff is fine.

  • lemmylommy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    In the google account privacy settings you can delete the watch and search history. You can also delete a service such as YouTube from the account, without deleting the account itself. This might help starting afresh.

    • twistedtxb@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I was so weirded out when I found out that you can hear ALL of your “hey Google” recordings in these settings.

  • 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.

    • Dark Arc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Historical_General@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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

        • Dark Arc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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…

          • Historical_General@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • 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.

          • Historical_General@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • 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.

              • Historical_General@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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?

            • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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

              • Historical_General@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.