What to do about harmful media untruths (without imperilling genuine free debate)

I'm writing this as I'm fed up with the media, particularly the tabloids, routinely spreading harmful stereotypes about people, which are often not only untrue but counterproductive. However, I'm also offering a practical solution - a change in the law - which could rectify this without micromanagement or potential suppression of the truth.
Certain sections of the media, particularly the newspapers are keen to smear entire groups of people, in a manner in which they have no comeback. Now if I, or a newspaper, libel a specific person, particularly someone with a reputation to defend such as a business tycoon, a politician or a celebrity, they can claim substantial compensation. But there is no such recourse for similar untruths spread against entire groups of people, even though far more people are harmed and the 'allegations' untrue.
Am particularly fed up with the narratives peddled against the neurodiverse as we're put in an impossible situation. They view us as scroungers when we take benefits, or being awkward at work for asking for reasonable adjustments. They're against us being in work, they're against us claiming benefits and often make up huge sweeping stores about us to fit this narrative, ignoring that the overwhelming majority of us just want to be given a fair chance of getting on in life without too much of a fuss. We're far from the worst targeted group. I think British Muslims and Gypsies are routinely targeted without any evidence whatsoever, and that's before we get into the whole narratives about 'Gen Y' . I don't belong to any of the last three groups but honestly, I'd be despondent if I had to put up with that sort of propaganda aimed at me every day. I honestly think the plan is to hound all of these groups into suicide and to somehow cleanse the gene pool. I think this is the only rational conclusion that can be reached.

Yet these groups cannot sue. Far more individuals are harmed, often with similar effect on their reputation. Before you say people might laugh it off and not everyone might consider it harmful, did Alan Sugar not get £20000 for being called a spiv? These groups suffer far worse. By sheer calculus it's worse still as many people suffer significantly, rather than one a little. It seems like a blind spot in our legal system of press regulation.

I am however utterly against state censors stepping in. This would have a chilling effect on free speech and genuine free debate, so I'm proposing a legally testable alternative: Why don't we have class action libel law?

Think about it: The bar for class action in England and Wales, having been introduced relatively recently, is set quite high, so provides an inherent safeguard. Plus for something to be considered libel, it generally has to be untrue and damaging - another safeguard there. It would simultaneously provide people with a recourse, protect genuine free speech and improve the output and truth of the news. I can actually see no disadvantage. There would be an adequate appeals process and means of fighting it in court too.

IANAL, so am genuinely interested in your thoughts regarding my proposals.

mikeg said:

I honestly think the plan is to hound all of these groups into suicide and to somehow cleanse the gene pool. I think this is the only rational conclusion that can be reached.

Click to expand...

This is just untrue. If you genuinely believe that and it is having a serious impact on your quality of life, it would be sensible to speak to a mental health professional before things get worse. I am not saying that flippantly, I am being quite serious - please do speak to someone if it is actually bothering you that much rather than just being a bit of Forum hyperbole. It cannot be nice living day to day with a genuine view that people hate your existence, and I'm quite sure they don't.

FWIW I'm not entirely surprised that the autistic (I assume) logical brain can draw conclusions like that. The reason those conclusions are wrong is that they assume that humans always act rationally - and by and large the autistic brain does. The problem is that (neurotypical) humans largely *do not* act rationally, they act on emotion, and when the autistic brain attempts to rationalise this it tends to come up with inaccurate conclusions as a result, due to the incompatibility between the two.

Generation stereotypes have always existed, including stuff like "the youth of today" - they mostly root in dislike of change, not a genuine hate for people of that kind of magnitude.

I would be against this, generally speaking. I think there are too many cases where people like to be offended on behalf of others who are not themselves offended, or suggest they are somehow wrong in not being offended. Bringing that issue into the Courts would be negative in my view - it would literally *be* a legal way to be offended on behalf of others for profit (class actions are mainly created by lawyers for reasons of profit, not because of being somehow altruistic - most would genuinely be better if they didn't happen).

Bletchleyite said:

This is just untrue. If you genuinely believe that and it is having a serious impact on your quality of life, it would be sensible to speak to a mental health professional before things get worse. I am not saying that flippantly, I am being quite serious - please do speak to someone if it is actually bothering you that much rather than just being a bit of Forum hyperbole. It cannot be nice living day to day with a genuine view that people hate your existence, and I'm quite sure they don't.

FWIW I'm not entirely surprised that the autistic (I assume) logical brain can draw conclusions like that. The reason those conclusions are wrong is that they assume that humans always act rationally - and by and large the autistic brain does. The problem is that (neurotypical) humans largely *do not* act rationally, they act on emotion, and when the autistic brain attempts to rationalise this it tends to come up with inaccurate conclusions as a result, due to the incompatibility between the two.

Generation stereotypes have always existed, including stuff like "the youth of today" - they mostly root in dislike of change, not a genuine hate for people of that kind of magnitude.

I would be against this, generally speaking. I think there are too many cases where people like to be offended on behalf of others who are not themselves offended, or suggest they are somehow wrong in not being offended. Bringing that issue into the Courts would be negative in my view - it would literally *be* a legal way to be offended on behalf of others for profit (class actions are mainly created by lawyers for reasons of profit, not because of being somehow altruistic - most would genuinely be better if they didn't happen).

Click to expand...

Yes, it's having a serious impact on my quality of life. Not to that extent yet though, that's why I'm seeking out positive ways to change things.
I think with your point about people taking offence you're making a valid argument with which I have significant sympathy but are missing the mark: My proposals wouldn't depend on people taking offence/issues of taste and decency etc. They would instead be based on untruth and harm. Both should be demonstrated for a case to succeed. If someone publishes something offensive that falls into the 'fair comment' category, it's entirely within their right to do that and I defend that. If someone merely says something in poor taste again I will defend their right to do this (I actually have a reputation for making such comments myself). But if an allegation or lie is spread against people in a way that causes measurable harm, be it reputational or economic, then there should be recourse.
I also noted the bit about being offended on behalf of others not offended: Given that class action is my only proposed mechanism, it wouldn't allow people to censor on behalf of others. Only those actually affected would be able to claim.

mikeg said:

Yes, it's having a serious impact on my quality of life. Not to that extent yet though, that's why I'm seeking out positive ways to change things.

Click to expand...

Please do speak to a professional - it will make things easier even if it's understandably hard to start down that line. Things can and will get better with the appropriate help.

mikeg said:

I think with your point about people taking offence you're making a valid argument with which I have significant sympathy but are missing the mark: My proposals wouldn't depend on people taking offence/issues of taste and decency etc. They would instead be based on untruth and harm. Both should be demonstrated for a case to succeed. If someone publishes something offensive that falls into the 'fair comment' category, it's entirely within their right to do that and I defend that. If someone merely says something in poor taste again I will defend their right to do this (I actually have a reputation for making such comments myself). But if an allegation or lie is spread against people in a way that causes measurable harm, be it reputational or economic, then there should be recourse.

Click to expand...

It's going to be hard to prove there is no truth whatsoever in most of this stuff though. The neurodiverse are possibly the one exception. Most of the kind of things we are talking about are extrapolations of things that some people do that are pushed onto a general stereotype, if you see what I mean. The big danger would be that it would lead to censorship because people would fear speaking out about the actual issues* for risk of being sued.

* For instance, seeing as you mentioned them, littering and ground damage as well as tax evasion and poor quality building work that is caused when New Age Travellers come to town...it may not be all of them but it is a significant minority...

mikeg said:

I also noted the bit about being offended on behalf of others not offended: Given that class action is my only proposed mechanism, it wouldn't allow people to censor on behalf of others. Only those actually affected would be able to claim.

Click to expand...

Class actions are set up for profit by lawyer firms which specalise in them. The whole concept is "profit by being wronged on behalf of others". I'm less than convinced that the concept is of benefit to be honest - in odd cases it is, but in this case I think, because things are much woollier than more practical cases*, far more bad would result from it than good.

* For instance it's fairly clear cut that if a load of people were overcharged for train travel due to a ticket restriction being applied in a manner not compatible with the law, that everyone who honestly bought a more expensive ticket is owed the difference between the two. That is absolute and calculable, and would be contempt of Court if you lied to claim. But emotional harm is very much a matter of opinion. You could say a given thing aimed at a protected characteristic, and half the people with that characteristic might find it funny and half be grossly offended. How do you decide that?

Bletchleyite said:

Please do speak to a professional - it will make things easier even if it's understandably hard to start down that line. Things can and will get better with the appropriate help.

Click to expand...

I have done so already previously. I also have an appointment in a week.

Bletchleyite said:

It's going to be hard to prove there is no truth whatsoever in most of this stuff though. The neurodiverse are possibly the one exception. Most of the kind of things we are talking about are extrapolations of things that some people do that are pushed onto a general stereotype, if you see what I mean. The big danger would be that it would lead to censorship because people would fear speaking out about the actual issues* for risk of being sued.

* For instance, seeing as you mentioned them, littering and ground damage as well as tax evasion and poor quality building work that is caused when New Age Travellers come to town...it may not be all of them but it is a significant minority...

Click to expand...

You raise a valid point: Here I would be more forgiving. But to tar all with the same brush? I've met a few gypsies in my life and you're right. Some have a criminal lifestyle that seems embedded. I honestly don't know numbers, those I have met included a philosophy student at University, a guy with whom I thought too liberal and left wing to be practical and also could tell you a thing or two about homophobia in the gypsy and travelling communities (one of his parents supported him when he came out, the other was devastated and wanted to disown him). The other I met was a cleaner at a former workplace. Very hard worker, but as a former Catholic myself I still thought the term 'Catholic Fundamentalist' was an oxymoron. Turns out I was wrong, maybe that explains the experience of my former phiosophy friend? A couple of others were at my current work, a shoplifter (well the manger said he was a local gypsy am unable to verify this myself) and an old lady who asked if I could change two fifty pound notes for her. I just explained that it's against our policy to change money for people, as we're not allowed to use money not involved in the transaction or open the till unnecessarily (the latter is actually logged and flags up as suspicious). So two good, two dodgy so far. In this case I knew because of the traditional clothing worn, she was a lady of a certain age.


Idk about the others (a group) i'm actually going to go off topic and tell a story for light relief. I feel I need light relief right now.
The others I met were at work in an American owned cinema in Nottingham. We had codewords for emergencies 'Mr. Sand' for fire, 'Mr. Red' for a bomb and 'Mr. Yellow for gas' (the place was built atop a former landfill and Mr. Yellow actually had to be looked into once or twice and we had to look at a mimic panel on our way in to check methane levels were safe). But I digress. An unofficial one had been added by management, which I found outrageous: Mr. Purple, for gypsies, of whom the local manager and area manager were of the opinion caused trouble. I think this was possibly based on valid past experience, yet it still didn't sit right with me.
One day a group of gypsies were camped nearby, and the manager said that we weren't to serve Mr. Purple, he was unlikely to complain anyway. I actually caught up with her in her office and explained she was breaking the law and I may have to blow the whistle on this. I said I would serve them anyway and would be happy to report any individual/group causing trouble. She said no, and that I'm disobeying a reasonable instruction and that's gross misconduct (with hindsight I don't think it was a reasonable instruction anyway). I said I'm serving them anyway, the same as anyone else but also holding them to the same standards of behaviour as anyone else. I said if she tried to fire me for this I would make it public. She said your employment contract doesn't allow you to go to the media. I said "But if I'm fired, I'm released from said contract." She had no option but to give in. I documented everything at home meticulously. I made a point of quietly encouraging others to serve them, had several people on my side but also many not. In the end,they sat down, were rather boisterous but paid, took their allocated seats and basically watched the film. A fellow usher seemed surprised, but I felt vindicated in this situation. I honestly don't think the company's policies regarding not talking to the media accounted for the game they created. I was forced to keep quiet only in employment. From this day on whenever they threatened me, I'd remind them of this and the fact I'd kept a careful diary of it. I think they just didn't understand basic game theory. I had a few other bits of dirt on them as a company too. It saved my skin when I was being awkward on a couple of occasions.

Idk if I should be proud of the whole situation, I told a friend about this and he asked "are you sure you're not a psychopath", albeit jokingly.

But I was just going to say "and a whole group who though camped illegally in nearby land were perfectly fine to deal with".


Going back on subject:

Bletchleyite said:

Class actions are set up for profit by lawyer firms which specalise in them. The whole concept is "profit by being wronged on behalf of others". I'm less than convinced that the concept is of benefit to be honest - in odd cases it is, but in this case I think, because things are much woollier than more practical cases*, far more bad would result from it than good.

* For instance it's fairly clear cut that if a load of people were overcharged for train travel due to a ticket restriction being applied in a manner not compatible with the law, that everyone who honestly bought a more expensive ticket is owed the difference between the two. That is absolute and calculable, and would be contempt of Court if you lied to claim. But emotional harm is very much a matter of opinion. You could say a given thing aimed at a protected characteristic, and half the people with that characteristic might find it funny and half be grossly offended. How do you decide that?

Click to expand...

Maybe a point, lawyers act for profit. But blow me down with a feather, there's news, surely a few pro bono cases aside it's the same for any field of law?

Don’t let the b******s get you down.

Give yourself a huge pat on the back for seeing past the various media agendas because there are an awful lot of people who cannot see beyond the skewed outputs of various corners of the press, social media and its conspiracists or certain TV channels.

In addition, there are the skewed outputs of our own government on our favourite topic of railways. They would have us believe there is a universal ‘fares freeze’ or that nationalising TOCs that have been DfT micromanaged since covid might now magically perform better under that same DfT.

Keep questioning and remember you’re far from alone in doing that.

mikeg said:

I have done so already previously. I also have an appointment in a week.

Click to expand...

I hope it goes well.

mikeg said:

But I was just going to say "and a whole group who though camped illegally in nearby land were perfectly fine to deal with".

Click to expand...

The simple fact that they are occupying land without the owner's position and causing damage and disruption by doing so is itself a problem of course. (It is not possible to drive vehicles onto grassed land without damaging it, so the "leave no trace" principles of proper wild camping cannot be applied).

Yes, they would argue they don't accept convention with regard to how land is used, but the law is what it is.

If they park in a rural layby which has no parking restrictions, fine, that is legal and OK, but doing stuff like occupying parks and the likes is not, I'm sorry, however good the intentions. Parks are not caravan sites, they are parks. Vehicles should not be driven onto land which is not intended to have vehicles driven onto it.

mikeg said:

Maybe a point, lawyers act for profit. But blow me down with a feather, there's news, surely a few pro bono cases aside it's the same for any field of law?

Click to expand...

The issue is that you're opening things up for legal sanctions proactively carried out for profit on the basis of just being a bit offended. (Real harm is not easily definable or provable when it comes to "hurty words", so if you want it to be usable at all it's going to have to have a very low bar).

That is dangerous.

I'm not sure that class actions generally were a good import from the US. In a few odd cases they've been of benefit but I don't think the concept is overall. This would be really negative and would, however you frame it, cause a form of censorship. My personal view would be that we move more towards US style free speech, not further from it.

Bletchleyite said:

The simple fact that they are occupying land without the owner's position and causing damage and disruption by doing so is itself a problem of course. (It is not possible to drive vehicles onto grassed land without damaging it, so the "leave no trace" principles of proper wild camping cannot be applied).

Yes, they would argue they don't accept convention with regard to how land is used, but the law is what it is.

If they park in a rural layby which has no parking restrictions, fine, that is legal and OK, but doing stuff like occupying parks and the likes is not, I'm sorry, however good the intentions. Parks are not caravan sites, they are parks.

Click to expand...

I think you'll find with this I'm in agreement, my point was two wrongs do not make a right and if she was so bothered, why didn't she just report the matter? It was not our land and we were turning away good business. Doesn't mean that you get to use discriminatory terms about people.

mikeg said:

I think you'll find with this I'm in agreement, my point was two wrongs do not make a right and if she was so bothered, why didn't she just report the matter? It was not our land and we were turning away good business. Doesn't mean that you get to use discriminatory terms about people.

Click to expand...

It is illegal to refuse to serve someone because they are a gypsy, that would come under a protected characteristic (race).

It's more vague as to whether refusing to serve people from a specific set of gypsies due to them having already committed offences locally is legal.

Use of discriminatory language in this context is generally not and existing laws deal with that, there is no need for new ones.

Harpo said:

Don’t let the b******s get you down.

Give yourself a huge pat on the back for seeing past the various media agendas because there are an awful lot of people who cannot see beyond the skewed outputs of various corners of the press, social media and its conspiracists or certain TV channels.

In addition, there are the skewed outputs of our own government on our favourite topic of railways. They would have us believe there is a universal ‘fares freeze’ or that nationalising TOCs that have been DfT micromanaged since covid might now magically perform better under that same DfT.

Keep questioning and remember you’re far from alone in doing that.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your support. Honestly this forum is a sanctuary of sanity. Whilst I have many disagreements with many people, and they the same for me, the fact we're able to do it in a reasoned and respectful way means something.
I honestly appreciate the whole railway enthusiast mentality. Plus if you want to find someone with good technical skills, there's often someone who can help with such things. It's a bit like if you want to find someone with good practical skills you become a voluntary firefighter. Or with good business skills the masons (ok maybe i'm just stereotyping myself on the last one).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Sep 2026 ==

Bletchleyite said:

It is illegal to refuse to serve someone because they are a gypsy, that would come under a protected characteristic (race).

It's more vague as to whether refusing to serve people from a specific set of gypsies due to them having already committed offences locally is legal.

Use of discriminatory language in this context is generally not and existing laws deal with that, there is no need for new ones.

Click to expand...

You make a good point, but she was referring to gypsies generally I think, plus had used the codeword Mr Purple before for groups of people who came in, but only if they were gypsies, who came in from nowhere discernibly near, so I think the former test applies.
Indeed likely I'd have responded differently if she'd said "There are a bunch of people who are breaking the law by camping illegally nearby. I propose we don't serve anyone who we identify as belonging to that illegal camp". But that's not what she said, nor did it appear to be her intent (though I'm rubbish at noting peoples' intents)

mikeg said:

Think about it: The bar for class action in England and Wales, having been introduced relatively recently, is set quite high, so provides an inherent safeguard. Plus for something to be considered libel, it generally has to be untrue and damaging - another safeguard there. It would simultaneously provide people with a recourse, protect genuine free speech and improve the output and truth of the news. I can actually see no disadvantage. There would be an adequate appeals process and means of fighting it in court too.

IANAL, so am genuinely interested in your thoughts regarding my proposals.

Click to expand...

What sort of untruths are you thinking of? Give us some examples.

mikeg said:

Certain sections of the media, particularly the newspapers are keen to smear entire groups of people, in a manner in which they have no comeback. Now if I, or a newspaper, libel a specific person, particularly someone with a reputation to defend such as a business tycoon, a politician or a celebrity, they can claim substantial compensation. But there is no such recourse for similar untruths spread against entire groups of people, even though far more people are harmed and the 'allegations' untrue.

Click to expand...

If you want to further weaponise the libel laws in this country this is exactly how you would do it. You're creating a way of allowing class action SLAPPing.

The likes of the Campaign Against Antisemitism would love this idea.

mikeg said:

Think about it: The bar for class action in England and Wales, having been introduced relatively recently, is set quite high, so provides an inherent safeguard. Plus for something to be considered libel, it generally has to be untrue and damaging - another safeguard there. It would simultaneously provide people with a recourse, protect genuine free speech and improve the output and truth of the news. I can actually see no disadvantage. There would be an adequate appeals process and means of fighting it in court too.

IANAL, so am genuinely interested in your thoughts regarding my proposals.

Click to expand...

I'm with @Tetchytyke on this - it is a path to empower precisely the sort of action that we see people like Trump abusing teh courts for.

I suggest you look up Dan Neidle's posts on the libel suits he's faced, and the costs in terms of time and emotion that they've caused. And then look up Mohammed Amersi's suits against Charlotte Leslie.

Ultimately defamation law, along with hate speech legislation, is there as a longstop to deal with the worst abuses; not to prevent all harm.

mikeg said:

IANAL, so am genuinely interested in your thoughts regarding my proposals.

Click to expand...

IANAL = I am not a lawyer


EDASD (Every day's a school day)

Also just for clarity, my understanding is:
SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation - lawsuits by very wealthy individuals against people (often journalists) who have exposed and publicised their misdeeds, aimed at continuing legal action until the whistleblower runs out of money to continue their defence.

I think we should remember that the media motivation is very largely about making money. They unjustifiably imply that groups of people have common bad characteristics because they know it plays to the tribal instinct and prejudices that they themselves reinforce. People are more likely to buy their newspaper or watch their TV show or click on their post if they disseminate stuff that the punters will like.

So (to try to answer the OP's headline) I don't think class lawsuits for libel will work for anyone but lawyers. What we can do is support the media outlets that are reasonably free of bias (and I know that's subjective as well) and keep telling the truth as we see it. But be careful not to waste time on rage bait because that's putting money in the wrong pockets.

PS - and if anyone wants to create a glossary of CATSHOCYA* please create a separate thread!

* Complicated Acronyms To ShOw How Clever You Are"

mikeg said:

I honestly think the plan is to hound all of these groups into suicide and to somehow cleanse the gene pool. I think this is the only rational conclusion that can be reached.

Click to expand...

That's what the eugenic movement wanted, I think, more or less, and it wouldn't have worked.

My main issue with sections of the news media is when they present untruths, catastophise and set the agenda without any comeback for the damage they do.

A recent example being earlier in the year, where news outlets repeatedly pushed that there was an aviation fuel crisis and that passengers should expect disruption and skyrocketing fares. None of this happened and airlines tried to allay any fears but they don't have the power of the media.

This was behaviour that could cause unnecessary anxiety, maybe people even cancel plans, and negative economic effects but it goes unpunished.

Other examples are unfounded catastophising, for example with weather - "Are we going to run out of water?", or wars, "Could the war spread?"

scarby said:

My main issue with sections of the news media is when they present untruths, catastophise and set the agenda without any comeback for the damage they do.

A recent example being earlier in the year, where news outlets repeatedly pushed that there was an aviation fuel crisis and that passengers should expect disruption and skyrocketing fares. None of this happened and airlines tried to allay any fears but they don't have the power of the media.

This was behaviour that could cause unnecessary anxiety, maybe people even cancel plans, and negative economic effects but it goes unpunished.

Other examples are unfounded catastophising, for example with weather - "Are we going to run out of water?", or wars, "Could the war spread?"

Click to expand...

The jet fuel issue was not unfounded catastrophising. The International Energy Agency was the one issuing the warning. Framing the airlines - who are billion dollar corporations - as not "having the power of the media" is way off base! Mostly, the airlines are the ones setting the media agenda when it comes to air travel.

What happened is that a vast amount of fuel was the sourced from Asia at significant cost. The premium paid for the fuel has resulted in flight cancellations and higher prices, although the sky has hardly fallen in.

I have posted about this issue on this forum on more than one occasion.

I pointed out that if you watch GB "News" and Talk TV etc... on YouTube, its algorithm will recommend similar, sometimes very questionable YouTube Channels, quite a lot consist of someone on their laptop, berating mainstream media, whilst getting most of their content from the very same mainstream media.

I will give a recent example of the standard of a lot of journalism.

Robert Jenrick has been out confronting shoplifters:

Now, there is a genuine problem with shoplifting in the UK, but that is for another thread, but the following is (un)surprisingly not mentioned:

£45 million against around £50 of groceries, again, to state, there is a problem with shoplifting, but Jenrick isn't the best person to highlight it.

Another example is Liz Truss recently appearing on TalkTv (I won't link to it, it is easily found by googling "Liz Truss TalkTV"

She goes on about "The Deep State" and that governments don't really run the country, the interviewer just nods along and doesn't ask who she thinks "The Deep State" and "They" are.

On a lighter note, for balance, have a look at some of these, a good read in my personal opinion.

From X/Twitter:
An account that does some good fact checking.
Also:
Another good analysis account.

We also have friend of the show on YouTube:
A quality travel blog.

And also on YouTube:

Videos on how to spot misinformation.

For an alternative take on the media, Mic Wright is a good read:

For an alternative view and debunking of conspiracy theories:

Altnashin said:

I have posted about this issue on this forum on more than one occasion.

I pointed out that if you watch GB "News" and Talk TV etc... on YouTube, its algorithm will recommend similar, sometimes very questionable YouTube Channels, quite a lot consist of someone on their laptop, berating mainstream media, whilst getting most of their content from the very same mainstream media.

Click to expand...

In other words, the algorithm will reiterate content related to what you've already looked at. I dislike the emphasis on engagement (= rage bait) in those algorithms, but they are simply reinforcing what they see as existing interests.

35B said:

In other words, the algorithm will reiterate content related to what you've already looked at. I dislike the emphasis on engagement (= rage bait) in those algorithms, but they are simply reinforcing what they see as existing interests.

Click to expand...

Sometimes.

I have watched rail related videos on YouTube with a completely new account and device, and on many occasions, completely irrelevant topics appear.

Similar to what Cambridge Analytics were doing:

35B said:

In other words, the algorithm will reiterate content related to what you've already looked at. I dislike the emphasis on engagement (= rage bait) in those algorithms, but they are simply reinforcing what they see as existing interests.

Click to expand...

In a bit of good luck, the TikTok algorithm thinks I'm interested in the most contemptible rubbish. Every time I open the app, I watch one video, and then close it again in disgust. This seems to reinforce the algorithm into thinking I can't get enough of these videos…

I'm quite glad, because they are unable to get a foothold inside my brain, and the last thing I need is another brainrot social media app

Altnashin said:

I pointed out that if you watch GB "News" and Talk TV etc... on YouTube, its algorithm will recommend similar, sometimes very questionable YouTube Channels

Click to expand...

I did a relative being spoon-fed this stuff the favour of going into their settings and resetting their algorithm. It was surprisingly effective and they seemed to just forget about it.

Definitely worth doing for your own accounts too, on a regular basis, in my opinion. Even if it's bad news for social media creators