I think it depends on the things you watch. For example, if you watch a lot of counter-apologetics targeted towards Christianity, YouTube will eventually try out sending you pro-Christian apologetics videos. Similarly, if you watch a lot of anti-Conservative commentary, YouTube will try sending you Conservative crap, because they're adjacent and share that "Conservative" thread.

Additionally, if you click on those videos and add a negative comment, the algorithm just knows you engaged with it, and it will then flood your feed with more.

It doesn't care what your core interests are, it just aims for increasing your engagement by any means necessary.

Maybe it depends on what you watch. I use Youtube for music (only things that I search for) and sometimes live streams of an owl nest or something like that.

If I stick to that, the recommendations are sort of OK. Usually stuff I watched before. Little to no clickbait or random topics.

I clicked on one reaction video to a song I listened to just to see what would happen. The recommendations turned into like 90% reaction videos, plus a bunch of topics I've never shown any interest in. U.S. politics, the death penalty in Japan, gaming, Brexit, some Christian hymns, and brand new videos on random topics.

Shorts are pretty annoying in general, but I'll be damned if they're not great for presenting a recipe in a very short amount of time. Like, you don't need to see the chef dicing four whole onions in real time.

Logically the number should be higher than the previous comments (just sayin').

You know two things can be true, right?

Also knowing how scummy these social media companies are and how they operate inside, there could be some internal memo to the moderators to let the AfD reign free (happened with Twitter and Libs of Tiktok).

Ideas spread between humans. On systems designed to facilitate communications between people, these ideas will likewise spread. Did AfD exploit TikTok's algorithm or is right wing populism seeing a large growth worldwide?

When the printing press come out and certain news agencies starting "Yellow Journalism" were they exploiting that system of communication for profit?

Did JFK and Nixon exploit TV for their own political purposes?

I believe wholeheartedly that every social media algorithm should be open source and transparent so the public can analyze what funny business is going on under the hood.

But is it any different from how TV channels pick what shows to play or what ads to run? Which articles get printed and the choice of words for a newspaper?

I think people are quick to jump on TikTok because of some unusual socially acceptable jingoism but I don't see how at its core is fundamentally different from other forms of media, let alone other popular social media platforms.

It’s both.

The companies who do this shit absolutely need to be regulated way more aggressively.

TikTok (ByteDance), being a Chinese company based in the PRC, is compelled to operate in partnership with the CCP by law, which gives the CCP an insane degree of visibility and control into their systems. I would be absolutely unsurprised to find that the CCP is compelling them to tweak their algorithms and push specific content to specific audiences, in addition to the data gathering they’re surely engaged in. Source: I work for an oncology biotech, and we halted our Chinese efforts because there was apparently no legal way to square the circle with regard to data privacy/HIPAA considerations.

He doesn't see that specific allied power interfering with European politics because he is from the US.