Hacker News Reader

Comment by pibaker | Hacker News Reader

> Engagement-maximizing algorithms that push increasingly extreme content to keep you on the app longer ain't speech

Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing instead of you know, user satisfaction maximizing (because satisfied users stay around for longer, right?)

And who decides what is extremist and what is acceptable? Was Rush Limbaugh reading the names of patients who died of AIDS on a hundred year old media more or less extreme than someone praising mao zedong for killing all landlords on social media?

View on HN

> Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing instead of you know, user satisfaction maximizing (because satisfied users stay around for longer, right?)

Let the user decide. The evil algorithms require the "algorithms" such as "all my subscriptions, completely, in chronological order" to be removed. If "all ragebait" or "maximize profits for facebook" are just other buttons, I have no objection, but I do not think they will be popular.

You do they visit or not. Should hackernews be forced to presenting their content a million ways? They present based on decisions made by the people who created the site.

Ok. What about a "Viewpoint Diversity" tab that lets you read the dumbest opinions from the other side of politics so that you stay in touch with what your fellow countrymen actually thinks. Not rage bait, I promise.

> Who decides what makes an algorithm engagement maximizing

We can look at the intention of the developers? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498

> Who decide

The law already concerns itself with determining intent (hence murder vs. manslaughter). I don’t see why similar criteria and methods cannot be applied here. We can assess the objectively bad psychological consequences of social media and look for evidence that establishes moral certainty about the intent.

I am not impressed with manufactured skepticism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com