"What do we do about it?"
Shut down the behavior with regulations or shut down the companies. Meta and TikTok have no natural right to exist if they are a net negative to society.
Shut down the behavior with regulations or shut down the companies. Meta and TikTok have no natural right to exist if they are a net negative to society.
I also think it would be extremely unpopular. People like their recommendation engines. They want Netflix to show them more similar shows. They want Reddit to help them find more similar subreddits. I know there are HN users who don't want any of these recommendation engines, but on the whole people actually want them.
People liked cigarettes too.
>They want Netflix to show them more similar shows.
Perhaps that example was a little too revealing on your end. Netflix doesn't have/need Section 230 protections and they're doing fine.
I'm not suggesting these algorithms should be illegal, just that Section 230 protections were defined too broadly because they predated the feasibility of these type of algorithms. These platforms would be free to continue algorithmic promotion, but I believe these algorithms would be less harmful if the platforms had to worry about potential legal liability.
Think YouTube and copyright for comparison. The DMCA is far from perfect, but we have YouTube as an example of a platform that survived and even thrived in the transition from a world that didn't care about copyrighted internet video to one in which they that needed to moderate with copyright in mind.
Cigarettes weren’t made illegal. Cigarette companies are not liable for their user’s choice to consume them. What’s your point?
> Perhaps that example was a little too revealing on your end. Netflix doesn't have/need Section 230 protections and they're doing fine.
Perhaps it was a little too revealing on your end that you conveniently ignored my other example of Reddit.
If you need to cherry pick to make your point it doesn’t look very strong.
I still don’t see consistency in your argument that Section 230 should still apply to Hacker News but not, for example, Reddit, simply because one of them allows users to personalize the content they see.
Basically all laws related to speech are abitrary. Can you define a clear and self-evident line between pornography and art as an example? Or do you agree with the Supreme Court that we just "know it when [we] see it"?
>You're not giving any reasons why the demarcation line for which feed algorithms are OK and which are not is there instead of anywhere else.
Let me just copy and paste what I said before: "The type of HN algorithm that serves the same content to every user based off global behavior is fine in my book because it is both less exploitative of the user base and a reflection of that user base's proactive decisions in upvoting/downvoting content." I can understand if one of you want to challenge that line of thought, but you both acting like I didn't give any reasoning at all is bizarre and gives me the impression that you aren't actually reading what I'm writing.
I'm a free speech absolutist, so I personally don't find which laws already exist on the matter to be a compelling argument. If it was up to me, I'd get rid of any such laws.
>The type of HN algorithm that serves the same content to every user based off global behavior is fine in my book because it is both less exploitative of the user base and a reflection of that user base's proactive decisions in upvoting/downvoting content.
The argument hinges entirely on the relative exploitativeness of different feed algorithms, but that metric is merely asserted with no support.
Typically free speech absolutism leads individuals into logical traps they find difficult to dig themselves out of.
But we don't even need that in this case. Private property can have all kinds of restrictions put on it based on the potential dangers and harms it causes. This in fact is one of the most common attacks on speech I see right now (Meta et el) that they will just put age requirements on sites.
Yes, "free speech absolutists" tend to define these terms in ways to hide the true arbitrary nature of their beliefs. The obvious test case is do they believe in legalizing CSAM. Either they answer "yes" and ostracize themselves from almost all of society or they say "no" and have to come up with arbitrary rules why this specific content doesn't count as speech. Either way, self-applying the label is its own red flag.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47419870
I don't believe the argument was that personalized algorithmic recommendations need be forbidden per se, but that doesn't mean that should be the default, nor that companies should be able to wash their hands (under section 230) of what they promote
And "are we going to pretend" is a non-argument that works both ways: "Are we really going to pretend individualized algorithmic social media hasn't caused harm to society on par with smoking?" would be equally unconvincing
True. This is a fair point. But the expected counter argument would be that the exact line isn't the issue instead it's the justification for the principle.
IE why is personalized algorithms more dangerous than general ones.
My answer (because I mostly agree with you) is that the difference is that personalized algorithms almost feel like brain hacking. And this brain hacking simply doesn't work at scale when applied to vague general algorithms.
They kind of were. Not completely liable, but partially. Because... um, well, uh, yeah, they are. They are literally liable.
If you produce cigarettes, you are partially responsible for people smoking. Smoking is also not a "choice", come on now. The only people who believe that are people trying to sell you cigarettes or people who have never smoked.
That's why you can't advertise cigarettes anywhere anymore and they're very hard to find. And, when you do find them, the box tells you "hey please don't smoke this". R.J. Reynolds didn't do that by fucking choice, we forced them.
Cigarette companies are not legally liable for the consequences their users encounter.
It’s really hard to have an actual discussion about anything when people are just making up their own definitions.
I don't think people really understand just how harshly we ran Tobacco companies into the ground. Many pay more per cigarette for liability than they pay to make the cigarette.
Ok! But they do have to follow a bunch of extra laws that cost them a ton of money and/or users.
Therefore the same can apply to social media algorithm companies.
The one extreme example, is just like cigarettes, there could be 18+ age verification for social media. There a big deal.
The whole reason they got sued and regulated was because they hid the fact that they knew their product was causing cancer in its users.
There’s additional regulation on cigarettes, which also includes higher taxes on its sale.
We regularly put limits on industries which create externalities that have to be borne by the exchequer.
Theres a paper that studied the spread of misinformation online, back before COVID - they found that messages cascaded through more science and research oriented networks differently than they cascaded through conspiracy communities.
Popularity is not a sign of Signal. It’s a sign of being able to scratch the limbic system and zeitgeist at the same time.
For a site like HN, popularity isn’t a good predictive signal.
2.) Netflix algorithm is not relevant to "Section 230 protections", because it does not contain any data from third parties. All of that is Netflix content.
A system doesn't want your feed empty because they want your eyes, but because money. When they choose what goes into the feed, they should gain increased liability for what comes out. The risk they take on for more money. If that money is not worth it, don't recommend.
I enjoyed the internet in the beforetimes. Recommendations were limited to "this is objectively related, this is new, this is upvoted, this is by someone you follow or someone they follow, or this is randomly chosen." I still feel there is some liability there, but it is less than when it changes to "this is something we have determined we should show you based on your personal past behavior." That feels different than liking a category when the meta-categories are picked for you. Especially when those meta-categories allow for things you would not want to opt in to, like doomscroll material.
I like some of the stuff I get algorithmically. I never would have searched for a soul cover of Slim Shady, but I'm glad I found it. And I'm glad I found knot tying videos. I think there is space for fancy feeds. But I think it should come closer to being a publisher. This _will_ depress throughput creation if things all have to be monitored which will change the economies and maybe that means some businesses can't exist as they do today. I'd likely pay a subscription to a LearnTok that had curated, quality material.
And besides, what's likely to happen is that you'll only have a few "algorithm providers" controlling access the entire web which only centralizes it even more.
I can’t be the only one confused at these calls to have the government destroy things like searching the web, am I?
How is this a real idea being proposed on Hacker News, of all places? Not that long ago it was all about freedom on the Internet and getting angry when the government interfered with our right to speech online, and now there are calls to do drastic measures like make search engines legally untenable to run in the United States?
It’s also confusing that nobody calling for banning things or making the web unusable appears to be making the connection that the internet is global. If we passed laws that forced Google and Bing to shut down because they’re liable for results they index, what do you think the population will do? Shrug their shoulders and give up on the internet? Or go use a search engine from another country?
I can be upset about the government trying to make the world worse, and about other huge balls of power who have been making the world shitty in an ongoing fashion. Freedom of speech doesn't mean shit if a handful of people can buy up or otherwise absorb control of 90% of media and choose who gets heard. The call for regulation is an acknowledgment that the market fucked this one up. When the government threatens speech, I'll call for civil disobedience and proactive protections. When oligarchs threaten speech I'll call for regulation and punishment.
> It’s also confusing that nobody calling for banning things or making the web unusable appears to be making the connection that the internet is global. If we passed laws that forced Google and Bing to shut down because they’re liable for results they index, what do you think the population will do?
You assume that the only way to get a good, free search engine is to give control of it to some private entity. That if we don't do it in the US, people with turn to someplace else. I think you may be lacking in imagination. At a minimum, the possibility exists for nonprofit organizations to run quality search engines, but it's also possible to decouple the indexing business from the ranking provider. Google could run an index and charge for access, and ranking providers could build on top of that and recoup costs with non-tracking ads, donations, sales, whatever business model they please. Just because an unregulated market doesn't come up with a good solution doesn't mean a market under different constraints won't find a better way. And if nothing works out you always have the option of grants or a public digital infrastructure approach. There are so many things to try beyond shrugging and declaring that the market has ordained five dudes arbiters of the internet as experienced by most people.
if you find this distressing then i imagine you find it equally as distressing as a couple of corporations destroy something.
the reason the word *enshittification” has become so ubiquitous is because corporations are actively destroying the internet and desperately trying to convince us the internet is separate from “the real world”.
sometimes stopping a person from burning the house down is necessary. no matter how loudly they cry about their freedom to have a bonfire in the living room.
This description is intentionally vague.
The problem of course is that it's difficult to disentangle the speech of algorithmic moderation from the speech of the content being moderated. And the minor issue that the vast majority of things people complain about is just plain First Amendment-protected speech, so it's not like the §230 protections actually matter as the content isn't illegal in the first place.
Which should make people think twice when they call for government regulation on speech as a solution to content they don't want other people to see.
The more you give the government power to control speech, the more they'll use those laws to further their own interests.
I think a lot of this discussion has become detached from reality and we’re just entertaining some people’s impossible fantasies about shutting down the internet and returning to the past.
Account --> Delete
Exactly. And when we are done with them we will shut down Molson and Anheuser-Busch. Then we can go after the people who make selfy sticks. Then the company that owns that truck that cut me off last week. Basically, organization who i dislike should not be allowed to exist.
For example, some teen got radicalized with racist and sexist content. That's bad in my opinion, as I'm not a racist or a sexist. But should racist or sexist speech be censored or regulated? On what grounds? How do we know other unpopular (now or in the future) speech won't be censored or regulated in the future? Again, as much as I'm not a racist or sexist, I don't think the government should have a say in whether a company should be able to promote speech like "whites/blacks are X" or "men/women are Y". What's next? Should we regulate speech about religion (Christians/Muslims/atheists are Z) or ethics (anti-war people or vegans are Q) or politics or drugs or sex?
The current situation is shitty, but giving too much power to regulators will likely make it way shittier. If not now, in the future, since passed regulations are rarely removed.
Even just mandating interoperability would likely do since that would open up the floor to competitors. Many users are well aware of the issues but don't feel they have a viable alternative that satisfies their goals.
To clarify, I use "rage bait" as an example phrase, but it includes algos that only promote engagement at any cost and other things that aren't outright dangerous, but we think are dangerous. Not, like I said, CSAM or yelling FIRE or telling people to kill themselves.
Agreed, you can't regulate speech in a targeted manner while also not doing so. You're forced to find some common aspect much more general than "rage bait". Perhaps prohibiting the targeting of certain metrics? Or even prohibiting their collection in the first place.
Can you elaborate, give some ideas, examples, etc.? What metrics? How can you define them in a consistent, safe way?
Estimated user age is an example of a metric largely unrelated to concerns regarding free speech. I doubt it has much relevance to the problem we're taking about here but hopefully you can imagine that prohibiting the targeting of ads or the curation of an algorithmic feed based on that metric would not be expected to unduly disadvantage any particular sort of speech.
In a non-adversarial political context where we trust the government and the future ones, sure, but I think without any strong guardrails, we could enact a law that's good today, but will be exploited in the future.
For targeting minors with any kind of political speech - I'd love it if it wasn't legal. But that brings its own can of worms. There's enough discussion on HN on the implications of age verification, whether on how it's done technically (privacy-preserving or not (ZKP or just shady 3rd parties); FOSS or not; on the ISP, OS or app level, etc.) and whether the mere precedent could trigger additional issues down the road.
Anyway, I'd love a society where everything is perfect, but I'm afraid of what might actually happen. With a benevolent god as a permanent ruler, I'd be happy with 100% prosecution rate against all kinds of littering, hate speech and whatnot, but in reality random crimes are easier to evade than a law passed down by a malevolent government, so I'm strongly against any kind of overreach. (Because the law tomorrow could be one we must evade if we want to resist an unethical government). Someone will likely chime in with "but complete and massive overreach has never happened so far", to which I'd reply - we're close to the point where technology will let the ones in power grab that power absolutely and forever if we them grab too much in the beginning.
An oxymoron.
> where we trust the government and the future ones
Has never and will never exist.
> we could enact a law that's good today, but will be exploited in the future.
Sure but that's how pretty much all legislation works.
> I'd love it if it wasn't legal. But that brings its own can of worms.
It's probably fine as long as you include the clause "knowingly and intentionally". That doesn't imply age verification or anything else, merely that you act on information that you have and are aware of (and that you not intentionally design systems to work around that).
Also note that I never said anything about underage users. My example was targeting based on estimated user age. So in that example the age is estimated and it is illegal to target anything based on the value. (Of course to avoid a very silly loophole you'd also need to disallow targeting based on verified age as well.)
Also, I don't think people are advocating censorship, they are advocating not promoting assholes. You can have your little blog and be racist on it all you want, but let's not give these people equivalent of nukes for communication.
That seems more reasonable than the alternative, which is to make modifications to a complex system which you aren't sure what the outcome will be. You're more likely to cause bigger problems.
I'm fine with doing something, but the current "something" seems slippery.
> Banning racist and sexist content is not a slippery slope. It's just banning racist and sexist content, slope is only slippery because the salivating mouths of these social platforms grease them.
But what is "racist", exactly? See why I think it's a slippery slope and why it's ill-defined:
1. We could agree that "Let's go out and kill/enslave all the $race/$gender" is racist, but that's bad if we switch $race to any group, as it's speech that incites violence.
2. What about "$race is genetically inferior in a way (less intelligent, less athletic, more prone to $bad_behavior)"? I honestly think most differences in race/ethnicity is due to environmental factors, but what if there actually are difference in intelligence or anything like that? Should we ban speech that discusses that? Black people win running races and are great at basketball. They're prone to certain diseases, as are Caucasians or Asians. So would you ban discussing that? Or would you ban blindly asserting that $race is $Y without some sort of proof?
3. What about statements like "There are way more male bus drivers because X"? Or "men are better at Y, but women are better at Z"?
What do you think the definition of racism and sexism in this context should be? I think the line is where we incite violence towards a group, but not about discussing differences that may or may not be true.
> Also, I don't think people are advocating censorship, they are advocating not promoting assholes. You can have your little blog and be racist on it all you want, but let's not give these people equivalent of nukes for communication.
I think restricting a platform (or anyone or anything) from promoting someone IS censorship. If it's not censored, why shouldn't I be able to promote it? This honestly feels disingenuous - like "we pretend that the racist isn't censored and can have his little blog, but it's illegal to promote his little blog".
I’ve reported videos that look like sexual exploitation, videos that call for violence and videos that promote hate (xyz people are cockroaches) and all I’ve gotten is that “it does not go against community guidelines” with a link to block the person who created them. So any concerns of “where do we draw the line” are in my opinion pointless because the bare minimum isn’t even being done.
What if I didn't say anything bad about a race or a sex, but said:
> I have coworkers that pester with me with their small talk about the weather every time I see them. I hate those fucking cockroaches.
That's in bad taste, sure, but should it be regulated? You may know I obviously don't hate-hate them (they're just annoying, but most of them are good people) or actually consider them cockroach-like in any meaningful aspect (they're obviously people, but with annoying tendencies). But would a regulator know the difference? What about a malicious regulator who gets paid by (ok, this is a silly example, but bear with me) the weather-talking coworker lobby to censor me? In many not-so-silly examples a regulator could silence anyone for anything (politics, sex, drugs, ethics), as long as it uses a bad word or says anything negative about anyone. I don't want to live in such a society. That much power would be abused sooner or later.
I am not trying to be funny or anything but this sounds like "if only fat kid realized that eating 10 apple pies before bedtime might be the reason s/he is fat" We already know what social media platforms are doing, not to just young people but to all people.
> If the government regulates these platforms
This is like saying "congressman care about our debt so they will vote to reduce their own salaries by 90%" - the government is not going to regulate tools they are using to control the narrative/masses etc...