30 ms·

The problem is that tech companies aren't just showing you everything everyone says... they're picking and choosing what to show you. The 10,000ft overview is

The problem is that tech companies aren't just showing you everything everyone says... they're picking and choosing what to show you. The 10,000ft overview is that they show you whatever keeps you coming back or staying on-site longer. This gives them more ad impressions and makes them more money. Therefore, if their algorithms determine that showing you fake news, lies, and other socially-destructive and false propaganda is more profitable... they can and will do that. So the question is, how do we regulate what the tech-utilities get to filter from your view? Should we regulate? It's not the regulation of speech, but rather the regulation of the willful filtration of speech for profit. i.e., "dont show this guy dissenting views to his position or he'll stop coming back", where does that fit into our needs as a society and how should our laws tackle it, if at all?

opportune 9y ago
I just wish people were able to collectively give up social media. I completely abhor the stranglehold its placed on culture and media, especially for the younger generation. It has dumbed everything down into what will get clicks, and is extremely invasive to boot. The only thing we "gain" from having social media as a society is advertisement.... which is essentially a way to get us to consume goods we wouldn't be consuming otherwise (i.e. waste). I don't see anything good coming from replacing the more or less natural human social structure that evolved over millions of years increasingly with an app designed to get us to buy goods we don't want, or get just 5 more minutes of attention. Such a waste of humanity's minds and effort. Ultimately I really don't think you can say that Google/FB's dominance is a net positive for humanity. Sure we get to enjoy a lot of "free" goods, but those goods are merely a vector through which advertisements can learn more about us. Google/FB wouldn't be rolling in it if advertisers weren't making money off from advertising through them. I see it almost as a maladaptive coping mechanism adopted by our society at large. We have a completely self-destructive reliance on perpetual inflation-beating growth, and at this point some of the most important mechanisms driving this growth are highly sophisticated advertisements designed to squeeze every last bit of consumer spending out of the economy as is possible. Not only that, but they've collectively convinced almost all of humanity to whore out all of their own personal information just so they can browse meme pages or check up on old high school acquaintances. It's absolutely disgusting behavior that to me resembles the informed preying on the ignorant.
- PostOnce 9y ago
  A couple points and devil's advocacy on a couple as well: Search is as bad as social, even if we give up social, it'll be hard to replace search (I read Wikimedia is working on something... a nonprofit search would be a fantastic asset to the world.) Advertising generates a lot more than waste, in fact it may advertise to you a tool that you didn't know existed that prevents waste. Maybe rechargeable batteries or a water filter so you don't buy water bottles or who knows what, that sword cuts both ways. The ethics of advertisers and the lack of regulation in advertising though is easy to attack. That stuff is a mess. As for Google being a net negative, I lean to your side of the argument but I think it'd be difficult and both sides would have a lot of merit; other search engines are just less efficient; think of all the man-hours of wasted research Google has saved by giving you the right result the first time, it must be billions of hours annually, maybe more. A lot of time and money has been spent competing, and the competition hasn't gotten much closer in terms of actual search results, so, if Google didn't exist, we may just be at a loss for that stuff.
  - annabellish 9y ago
    Neither is intrinsically bad for society, merely the monetisation model. "State owned" search/social would obviously be even worse, however, so there isn't a clear path to having a version of either of those things which actually have as their primary aim the things Google/Facebook claim to.
- Sargos 9y ago
  > I just wish people were able to collectively give up social media. As long as you realize that Hacker News is also social media.
  - opportune 9y ago
    I guess it's not social media itself, but its externalities and perverse incentives that are the problem. Hacker news isn't designed to be addictive nor do they sell my information to advertisers, so I don't have a problem with it
- 9y ago
pdkl95 9y ago
> they're picking and choosing what to show you Regulation is easy. When you wield editorial control over what people see, you should also gain some liability for any problems your decisions cause. If you don't to have that responsibility, then you need to act like a common carrier.
- comex 9y ago
  > Regulation is easy. When you wield editorial control over what people see, you should also gain some liability for any problems your decisions cause. If you don't to have that responsibility, then you need to act like a common carrier. So you think that Google should not be attempting to filter out fake news at all? Or just, should not be ranking search results at all? I don't know how else to interpret "act like a common carrier", but I don't see how either of those would be beneficial... to anyone.
  - ianai 9y ago
    They can: Decline to host any content from governmental agencies. Ie ban propaganda. Instill some kind of fact checking. Maybe only post news from whitelisted domains. Make a digital equivalent of a press pass.
    - njarboe 9y ago
      This could work for news.google.com but not for generic search. Unless google goes to a very restricted white listing for search. That would be "evil" in my book and I would try to stop using them for anything.
ForHackernews 9y ago
Interesting ideas about regulation from The Regulatory Review: https://www.theregreview.org/2017/10/10/cramer-bias-computer-algorithms/ https://www.theregreview.org/2017/10/10/cramer-bias-computer...

opportune 9y ago

I just wish people were able to collectively give up social media. I completely abhor the stranglehold its placed on culture and media, especially for the younger generation. It has dumbed everything down into what will get clicks, and is extremely invasive to boot. The only thing we "gain" from having social media as a society is advertisement.... which is essentially a way to get us to consume goods we wouldn't be consuming otherwise (i.e. waste). I don't see anything good coming from replacing the more or less natural human social structure that evolved over millions of years increasingly with an app designed to get us to buy goods we don't want, or get just 5 more minutes of attention. Such a waste of humanity's minds and effort. Ultimately I really don't think you can say that Google/FB's dominance is a net positive for humanity. Sure we get to enjoy a lot of "free" goods, but those goods are merely a vector through which advertisements can learn more about us. Google/FB wouldn't be rolling in it if advertisers weren't making money off from advertising through them. I see it almost as a maladaptive coping mechanism adopted by our society at large. We have a completely self-destructive reliance on perpetual inflation-beating growth, and at this point some of the most important mechanisms driving this growth are highly sophisticated advertisements designed to squeeze every last bit of consumer spending out of the economy as is possible. Not only that, but they've collectively convinced almost all of humanity to whore out all of their own personal information just so they can browse meme pages or check up on old high school acquaintances. It's absolutely disgusting behavior that to me resembles the informed preying on the ignorant.

PostOnce 9y ago
A couple points and devil's advocacy on a couple as well: Search is as bad as social, even if we give up social, it'll be hard to replace search (I read Wikimedia is working on something... a nonprofit search would be a fantastic asset to the world.) Advertising generates a lot more than waste, in fact it may advertise to you a tool that you didn't know existed that prevents waste. Maybe rechargeable batteries or a water filter so you don't buy water bottles or who knows what, that sword cuts both ways. The ethics of advertisers and the lack of regulation in advertising though is easy to attack. That stuff is a mess. As for Google being a net negative, I lean to your side of the argument but I think it'd be difficult and both sides would have a lot of merit; other search engines are just less efficient; think of all the man-hours of wasted research Google has saved by giving you the right result the first time, it must be billions of hours annually, maybe more. A lot of time and money has been spent competing, and the competition hasn't gotten much closer in terms of actual search results, so, if Google didn't exist, we may just be at a loss for that stuff.
- annabellish 9y ago
  Neither is intrinsically bad for society, merely the monetisation model. "State owned" search/social would obviously be even worse, however, so there isn't a clear path to having a version of either of those things which actually have as their primary aim the things Google/Facebook claim to.
Sargos 9y ago
> I just wish people were able to collectively give up social media. As long as you realize that Hacker News is also social media.
- opportune 9y ago
  I guess it's not social media itself, but its externalities and perverse incentives that are the problem. Hacker news isn't designed to be addictive nor do they sell my information to advertisers, so I don't have a problem with it
9y ago

pdkl95 9y ago

> they're picking and choosing what to show you Regulation is easy. When you wield editorial control over what people see, you should also gain some liability for any problems your decisions cause. If you don't to have that responsibility, then you need to act like a common carrier.

comex 9y ago
> Regulation is easy. When you wield editorial control over what people see, you should also gain some liability for any problems your decisions cause. If you don't to have that responsibility, then you need to act like a common carrier. So you think that Google should not be attempting to filter out fake news at all? Or just, should not be ranking search results at all? I don't know how else to interpret "act like a common carrier", but I don't see how either of those would be beneficial... to anyone.
- ianai 9y ago
  They can: Decline to host any content from governmental agencies. Ie ban propaganda. Instill some kind of fact checking. Maybe only post news from whitelisted domains. Make a digital equivalent of a press pass.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    This could work for news.google.com but not for generic search. Unless google goes to a very restricted white listing for search. That would be "evil" in my book and I would try to stop using them for anything.

ForHackernews 9y ago

Interesting ideas about regulation from The Regulatory Review: https://www.theregreview.org/2017/10/10/cramer-bias-computer-algorithms/ https://www.theregreview.org/2017/10/10/cramer-bias-computer...