The video presents a narrative predicated on the idea that people are more or less automatons, guided by mechanical or outside forces, as though they lack the capacity for critical thought or independent will. It's the algorithm, the YouTube personality, it's the depression or bad ideas that's the cause of this man's descent, rather than a self guided and initiated journey of thought and self exploration. Caleb CHOSE those videos. Just because YouTube recommends a video to me does not mean I'm gong to click on it, let alone agree with the content.

Furthermore, what if YouTube had suggested left wing videos and he rejected them? I know that YouTube has done the same for me on both sides of the spectrum and I outright reject many of the choices provided, or if I watch them, reject the content. I see correlation in their data but not causation. Where does one begin and end? The article determines not.

The article also does a disservice to extremism by focusing on the right - a cliche at this point in institutional media - while peppering in other YouTubers who talk about Marxist economics as some form of counterpoint to the other while not giving those ideologies their due. Marxism and it's "economics" is responsible for more death and destruction of human life and wealth than any before or since. Destiny, the YouTube in the article that "won the debate" in the story has been recorded wishing for harm against Republicans. How is this person held up as a reasonable alternative to anyone on the fringe right?

Both the far, nationalistic / ethnocentric right and far left identitarians are collectivist ideologies that require the rejection of individualism and critical thought. Both are very dangerous, so why focus so hard on the right? It's bizarre.

Finally, Phillip DeFranco and others like Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin in the montage for the NYT article are not alt right at all and actively reject collectivism and continuously reach out to others to say that healthy dialogue is important. Mixing them up into the other, more extreme individuals gives the impression that they're like gateway drugs, a fallacy at that, and muddies the waters as to who is trustworthy and who is not.