Absolutely. But what responsibilities do megacorps have? Right now, everyone seems to avoid this question, and make do with megacorps not being responsible. This means: "we'll allow megacorps to be as they are and not take any responsibilities for the effects they cause to society". Instead of them taking responsibilities, we're collecting everyone's data and calling it a day by banning children from social networks... and this is because there are many interests involved (not related to child development and safety).
They should have a responsibility of transparency, accountability and empathy towards users. They should work for the user and in the interests of the user. But multiple constraints make this impossible in practice.
Clear, simple, direct: Whatever was required of The Bell Telephone Company and nothing more.
It's a good thing those human operators couldn't listen in to whichever conversation they wanted.
(Reconsider my post. I'm arguing for no regulation.)
Ideally, users should be able to modify the algorithm, so they can get just what they want, while simultaneously maximizing free speech. If something isn't illegal, it shouldn't be hidden or removed.
Hypothetically speaking: What if it's a neural network in which each user has his/her own unique weights which are undergoing frequent retraining?
Would it not be an undue burden to necessitate the release of the weights every time they change?
Also, what value would the weights have? We haven't yet hit the point of having neural networks with interpretability.
Wouldn't enforcing algorithmic interpretability additionally be an undue burden?
> They must be able to know why a content was served to them.
What if the authors of the code are unable to tell you why?
Who defines what a black box is? Like, is it not alright to write all of your code in a hex editor targeting one specific ISA?
Is not alright to lose your code and have only the binaries to run?
I think this is the real issue. We should free ourselves from "social networks" such as Tiktok, Facebook, Instagram and others. Even with direct messages truly E2EE, they create countless other privacy problems. They enable surveillance of people at scale and should be completely shunned for that reason alone.
The apples to oranges in this comparison is probably top five on HN ever.
This is because the telephone system was regulated with wiretapping laws, among others.
> I don’t remember reading about ads in phone calls
See above, but also: Junk Faxes & Telemarketing/Robocalls.
> The apples to oranges in this comparison is probably top five on HN ever.
It all comes down to whether you view social media as a communications platform or a publishing platform.
The strict regulations governing the telephone system (see above) would adequately cover both with deliciously-antique turns of phrase like "wiretap" and "pen register".
If the NYT publishes and advert or editorial, it's held accountable for the contents.
The question is: Are social media services more similar to communications platforms or publishing platforms?
My reply obviously treats them like the former and yours like the latter.
Personally I argue they are more like a newspaper as they are providing a platform. Your ISP is more like a phone company or postal service as they just transport packets from one person to another.
Cloudflare and similar are more arguable, but to my mind if you host a computer you are responsible for the contents stored on that computer.
fake and scam AD.
they literally profit from those ADs. When the AD distributes malware or make scam, they don't take any responsibility
Yup, but the tools provided make that easy or hard.
But putting that emotive bit to one side, Megacorps have a vested interest in not being responsible to children. They need children's eye balls to drive advertising revenue. If that means sending them corrosive shit, then so be it.
Its a bigger issue than encryption, its editorial choice.
Many parental controls are massive pains to get working. Apple does fairly well (although I don't get a parental pin number to unlock the phone, which is normally fine as my child will tell me, but in some circumstances it wouldn't be), but does require the parent to be on the apple ecosystem too.
EA and Microsoft however are terrible, especially as it's likely the child will be playing fortnite/minecraft and the parent won't have ever touched it. I think with minecraft we had to make something like 5 or 6 accounts across three different sites to allow online minecraft play from a nintendo switch.
Kids should be able to write a journal or talk to friends with total trust that this information will not reach their parents.
That said, these platforms are making it impossible for parents to monitor anything. They're literally designed to profit off addiction in children.
At some point between the age of 0 and 18 the child has to be fully ready for an independent world. A cliff edge is a terrible idea, allowing 3 year olds unmonitored uncontrolled conversations with strangers is a terrible idea, but not allowing 15 year olds to talk to their friends is a terrible idea.
The children yearn for the mines(?).