Hacker News Reader

Comment by FirmwareBurner | Hacker News Reader

>Why would social media companies only make money from what users do on their platform but be spared any accountability?

Here's the thing that confuses me. In every country I know, TV and radio stations are liable for the content they broadcast. Both in terms of programs and also ads. I've seen several fines being issued for such breaches, and my country is very liberal and loosely regulated here. So then why do we let social media broadcast whatever poison they want, plus all those scammy and predatory ads to people and get away with it?

That's how big-tech social media oligarchies got so insanely rich compared to brick and mortar businesses. All the scale of the global internet, with none of the liability. Maybe it's time to change that?

View on HN

This isn't entirely true in all cases. Consider something like a live broadcast of a sporting event. If some streaker runs naked across the field, are the stations held to account?

That is, in a way, similar to the problem of user-generated content. There is a limit to how much control a social media company will be able to have over the actions of its users. Unless you replace the system entirely with one where all posts are manually approved by a person before they go up, you will need to have at least some reduced liability for the platform owner.

>If some streaker runs naked across the field, are the stations held to account?

If they made no reasonable attempts to move the camera away or cut the feed to something else, yes absolutely they are held accountable. That's why you have TV directors in the studio. Do you think you can get away with lengthy broadcasting of obscene nudity just because you're live?

Have you seen major sporting events like F1? Their broadcasting rooms look like NASA, dozens of people looking as several camera feeds simultaneously and picking the best one. They'll definitely see a naked man running on the field with his junk out in due time and not share that feed. I assume it's the same for FIFA, NFL, NBA, NHL, Golf, Tennis, Cricket and any other major sporting event.

Of course, but that was my point. Even in traditional media, exceptions are made for factors outside the control of the publisher. User-generated content is, by definition, outside the control of the platform so there should be at least some exceptions made for it. Some mix of filtering, moderation, and content flagging are its form of "reasonable attempts" to moderate the platform.

There is a legitimate argument social media can for being treated differently given their content is user generated. But that argument falls to pieces given algorithmic boosting, which is clearly an editorial slant.

>as its content is user generated

Content on TV stations is also mostly third party generated. Channel 5 didn't make The Punisher, they bought the rights to play it on air. Radio 2 didn't make In da Club, but 50 Cent did, they're just playing it on air. Newspapers also publish letters and content from readers, yet unlike social media they're the ones responsible for that content.

Because in many countries, content is age restricted per times of day, so the TV and radio statins need to edit the songs and movies they play to cut out various swear words, violence and sex scenes if they want to air to to general audiences, otherwise they get fined.

So why are social media companies allowed to wreak havok?

That's highlighting the difference, TV stations actively chose what to show, defaulting to rejecting. Social media is the opposite, kind of makes sense to have different rules.

>Social media is the opposite

Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue.

If they don't want to be responsible for what they show to users, maybe they should leave all that ad money on the table, but it seems like they have no moral issues cashing those cheques while outsourcing their externalities to society. It's not like Meta is scrambling for change between the couch cushions and can't invest in better human plus bot moderation and curation. But then Zuck will only be able to afford a gold trim on his yacht instead of the platinum one, and a smaller island. Oh no, how sad, how terrible.

So tell me again, why do we have double standards for super wealthy social media oligopolies compared to traditional mediums?

> Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue.

That's not true, Bluesky has "chose your own algorithm" and Mastodon even less, it's just in chronological order (or "chose your own client"), and lots of other social media sites that don't have algorithms that decide what you're seeing. Classic web forums (which I'd call social media too) also typically show content in chronological order.

With LLMs, the solution seems simple: the utility provides your device with a fire hose. And your agent, the author of which has some liability for what it shows you, curates it.

If the company providing the fire hose also wants to supply the agent, or even lock its users into its own agent, that sums up who’s responsible.

Yep, just another reason they should be held liable the same as everybody else.

Think about how this would apply to hacker news? Not all algorithmic bias is evil. If you want to avoid an echo chamber, design an algorithm to boost interesting content that missed the front page. That shouldn't render you vulnerable to legislation.

And would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies...

I think the line should be drawn at ads... and maybe even all profit centers of social media companies.

> how this would apply to hacker news?

HN features group-based passive moderation based on well-communicated rules. And active moderation based on a fuzzier standard. The latter is absolutely an editorial standard.

> would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies

If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair.

Where this current ruling is ambiguous is in being totally non-specific about how it should be complied with.

> The latter is absolutely an editorial standard.

It is the editorial standard of the community not the company. It seems that this law would pit the company against the community at the behest of the local state.

Whereas I suggest removing bias introduced by and benefiting the company (ads). This legislation forces the company to introduce additional bias which, though not financial, benefits the company legally.

> If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair.

To clarify, it would be fair for hackernews to be sued for failing to remove or geoblock such content? Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet? The cesspit of social media is due to forced bias and the solution is to introduce more bias?

> It is the editorial standard of the community not the company

Passive moderation, i.e. upvoting and downvoting, is a standard of the community's. Active moderation, e.g. @dang removing a comment, is a standard of the company.

> Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet?

We passed that turn-off a decade ago.

In my mind @dang works for the community. I think my argument stands under such a hypothetical.

I didn't realize @dang was employed by Y Combinator.

Depends on what you mean by "algorithmic boosting".

If you mean, "this user viewed A, B, and C. Other users who viewed them also viewed D; let's show D to this user", then no, that's not an editorial slant or an editorial choice. That's an unbiased algorithm driven by users' choices.

If you mean, "Let's identify posts that are related to position Y on subject Z, and boost them extra", then yes, I agree that is an editorial slant.

My impression is that, when people talk about "editorial control", they usually include the first kind, not just the second.

So: How much of the second kind is going on? More than none, I agree, but how much? Does anyone have data? If not, then we're left with impressions, and my impression is that it's fairly small. (Rather, that it's a quite small number of topics, but since it's probably fairly popular topics it may still amount to a fair number of user impressions.)

"Algorithmic boosting" is not (always?) the same as an editorial slant. Promoting the post with the longest title would be an "algorithmic boost", but clearly not editorial in any way. The most common forms of algorithms are just a function of the number of times people viewed it weighted against the age of the post; there is still no editorial slant there. Even recommendations algorithms like YouTube are mostly the same, with an additional weight based on how likely others who watched the same things as you were to view that video.

> "Algorithmic boosting" is not (always?) the same as an editorial slant

I'd argue any algorithmic prioritisation whose rules are not made public, or where discretion is applied, constittues editorial slant. It's why I'd argue HN up/down voting (even flagging) is not editorial slant, while e.g. @dang removing a post is.

are you and GP are saying that all social media platform should perform policing to the point that everything outlaw in every countries should be banned?

yes, that's how the law works, social media platforms can't show nazi content in germany cos that's the law there. they're perfectly fine doing it.

Germany is a country without freedom of speech, where people can be fined for criticising politicians online. It's not something anyone should be aiming to emulate.

> where people can be fined for criticising politicians online

Brazil has flirted with that sort of tyranny as well. This is what this is all about. Censorship of political "fake news" that harms the ruling party. They decide what's fake, of course.

That is up for Germans to decide, not foreign social media platforms.

Disagree, freedom of speech is a natural right.

Here's the thing, Germans don't get to make that choice, their politicians do it for them. Sure, you can vote on some politicians, but what do you do when freedom of speech is not on anyone's menu as they all share different views than you on what freedom of speech is?

Having something like the First Amendment in the constitution means no politician can fuck with your freedom of speech too much. It's one of the things that makes the US the longest running democracy to date.

oh damn, that has worked so well for the people being placed in prison due to their speech, the students having their visas revoked and all activists that have been killed by the government.

americans really live in a different planet. you only have freedom of speech when your speech is irrelevant or when it doesn't conflict with the views of the elites.

>people being placed in prison due to their speech, the students having their visas revoked and all activists that have been killed by the government

Let's address your points:

2) There's nothing illegal or wrong with student visas being revoked with reason. You break the law, your visa gets revoked, it's that simple. It's part of the terms and conditions of immigrating on a visa in any civilized country with a rule of law (barring Germany maybe). Have the students on a visa tried, you know, studying, instead of breaking laws? I myself never struggled to not break the laws where I travel to foreign countries. I don't see where the issues lie.

1) Who is being put in prison just for speech? Is that speech consisting of throwing rocks at police by any chance?

3) Which activists did the government kill?

Those are all some wild accusations that require citations form some reliable sources in order to be taken seriously.

>americans really live in a different planet. you only have freedom of speech when your speech is irrelevant or when it doesn't conflict with the views of the elites.

Let's put freedom of speech to a test. If you're in Germany, go on X, go to the profile of chancellor Friedrich Merz and call him a "corrupt politician and traitor of the people" and also say how a certain group of illegal immigrants responsible for majority of terror attacks doesn't belong in Germany. Then let's see how far your freedom of speech goes in Germany. Post a link here with the comment as proof when you're done. Otherwise, please refrain from criticizing other nations speech laws since you're throwing rocks at a stone castle from a glass house.

My point with this is there's no perfect freedom of speech, but myself I'd much rather the unrestricted freedom of speech of the world's oldest democracy, rather than the government controlled speech of Germany or the UK.

the law the students broke was "writing an oped in the college paper", this is just pure bullshit.

Still no source provided. You also mentioned government killings. Where's the source for that?

I'll end the conversation here since I've had enough.

Yes, I am saying that platforms should be policed to such an extent that they remove and ban all illegal content within a reasonable timeframe. And in the case of something like child porn, knowingly failing to do so quickly should lead to a lot of people going to jail (I think a lot of tech executives and employees belong in jail).

I don't find this to be too much to ask. Every other platform has to do this. The only reason you have a bunch of ridiculously wealthy anti-social people rampaging across the world "disrupting" whatever they see fit is because we decided the rules arbitrarily should't apply to them because of some wide eyed and ridiculous utopian bullshit how "the internet is for free love and knowledge mannnn, and it should be like, freeee brooo". I'm not even slightly sympathetic to that argument and I don't think the Internet has proven to be valuable enough either culturally or productivity wise to justify even the slightest loosening of the rules that apply elsewhere. The whole thing starts to look like a rent seeking scam that was used to destroy a lot of higher quality information resources and businesses if you squint at it for even a second.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com