TIMIT is a corpus of phonemically and lexically transcribed speech of American English speakers of different sexes and dialects. Each transcribed element has been delineated in time. TIMIT was designed to further acoustic-phonetic knowledge and automatic speech recognition systems. It was commissioned by DARPA and corpus design was a joint effort between the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, SRI International, and Texas Instruments (TI). The speech was recorded at TI, transcribed at MIT, and verified and prepared for publishing by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). There is also a telephone bandwidth version called NTIMIT (Network TIMIT). TIMIT and NTIMIT are not freely available — either membership of the Linguistic Data Consortium, or a monetary payment, is required for access to the dataset. == Data == TIMIT contains ~5 hours of speech, of 10 sentences spoken by each of 630 speakers. The sentences were randomly sampled from a corpus of 2342 sentences. The speakers were native speakers of American English, classified under 8 major dialect regions: New England, Northern, North Midland, South Midland, Southern, New York City, Western, Army Brat (moved around). The speakers were 70% male and 30% female. Recordings were made in a noise-isolated recording booth at Texas Instrument, using a semi-automatic computer system (STEROIDS) to control the presentation of prompts to the speaker and the recording. Two-channel recordings were made using a Sennheiser HMD 414 headset-mounted microphone and a Brüel & Kjær 1/2" far-field pressure microphone (#4165). The speech was digitized at a sample rate of 20 kHz then and downsampled to 16 kHz. == History == The TIMIT telephone corpus was an early attempt to create a database with speech samples. It was published in the year 1988 on CD-ROM and consists of only 10 sentences per speaker. Two 'dialect' sentences were read by each speaker, as well as another 8 sentences selected from a larger set Each sentence averages 3 seconds long and is spoken by 630 different speakers. It was the first notable attempt in creating and distributing a speech corpus and the overall project has produced costs of 1.5 million US$. An update was released in October 1990. It included full 630-speaker corpus; checked and corrected transcriptions; word-alignment transcriptions; NIST SPHERE-headered waveform files and header manipulation software; phonemic dictionary; new test and training subsets balanced for dialectal and phonetic coverage; more extensive documentation. The full name of the project is DARPA-TIMIT Acoustic-Phonetic Continuous Speech Corpus and the acronym TIMIT stands for Texas Instruments/Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The main reason why a corpus of telephone speech was created was to train speech recognition software. In the Blizzard challenge, different software has the obligation to convert audio recordings into textual data and the TIMIT corpus was used as a standardized baseline.
Case-based reasoning
Case-based reasoning (CBR), broadly construed, is the process of solving new problems based on the solutions of similar past problems. In everyday life, an auto mechanic who fixes an engine by recalling another car that exhibited similar symptoms is using case-based reasoning. A lawyer who advocates a particular outcome in a trial based on legal precedents or a judge who creates case law is using case-based reasoning. So, too, an engineer copying working elements of nature (practicing biomimicry) is treating nature as a database of solutions to problems. Case-based reasoning is a prominent type of analogy solution making. It has been argued that case-based reasoning is not only a powerful method for computer reasoning, but also a pervasive behavior in everyday human problem solving; or, more radically, that all reasoning is based on past cases personally experienced. This view is related to prototype theory, which is most deeply explored in cognitive science. == Process == Case-based reasoning has been formalized for purposes of computer reasoning as a four-step process: Retrieve: Given a target problem, retrieve cases relevant to solving it from memory. A case consists of a problem, its solution, and, typically, annotations about how the solution was derived. For example, suppose Fred wants to prepare blueberry pancakes. Being a novice cook, the most relevant experience he can recall is one in which he successfully made plain pancakes. The procedure he followed for making the plain pancakes, together with justifications for decisions made along the way, constitutes Fred's retrieved case. Reuse: Map the solution from the previous case to the target problem. This may involve adapting the solution as needed to fit the new situation. In the pancake example, Fred must adapt his retrieved solution to include the addition of blueberries. Revise: Having mapped the previous solution to the target situation, test the new solution in the real world (or a simulation) and, if necessary, revise. Suppose Fred adapted his pancake solution by adding blueberries to the batter. After mixing, he discovers that the batter has turned blue – an undesired effect. This suggests the following revision: delay the addition of blueberries until after the batter has been ladled into the pan. Retain: After the solution has been successfully adapted to the target problem, store the resulting experience as a new case in memory. Fred, accordingly, records his new-found procedure for making blueberry pancakes, thereby enriching his set of stored experiences, and better preparing him for future pancake-making demands. == Comparison to other methods == At first glance, CBR may seem similar to the rule induction algorithms of machine learning. Like a rule-induction algorithm, CBR starts with a set of cases or training examples; it forms generalizations of these examples, albeit implicit ones, by identifying commonalities between a retrieved case and the target problem. If for instance a procedure for plain pancakes is mapped to blueberry pancakes, a decision is made to use the same basic batter and frying method, thus implicitly generalizing the set of situations under which the batter and frying method can be used. The key difference, however, between the implicit generalization in CBR and the generalization in rule induction lies in when the generalization is made. A rule-induction algorithm draws its generalizations from a set of training examples before the target problem is even known; that is, it performs eager generalization. For instance, if a rule-induction algorithm were given recipes for plain pancakes, Dutch apple pancakes, and banana pancakes as its training examples, it would have to derive, at training time, a set of general rules for making all types of pancakes. It would not be until testing time that it would be given, say, the task of cooking blueberry pancakes. The difficulty for the rule-induction algorithm is in anticipating the different directions in which it should attempt to generalize its training examples. This is in contrast to CBR, which delays (implicit) generalization of its cases until testing time – a strategy of lazy generalization. In the pancake example, CBR has already been given the target problem of cooking blueberry pancakes; thus it can generalize its cases exactly as needed to cover this situation. CBR therefore tends to be a good approach for rich, complex domains in which there are myriad ways to generalize a case. In law, there is often explicit delegation of CBR to courts, recognizing the limits of rule based reasons: limiting delay, limited knowledge of future context, limit of negotiated agreement, etc. While CBR in law and cognitively inspired CBR have long been associated, the former is more clearly an interpolation of rule based reasoning, and judgment, while the latter is more closely tied to recall and process adaptation. The difference is clear in their attitude toward error and appellate review. Another name for case-based reasoning in problem solving is symptomatic strategies. It does require à priori domain knowledge that is gleaned from past experience which established connections between symptoms and causes. This knowledge is referred to as shallow, compiled, evidential, history-based as well as case-based knowledge. This is the strategy most associated with diagnosis by experts. Diagnosis of a problem transpires as a rapid recognition process in which symptoms evoke appropriate situation categories. An expert knows the cause by virtue of having previously encountered similar cases. Case-based reasoning is the most powerful strategy, and that used most commonly. However, the strategy won't work independently with truly novel problems, or where deeper understanding of whatever is taking place is sought. An alternative approach to problem solving is the topographic strategy which falls into the category of deep reasoning. With deep reasoning, in-depth knowledge of a system is used. Topography in this context means a description or an analysis of a structured entity, showing the relations among its elements. Also known as reasoning from first principles, deep reasoning is applied to novel faults when experience-based approaches aren't viable. The topographic strategy is therefore linked to à priori domain knowledge that is developed from a more a fundamental understanding of a system, possibly using first-principles knowledge. Such knowledge is referred to as deep, causal or model-based knowledge. Hoc and Carlier noted that symptomatic approaches may need to be supported by topographic approaches because symptoms can be defined in diverse terms. The converse is also true – shallow reasoning can be used abductively to generate causal hypotheses, and deductively to evaluate those hypotheses, in a topographical search. == Criticism == Critics of CBR argue that it is an approach that accepts anecdotal evidence as its main operating principle. Without statistically relevant data for backing and implicit generalization, there is no guarantee that the generalization is correct. However, all inductive reasoning where data is too scarce for statistical relevance is inherently based on anecdotal evidence. == History == CBR traces its roots to the work of Roger Schank and his students at Yale University in the early 1980s. Schank's model of dynamic memory was the basis for the earliest CBR systems: Janet Kolodner's CYRUS and Michael Lebowitz's IPP. Other schools of CBR and closely allied fields emerged in the 1980s, which directed at topics such as legal reasoning, memory-based reasoning (a way of reasoning from examples on massively parallel machines), and combinations of CBR with other reasoning methods. In the 1990s, interest in CBR grew internationally, as evidenced by the establishment of an International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning in 1995, as well as European, German, British, Italian, and other CBR workshops. CBR technology has resulted in the deployment of a number of successful systems, the earliest being Lockheed's CLAVIER, a system for laying out composite parts to be baked in an industrial convection oven. CBR has been used extensively in applications such as the Compaq SMART system and has found a major application area in the health sciences, as well as in structural safety management. There is recent work that develops CBR within a statistical framework and formalizes case-based inference as a specific type of probabilistic inference. Thus, it becomes possible to produce case-based predictions equipped with a certain level of confidence. One description of the difference between CBR and induction from instances is that statistical inference aims to find what tends to make cases similar while CBR aims to encode what suffices to claim similarly.
Homeboyz Interactive
Homeboyz Interactive (HBI) was a faith-based recruitment, training and job placement non-profit business in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States, founded by a Jesuit brother in 1996 to transform gang members into productive workers. == History == James Holub, a former Jesuit brother affiliated with Wheeling Jesuit University, asked gang members in the Southside of Milwaukee, WI how they could be helped, to break the cycle of poverty and violence. The youth suggested that they be trained for work they found exciting. To attract interest, the training must lead to jobs that paid at least a living wage, and computer skills seemed the most attractive. The non-profit Homeboyz Interactive was established to prepare professionals in web design, application development, and PC/network support. This non-profit outfit spawned the for-profit web design firm HBI Consulting, which provided trainees with work experience. It turned out more than 20 teachers yearly for computer and computer network programs for high schools and other clients, as well as for computer service providers. Some graduates of the program continued their education, some founded their own business, and others continued working at HBI. The Economist described this effort as "turning thugs into programmers" on Milwaukee's South Side, which has proportionally twice as many murders as New York. Holub had "buried his 28th gang member" before he implemented the Homeboyz plan, with the understanding that "nothing stops a bullet like a job." The programs would pass through about 80 prospects a year who successfully completed training and provide them with a job while studying for their high school equivalency test, before they were asked to decide in which direction to go. Most accepted a job or went on to community college but about 25 entered the Homeboyz training for computer programmers. Of first 150 graduates of this program none lost their job; their average pay after two years was US$63,000. Some preferred to return to full-time work at HBI. By 2002, a total of 142 people had graduated from HBI training and moved into full-time IT careers. The training curriculum as of 2000 included JavaScript and Photoshop, among other web-development tools. In 2000, HBI received a 14% ownership stake in reEmploy.com, a payrolling company, in exchange for the development of an electronic time sheet created by the organization. As of 2001, HBI Consulting, the for profit web design firm, had 72 clients. Among those clients were GE Medical, Toyota Forklift, Northwestern Mutual Life, Verizon Wireless, BP; and Marquette University. Companies that graduates of HBI's training programs secured positions have included Northwestern Mutual and Manpower Inc., United Community Center in Milwaukee and EKI Consulting. A pair of graduates also started their own company in 2002, Innovative Source, a web design firm, which itself has had clients such as the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and the Milwaukee Women's Center. This was a common path forward, graduates starting their own consulting firms. In 2004, HBI received a grant for General Support from the Vine and Branches Foundation in the amount of US$120,000. The product Project Foundry found its start in the difficulty of managing project-based learning across dozens of students with widely varying levels of skill, a problem encountered by Shane Krukowski, who developed the software while teaching at HBI. Krukowski subsequently an eponymous company to commercialize the software through a subscription-based business model. Some came to Homeboyz through the criminal courts or Department of Corrections. A Jesuit Volunteer (JV) was assigned to work with the program, and to add a spiritual dimension through regular reflection together. Gradually the market began prioritizing graphic design and flash images more than site construction. After 2006 Homeboyz HBI morphed into several spinoffs and ceased to exist as a separate entity.
Supercomputer operating system
A supercomputer operating system is an operating system intended for supercomputers. Since the end of the 20th century, supercomputer operating systems have undergone major transformations, as fundamental changes have occurred in supercomputer architecture. While early operating systems were custom tailored to each supercomputer to gain speed, the trend has been moving away from in-house operating systems and toward some form of Linux, with it running all the supercomputers on the TOP500 list in November 2017. In 2021, top 10 computers run for instance Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), or some variant of it or other Linux distribution e.g. Ubuntu. Given that modern massively parallel supercomputers typically separate computations from other services by using multiple types of nodes, they usually run different operating systems on different nodes, e.g., using a small and efficient lightweight kernel such as Compute Node Kernel (CNK) or Compute Node Linux (CNL) on compute nodes, but a larger system such as a Linux distribution on server and input/output (I/O) nodes. While in a traditional multi-user computer system job scheduling is in effect a tasking problem for processing and peripheral resources, in a massively parallel system, the job management system needs to manage the allocation of both computational and communication resources, as well as gracefully dealing with inevitable hardware failures when tens of thousands of processors are present. Although most modern supercomputers use the Linux operating system, each manufacturer has made its own specific changes to the Linux distribution they use, and no industry standard exists, partly because the differences in hardware architectures require changes to optimize the operating system to each hardware design. == Context and overview == In the early days of supercomputing, the basic architectural concepts were evolving rapidly, and system software had to follow hardware innovations that usually took rapid turns. In the early systems, operating systems were custom tailored to each supercomputer to gain speed, yet in the rush to develop them, serious software quality challenges surfaced and in many cases the cost and complexity of system software development became as much an issue as that of hardware. In the 1980s the cost for software development at Cray came to equal what they spent on hardware and that trend was partly responsible for a move away from the in-house operating systems to the adaptation of generic software. The first wave in operating system changes came in the mid-1980s, as vendor specific operating systems were abandoned in favor of Unix. Despite early skepticism, this transition proved successful. By the early 1990s, major changes were occurring in supercomputing system software. By this time, the growing use of Unix had begun to change the way system software was viewed. The use of a high level language (C) to implement the operating system, and the reliance on standardized interfaces was in contrast to the assembly language oriented approaches of the past. As hardware vendors adapted Unix to their systems, new and useful features were added to Unix, e.g., fast file systems and tunable process schedulers. However, all the companies that adapted Unix made unique changes to it, rather than collaborating on an industry standard to create "Unix for supercomputers". This was partly because differences in their architectures required these changes to optimize Unix to each architecture. As general purpose operating systems became stable, supercomputers began to borrow and adapt critical system code from them, and relied on the rich set of secondary functions that came with them. However, at the same time the size of the code for general purpose operating systems was growing rapidly. By the time Unix-based code had reached 500,000 lines long, its maintenance and use was a challenge. This resulted in the move to use microkernels which used a minimal set of the operating system functions. Systems such as Mach at Carnegie Mellon University and ChorusOS at INRIA were examples of early microkernels. The separation of the operating system into separate components became necessary as supercomputers developed different types of nodes, e.g., compute nodes versus I/O nodes. Thus modern supercomputers usually run different operating systems on different nodes, e.g., using a small and efficient lightweight kernel such as CNK or CNL on compute nodes, but a larger system such as a Linux-derivative on server and I/O nodes. == Early systems == The CDC 6600, generally considered the first supercomputer in the world, ran the Chippewa Operating System, which was then deployed on various other CDC 6000 series computers. The Chippewa was a rather simple job control oriented system derived from the earlier CDC 3000, but it influenced the later KRONOS and SCOPE systems. The first Cray-1 was delivered to the Los Alamos Lab with no operating system, or any other software. Los Alamos developed the application software for it, and the operating system. The main timesharing system for the Cray 1, the Cray Time Sharing System (CTSS), was then developed at the Livermore Labs as a direct descendant of the Livermore Time Sharing System (LTSS) for the CDC 6600 operating system from twenty years earlier. In developing supercomputers, rising software costs soon became dominant, as evidenced by the 1980s cost for software development at Cray growing to equal their cost for hardware. That trend was partly responsible for a move away from the in-house Cray Operating System to UNICOS system based on Unix. In 1985, the Cray-2 was the first system to ship with the UNICOS operating system. Around the same time, the EOS operating system was developed by ETA Systems for use in their ETA10 supercomputers. Written in Cybil, a Pascal-like language from Control Data Corporation, EOS highlighted the stability problems in developing stable operating systems for supercomputers and eventually a Unix-like system was offered on the same machine. The lessons learned from developing ETA system software included the high level of risk associated with developing a new supercomputer operating system, and the advantages of using Unix with its large extant base of system software libraries. By the middle 1990s, despite the extant investment in older operating systems, the trend was toward the use of Unix-based systems, which also facilitated the use of interactive graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for scientific computing across multiple platforms. The move toward a commodity OS had opponents, who cited the fast pace and focus of Linux development as a major obstacle against adoption. As one author wrote "Linux will likely catch up, but we have large-scale systems now". Nevertheless, that trend continued to gain momentum and by 2005, virtually all supercomputers used some Unix-like OS. These variants of Unix included IBM AIX, the open source Linux system, and other adaptations such as UNICOS from Cray. By the end of the 20th century, Linux was estimated to command the highest share of the supercomputing pie. == Modern approaches == The IBM Blue Gene supercomputer uses the CNK operating system on the compute nodes, but uses a modified Linux-based kernel called I/O Node Kernel (INK) on the I/O nodes. CNK is a lightweight kernel that runs on each node and supports a single application running for a single user on that node. For the sake of efficient operation, the design of CNK was kept simple and minimal, with physical memory being statically mapped and the CNK neither needing nor providing scheduling or context switching. CNK does not even implement file I/O on the compute node, but delegates that to dedicated I/O nodes. However, given that on the Blue Gene multiple compute nodes share a single I/O node, the I/O node operating system does require multi-tasking, hence the selection of the Linux-based operating system. While in traditional multi-user computer systems and early supercomputers, job scheduling was in effect a task scheduling problem for processing and peripheral resources, in a massively parallel system, the job management system needs to manage the allocation of both computational and communication resources. It is essential to tune task scheduling, and the operating system, in different configurations of a supercomputer. A typical parallel job scheduler has a master scheduler which instructs some number of slave schedulers to launch, monitor, and control parallel jobs, and periodically receives reports from them about the status of job progress. Some, but not all supercomputer schedulers attempt to maintain locality of job execution. The PBS Pro scheduler used on the Cray XT3 and Cray XT4 systems does not attempt to optimize locality on its three-dimensional torus interconnect, but simply uses the first available processor. On the other hand, IBM's scheduler on the Blue Gene supercomputers aims to exploit locality a
Computer aided transceiver
Computer aided transceiver (CAT) is a non-generic serial protocol used by radio amateurs for (remotely) controlling a transceiver radio receiver equipment using a computer. Conventional transmitters are manually controlled and used to transmit voice using buttons, dials, etc. However, advances in electronics have come to market devices that can be controlled by a computer and allow digital modes such as packet radio and also the use of satellite tracking, because it can continuously change the device's frequency according to the Doppler effect. This is done by connecting a Radio receiver and a PC using a CAT interface and a CAT Program Additionally, CAT interfaces can also be used to position tracking antennas, in controllers. As a satellite moves overhead. A CAT interface is a piece of hardware that connects the PC and radio that provides a connection to allows the radio and the PC to communicate with each other. The CAT interface provides the signals to and fro via correct voltage levels and in the case of a Universal Serial Bus (USB) CAT interface it requires a "protocol" for communication but communication itself is down to the radio and the software on the PC. Software that may be called a CAT program allows a radio to be controlled through the PC. Changes made on the radio through user interactions on the CAT Program are (generally) shown on the PC's screen. The functionality of CAT equipment (software & interface) depends on the radio and what features the software writers included in the CAT software. Modern radio systems do have more CAT functionality If you run a logging program that supports CAT, then that software may take advantage of the CAT system by retrieving information from the radio to help fill in log details, such as the frequency that the contact was made. CAT is also useful on many radios where there are many sub-menus in the radios menu system, and many of the sub-menu items can be easily changed via the PC. On many HF radios, the CAT system is also used to program the memories on the radio, but you would need to use appropriate programming software. A CAT interface does not receive or transmit any DATA mode, that is the purpose of a DATA interface. Although, both may be used at the same time with the correct CAT Equipment. DATA modes, and getting audio to and from the PC is the function of a DATA interface. A completely different thing but it is easier and more useful when CAT and DATA are used at the same time. Wouldn't it be nice to have an interface that could operate Frequency-shift keying (FSK), Audio FSK (AFSK), (real) Morse Code (CW), with a CAT interface and its own sound card..... (eg. The DigiMaster Pro3).
1 Second Everyday
1 Second Everyday (1SE) is an application developed by Cesar Kuriyama. The application allows the user to record one second of video every day and then chronologically edits (mashes) them together into a single film. It is compatible with iOS and Android. The idea of the application was developed by Kuriyama's 1 Second Everyday — Age 30 video. The application was launched in January 2013. 1 Second Everyday played a part in the plot of Chef and also became the inspiration for the 2014 short animated clip Feast. == Background == === Kuriyama's video === In February 2011, when Cesar Kuriyama turned 30, after saving money, he quit his job in an advertising firm and took a year off to travel. During this time, he started working on a project he called 1 Second Everyday. As part of the project, every day he recorded one second of video – something that was supposed to help him remember that day. He started the project because he was frustrated with his memory. He planned to stockpile the 365 one-second clips into one film to serve as a memento of his year. While working on the project Kuriyama realized that recording one second every day impacted the decisions he made in a positive way. After a year he made a 365-second clip out of his recordings. The video called 1 Second Everyday – Age 30, went viral. According to Kuriyama, he was initially inspired to take a year off from work by a TED talk given by Stefan Sagmeister called "The Power of Time Off." Kuriyama also delivered a TED talk about 1 Second Everyday in 2012 at TED 2012 in Long Beach California. === Kickstarter campaign === After completing his own video, Kuriyama decided to develop an application that would allow the users to record one second every day and compile their own videos. He developed a prototype of the application and then in 2012, he launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for completing the application. The campaign became one of the most backed app campaigns in the history of Kickstarter. It was backed by 11,281 backers who pledged a total of $56,959 on an initial goal of $20,000. Following the completion of the Kickstarter campaign, he partnered with an application design studio in Brooklyn to develop the application. 1 Second Everyday was released two weeks after the completion of its Kickstarter campaign. == Application == The application was released for iOS on 10 January 2013. An Android-compatible version of the application was developed later. Using it, the user can record the videos in the application or they can select one second portions from their libraries. 1 Second Everyday dates every snippet. The user can also set alarms to remember to record their daily video. In order to compile a video, the user selects the seconds they want and the application creates a compilation video. The user can keep multiple timelines. It also allows users to post directly on social networks. The main interface in 1 Second Everyday is a calendar, which shows the user which days have snippets and which they can still fill in. In the beginning, 1 Second Everyday restricted the recording to one second. However, the developers later released Super Seconds, which allowed users to record an additional half a second video. In 2014, 1 Second Everyday Crowds was launched, which is an area in the application featuring compilations of second clips from different users. == In the media == The Kickstarter campaign of 1 Second Everyday was featured in Entrepreneur's 3 Innovative Tech Startups on Kickstarter Right Now in 2012. The application was featured in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Gawker and other media outlets. By the end of the launch day, it was in Top 10 Free Apps on App Store. It was also selected as the App of the Week on GeekWire in 2013. Several other one-second compilation videos were also posted on the Internet after Kuriyama's video gained media attention. Sam Cornwell, an English photographer documented his son Indigo's growth using a montage of one-second iPhone clips. He shot these clips every single day from the moment of birth right up to the baby's first birthday. According to Cornwell, he was inspired by Kuriyama's project. The video of Cornwell's son gained considerable media attention after it was posted on YouTube. Save the Children also made a video commercial based on a similar format that showed a British girl oblivious of the Syrian war end up being a refugee. 1SE was a finalist for the Fast Company Innovation by Design Award in 2015, but lost to Google Maps. In 2015, Google Android created a gallery, Leap Second 2015, with the help of Droga5 and Kuriyama. The gallery showcased how people around the world enjoyed the one extra second of their lives. Through the 1 Second Everyday app available at Google Play, people were able to submit their extra second, which were then vetted and added to the gallery. The viewers were able to view other celebratory seconds from around the world as well as searching for them using different hashtags.
Algorithmic radicalization
Algorithmic radicalization is the concept that recommender algorithms on popular social media sites, such as YouTube and Facebook, drive users toward progressively more extreme content over time, leading to the development of radicalized extremist political views. Algorithms meticulously record user interactions, encompassing likes, dislikes and the duration of time watching content, with the objective of generating an endless stream of media designed to sustain user engagement. The phenomenon of echo chamber channels has been demonstrated to exacerbate the polarization of consumers, primarily through the reinforcement of media preferences and the validation of one's existing beliefs. Algorithmic radicalization remains a controversial phenomenon as it is often not in the best interest of social media companies to remove echo chamber channels. To what extent recommender algorithms are actually responsible for radicalization remains disputed. Studies have found contradictory results regarding the promotion of extremist content by algorithms. == Social media echo chambers and filter bubbles == Social media platforms learn the interests and likes of the user to modify their experiences in their feed to keep them engaged and scrolling, known as a filter bubble. An echo chamber is formed when users come across beliefs that magnify or reinforce their thoughts and form a group of like-minded users in a closed system. Echo chambers spread information without any opposing beliefs and can possibly lead to confirmation bias. According to group polarization theory, an echo chamber can potentially lead users and groups towards more extreme radicalized positions. According to the National Library of Medicine, "Users online tend to prefer information adhering to their worldviews, ignore dissenting information, and form polarized groups around shared narratives. Furthermore, when polarization is high, misinformation quickly proliferates." == By site == === Facebook === Facebook's algorithm focuses on recommending content that makes the user want to interact. They rank content by prioritizing popular posts by friends, viral content, and sometimes divisive content. Each feed is personalized to the user's specific interests which can sometimes lead users towards an echo chamber of troublesome content. Users can find their list of interests the algorithm uses by going to the "Your ad Preferences" page. According to a Pew Research study, 74% of Facebook users did not know that list existed until they were directed towards that page in the study. It is also relatively common for Facebook to assign political labels to their users. In recent years, Facebook has started using artificial intelligence to change the content users see in their feed and what is recommended to them. A document known as The Facebook Files has revealed that their AI system prioritizes user engagement over everything else. The Facebook Files has also demonstrated that controlling the AI systems has proven difficult to handle. In an August 2019 internal memo leaked in 2021, Facebook has admitted that "the mechanics of our platforms are not neutral", concluding that in order to reach maximum profits, optimization for engagement is necessary. In order to increase engagement, algorithms have found that hate, misinformation, and politics are instrumental for app activity. As referenced in the memo, "The more incendiary the material, the more it keeps users engaged, the more it is boosted by the algorithm." According to a 2018 study, "false rumors spread faster and wider than true information... They found falsehoods are 70% more likely to be retweeted on Twitter than the truth, and reach their first 1,500 people six times faster. This effect is more pronounced with political news than other categories." === YouTube === YouTube has been around since 2005 and has more than 2.5 billion monthly users. YouTube discovery content systems focus on the user's personal activity (watched, favorites, likes) to direct them to recommended content. YouTube's algorithm is accountable for roughly 70% of users' recommended videos and what drives people to watch certain content. According to a 2022 study by the Mozilla Foundation, users have little power to keep unsolicited videos out of their suggested recommended content. This includes videos about hate speech, livestreams, etc. YouTube has been identified as an influential platform for spreading radicalized content. Al-Qaeda and similar extremist groups have been linked to using YouTube for recruitment videos and engaging with international media outlets. In a research study published by the American Behavioral Scientist Journal, they researched "whether it is possible to identify a set of attributes that may help explain part of the YouTube algorithm's decision-making process". The results of the study showed that YouTube's algorithm recommendations for extremism content factor into the presence of radical keywords in a video's title. In February 2023, in the case of Gonzalez v. Google, the question at hand is whether or not Google, the parent company of YouTube, is protected from lawsuits claiming that the site's algorithms aided terrorists in recommending ISIS videos to users. Section 230 is known to generally protect online platforms from civil liability for the content posted by its users. Multiple studies have found little to no evidence to suggest that YouTube's algorithms direct attention towards far-right content to those not already engaged with it. === TikTok === TikTok is a platform that recommends videos to a user's 'For You Page' (FYP), making every users' page different. With the nature of the algorithm behind the app, TikTok's FYP has been linked to showing more explicit and radical videos over time based on users' previous interactions on the app. Since TikTok's inception, the app has been scrutinized for misinformation and hate speech as those forms of media usually generate more interactions to the algorithm. Various extremist groups, including jihadist organizations, have utilized TikTok to disseminate propaganda, recruit followers, and incite violence. The platform's algorithm, which recommends content based on user engagement, can expose users to extremist content that aligns with their interests or interactions. As of 2022, TikTok's head of US Security has put out a statement that "81,518,334 videos were removed globally between April – June for violating our Community Guidelines or Terms of Service" to cut back on hate speech, harassment, and misinformation. Studies have noted instances where individuals were radicalized through content encountered on TikTok. For example, in early 2023, Austrian authorities thwarted a plot against an LGBTQ+ pride parade that involved two teenagers and a 20-year-old who were inspired by jihadist content on TikTok. The youngest suspect, 14 years old, had been exposed to videos created by Islamist influencers glorifying jihad. These videos led him to further engagement with similar content, eventually resulting in his involvement in planning an attack. Another case involved the arrest of several teenagers in Vienna, Austria, in 2024, who were planning to carry out a terrorist attack at a Taylor Swift concert. The investigation revealed that some of the suspects had been radicalized online, with TikTok being one of the platforms used to disseminate extremist content that influenced their beliefs and actions. == Self-radicalization == The U.S. Department of Justice defines 'Lone-wolf' (self) terrorism as "someone who acts alone in a terrorist attack without the help or encouragement of a government or a terrorist organization". Through social media outlets on the internet, 'Lone-wolf' terrorism has been on the rise, being linked to algorithmic radicalization. Through echo-chambers on the internet, viewpoints typically seen as radical were accepted and quickly adopted by other extremists. These viewpoints are encouraged by forums, group chats, and social media to reinforce their beliefs. == References in media == === The Social Dilemma === The Social Dilemma is a 2020 docudrama about how algorithms behind social media enables addiction, while possessing abilities to manipulate people's views, emotions, and behavior to spread conspiracy theories and disinformation. The film repeatedly uses buzz words such as 'echo chambers' and 'fake news' to prove psychological manipulation on social media, therefore leading to political manipulation. In the film, Ben falls deeper into a social media addiction as the algorithm found that his social media page has a 62.3% chance of long-term engagement. This leads into more videos on the recommended feed for Ben and he eventually becomes more immersed into propaganda and conspiracy theories, becoming more polarized with each video. == Proposed solutions == === United States: Weakening Section 230 protections === In the Communications Decency Act, Section 230 states t