I think there's a little more nuance than that, but it seems roughly correct.
Wouldn't it be better if apps/websites targeting kids didn't use A/B testing to be more addictive?
Wouldn't it be better if apps/websites targeting kids didn't use A/B testing to be more addictive?
Pokemon is addictive, computer games are addictive. Its whether they are knowingly causing harm, and or avoiding attempts to stop that harm.
I don't have an answer to fix this whole mess, but it starts with our attitude towards addiction. We've built a system that rewards addiction in all sorts of places. Granted, every addiction is different, and I'm of the opinion that it's not (drug = bad), it's how you use it and react to it. We can control the latter, but we choose to ignore it because we're too busy with anything else. This is a tale as old as time...
Exactly what I keep coming back to.
For me, it feels like you could cut this problem down substantially by eliminating section 230 protection on any algorithmically elevated content. Everywhere. Full stop.
If you write or have an algorithm created that pushes content to users, in ANY fashion, that is endorsement. You want that content to be seen, for whatever odd reason, and if it's harmful to your users, you should be held responsible for it. It's one thing if some random asshole messages me on Telegram trying to scam me; there's little Telegram can do (though a fucking "do not permit messages from people not in my contacts" setting would be nice) but there is nothing at all that "makes" Facebook shovel AI bullshit at people, apart from it juices engagement, either by genuine engagement or ironic/ragebaiting.
And AI bullshit is just annoying, I've seen "Facebook help" groups that are clearly just trawling to get people's account info, I've seen scam pages and products, all kinds of shit, and either it pisses people off so Facebook passes it around, or they give Facebook money and Facebook shoves it into the feeds of everyone they can.
It's fucking disgusting and there's no reason to permit it.
Not only is this seemingly the most desired feed among end users, it was also the default one. MySpace didn't have a choice in the matter, they had to show a chronological timeline, because they didn't have a machine-learning algorithm nor a way to make one. They could tweak it based on engagement metrics but on the whole, it was just here's what all your friends have posted, in reverse order, scroll away. And then eventually you'd hit the end where it's like "you're up to date" and then you go on with your fucking day.
But of course platforms hate that. They want you there, all day, scrolling through an infinite deluge of bullshit, amongst which they can park ads. And we know they hate this, because not only have platforms refused to bring back chronological feeds, they actively removed them if they existed at one time. Not only is this doable, it's the most efficient way that requires the least compute from their servers, but platforms reliably chose the inverse... because it makes them more money.
Also specifically on this:
> My point is that this would mean algorithmic feeds can only contain vapid, pointless content
The vast majority of these sites is vapid, pointless content RIGHT NOW, even if it attempts to convince you it isn't.
Yes. People make free speech arguments about this, but the list and order of stuff returned by algorithmic non-directed (+) lists is clearly a form of endorsement. Even more so is advertising, which undergoes a bidding process. Pages which show ads should be liable if those ads are fraudulent, especially if they're so obviously fraudulent that casual readers suspect them immediately.
(+) Returning a list of stuff in a user-specified query, on the other hand, is not endorsement. Chronological or alphabetical order or distance-based or even random is fine.
Note that section 230 is, of course, US specific and other countries manage without it.
I don't see a good way to make a definite legal distinction between the icky stuff versus normal an unobjectionable things which are, technically, also forms of elevation-by-algorithm:
rank_by_age(items) // Good
rank_by_age_and_poster_reputation(items) // Probably
rank_by_on_topic_ness(items, forum_subject)
rank_by_likes(items)
rank_by_engagement_likelihood(items) // Bad?
rank_by_positive_sentiment_toward_clients(items) // Bad rank_by_age(items) // Good
rank_by_age_and_poster_reputation(items) // Probably
rank_by_on_topic_ness(items, forum_subject)
rank_by_likes(items)
<-- here -->
rank_by_engagement_likelihood(items) // Bad?
rank_by_positive_sentiment_toward_clients(items) // Bad
Poster reputation is deterministic. How many times has this poster received positive feedback based on their content?
On-topic-ness is deterministic, if a bit fuzzy. That said I think the likes will reflect this, if you post a thread about cooking potatoes in the gopro subreddit, your post will be downvoted and probably removed via other means in which case it's presence in the feed is already null.
Likes are again, deterministic. How many people upvoted it?
In contrast:
Engagement likelihood is clearly a subjective, theoretical measure. An algorithm is going to parse a database for other posts like this, see how much attention it got, and say "is this likely to drive engagement." That's what I'm talking about.
And positive sentiment towards clients I can't quite read? I'm guessing you're referring to like, community sponsors but I'm not 100% certain. But that almost certainly is a subjective one too, and even if not, it's giving people with money the ability to put their thumb on the scale.
> On-topic-ness is deterministic, if a bit fuzzy.
If you permit that exception (even for good reasons) then it reveals how the original "algorithmic elevation" is too vague and unenforceable.
All someone needs is a ToS footnote like "this forum is provided for truthful international news and engaging with $COMPANY in a positive way." Poof, loophole. Anything the moderator (or moderator-algorithm) decides is "untrue" or "negative" becomes off-topic and can be pushed down.
Not enough to diffuse liability. 15 years ago when recommender algorithms were the new hotness, I saw every single group of students introduced to the idea immediately grasp the implication that the endgame would involve pandering to base instincts. If someone didn't understand this, it's because
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair