I don't know how the author came to the conclusion that they reached. As a person whose livelihood depends on the pound being strong against the yen, I'm not a fan of Brexit by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't understand what the difference is between pro and anti Brexit videos in this context.
IIUC, the author is saying that divisive (i.e. controversial?) videos lead to longer watch times. Longer watch times lead to more ad breaks. More ad breaks leads to Youtube making more money. Videos with longer watch times are recommended over videos with shorter watch times (because Youtube makes more money that way). Thus, divisive topics are recommended over non-divisive topics.
But pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit are two sides of the same coin. Given that Brexit won we could even conclude that the anti-Brexit stance was more divisive (controversial?). So I'm not sure what the author is saying.
Again, to avoid a flame war, I'm not trying to make a political point. I'm just trying to follow the author's logic. What makes pro-Brexit videos more likely to be selected that couldn't also be utilised in an anti-Brexit stance?
IIUC, the author is saying that divisive (i.e. controversial?) videos lead to longer watch times. Longer watch times lead to more ad breaks. More ad breaks leads to Youtube making more money. Videos with longer watch times are recommended over videos with shorter watch times (because Youtube makes more money that way). Thus, divisive topics are recommended over non-divisive topics.
But pro-Brexit and anti-Brexit are two sides of the same coin. Given that Brexit won we could even conclude that the anti-Brexit stance was more divisive (controversial?). So I'm not sure what the author is saying.
Again, to avoid a flame war, I'm not trying to make a political point. I'm just trying to follow the author's logic. What makes pro-Brexit videos more likely to be selected that couldn't also be utilised in an anti-Brexit stance?