9 episodes

What is the internet doing to us? The Times tech columnist Kevin Roose discovers what happens when our lives move online.

Rabbit Hole The New York Times

    • Technology
    • 4.7, 298 Ratings

What is the internet doing to us? The Times tech columnist Kevin Roose discovers what happens when our lives move online.

    Eight: 'We Go All'

    Eight: 'We Go All'

    One QAnon believer’s journey through faith and loss — and what becomes of reality as we move online.

    • 35 min
    Seven: 'Where We Go One'

    Seven: 'Where We Go One'

    QAnon believers, united in a battle against what they see as dark forces of the world, reveal where the internet is headed.

    • 29 min
    Six: Impasse

    Six: Impasse

    An interview with PewDiePie, as he comes to grips with his influence.

    • 23 min
    Five: The Accidental Emperor

    Five: The Accidental Emperor

    How one outsider came to rule the internet — and eventually embody its battle with mainstream culture.

    • 34 min
    Four: Headquarters

    Four: Headquarters

    A trip to YouTube for a conversation with the woman trying to change it.

    • 39 min
    Three: Mirror Image

    Three: Mirror Image

    Five years into a rabbit hole, Caleb goes from one side of the screen to the other.

    • 27 min

Customer Reviews

4.7 out of 5
298 Ratings

298 Ratings

sadie dark ,

Great, but

Excellent podcast but it ended so abruptly

Pepperclips ,

Loved it.

Super entertaining and informative, definitely give it a go!

II RSPKT II ,

A guided tour of a prepared rabbit hole.

Given that the journos behind this were from reputable papers, I expected less bias. While their aim may have been genuine, the result is underwhelming.

From a macro perspective the series covers a range of alternate entertainment, infotainment and news source creators that many people don’t know about. It will be eye-opening for some. Though, little credit is given to any good that can be garnered from the mentioned creators. From the same macro perspective, the broad brush of disapproval is heavily applied.

The journos lead questions to their guests as a means of extracting the confession they need for their angle. This is an age old technique which doesn’t allow for broader perspectives. Eg) “Would you say that you feel responsible for xxxxx” and “so, you’re saying you feel xxxx”. How much more to each interview there is, we’ll never know. Giving them (journos) benefit of the doubt, the producers could have applied the bias in post. Still the result is a soft touch interview and criticism of YT (Susan Wojcicki), and a heavy handed critique of the “primary suspects”.

That no positive alternate news source was mentioned is blindingly obvious. The show attempts to lump particular creators in a category and rank them from best to worst. That “a” invariably leads to “b” and so on, which is preposterous. The show examines two people who allegedly fell and allegedly “saw the light” but neglect to highlight the evidence contrary to their own investigation; that is, billions of people watch YT every day and only a tiny minority destroy the lives of others. No mention is made to the countless hours of fights, and knockdowns, and street violence, school violence, bullying, horrific accident compilations etc that are likely consumed at a much higher rate. No, because this is an attack on ideas - not content exposure.

The sound and music editing is excellent and they deserve high praise. Edit of the interviews were poorly constructed: “fade in” on highlighted edgy agenda driven key-words, and “fade out” on the rest of the subject’s responses.

In Sum: YouTube created a platform for these edgy creators; it tries to push the irresponsible actions of the individual onto the creator as “influencer”, and absolves the company’s responsibilities by stating that it was all algorithmic issues. The solve? Applying heavier impositions on freedom, and algos that tell you what they’d prefer you to view. Even though your child is using YT more every day, don’t worry, YT’ll make sure you’re safe.

That it ends in just 8 eps (and quickly - given how lengthy and boring some transitions were from scene to scene) with some puff piece about Tik-Tok is telling. Did Google sponsor this? Maybe...

It’s a prime example of why people are continuously drawn to alternate sources. Joe Rogan podcast with his various intelligent guests far outweighs the value of this content.

Top Podcasts In Technology

More by The New York Times