1) The artificial intelligence algorithms that suggest or display content on YouTube, Facebook, and other social media sites rely on programmatic rules, making these systems a form of one-to-one marketing CRM metrics rules-based marketing sales funnel management marketing automation 2) Imagine if YouTube and Facebook were government-funded public utilities that didn't rely on advertising revenue and therefore had no need to use marketing analytics to shape ad sales. What effect might this have on the radicalization problem that Zeynep Tufekci describes? It would radicalize people even more because neither platform would be bound by advertising regulations. With no economic incentive to keep people engaged for as long as possible, neither platform would have a reason to serve up radicalizing content. Without the lure of being fed a constant stream of emotionally charged content, people would gradually abandon both platforms. Few people would want to use government-run social media, so neither platform would contribute much to radicalization. 3) How does the practice of marketing analytics contribute to the social media radicalization problems that Zeynep Tufekci describes? By giving social media platforms accurate data on how people respond to online content, these systems can keep suggesting content that is more and more radical. By giving social media platforms accurate data on how people respond to online content, these systems can separate emotional responses from logical responses. The analytics results give consumers more control over the content they see when they visit social media sites. Because no products are being sold from social media platforms themselves, marketing analytics are not relevant here. 4) For advertisers, one of the primary appeals of social media is the phenomenon of community building, in which people with similar interests connect online. In light of what Zeynep Tufekci describes in this video, how are advertisers likely to view "communities of belief" that form around extreme opinions? Advertisers will be extremely cautious about being associated with hate speech and other forms of extremism. Companies will include notices on their YouTube and Facebook ads to say they don't agree with extremist content. Just as much of the U.S. population has done in recent years, most advertisers will align with one side or the other. As the old saying goes, "any publicity is good publicity," so most advertisers won't worry about it. Which of these is the most accurate summary of Zeynep Tufekci's explanation of why YouTube can sometimes "radicalize" viewers by serving up increasingly polarizing content? YouTube is selecting video content based on a person's political preferences. YouTube is effectively censoring some content by encouraging viewers to watch other content, rather than letting them pick their own videos. YouTube is steering viewers toward specific points of view. YouTube is attempting to get people to view more vi.

1. 1) The artificial intelligence algorithms that suggest or display content on YouTube, Facebook,
and other social media sites rely on programmatic rules, making these systems a form of one-to-
one marketing CRM metrics rules-based marketing sales funnel management marketing
automation 2) Imagine if YouTube and Facebook were government-funded public utilities that
didn't rely on advertising revenue and therefore had no need to use marketing analytics to shape
ad sales. What effect might this have on the radicalization problem that Zeynep Tufekci
describes? It would radicalize people even more because neither platform would be bound by
advertising regulations. With no economic incentive to keep people engaged for as long as
possible, neither platform would have a reason to serve up radicalizing content. Without the lure
of being fed a constant stream of emotionally charged content, people would gradually abandon
both platforms. Few people would want to use government-run social media, so neither platform
would contribute much to radicalization. 3) How does the practice of marketing analytics
contribute to the social media radicalization problems that Zeynep Tufekci describes? By giving
social media platforms accurate data on how people respond to online content, these systems can
keep suggesting content that is more and more radical. By giving social media platforms accurate
data on how people respond to online content, these systems can separate emotional responses
from logical responses. The analytics results give consumers more control over the content they
see when they visit social media sites. Because no products are being sold from social media
platforms themselves, marketing analytics are not relevant here. 4) For advertisers, one of the
primary appeals of social media is the phenomenon of community building, in which people with
similar interests connect online. In light of what Zeynep Tufekci describes in this video, how are
advertisers likely to view "communities of belief" that form around extreme opinions?
Advertisers will be extremely cautious about being associated with hate speech and other forms
of extremism. Companies will include notices on their YouTube and Facebook ads to say they
don't agree with extremist content. Just as much of the U.S. population has done in recent years,
most advertisers will align with one side or the other. As the old saying goes, "any publicity is
good publicity," so most advertisers won't worry about it. Which of these is the most accurate
summary of Zeynep Tufekci's explanation of why YouTube can sometimes "radicalize" viewers
by serving up increasingly polarizing content? YouTube is selecting video content based on a
person's political preferences. YouTube is effectively censoring some content by encouraging
viewers to watch other content, rather than letting them pick their own videos. YouTube is
steering viewers toward specific points of view. YouTube is attempting to get people to view
more videos so that its parent company (Google) can serve up more ads.