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.
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.