3 ms·

This article is a long winded view of the sophisticated behavior modeling ad-targeting networks that google and others employ - long on hand wringing and short

This article is a long winded view of the sophisticated behavior modeling ad-targeting networks that google and others employ - long on hand wringing and short on solutions. Stratchery published a beautiful, irreverent proposal earlier this week to address this very challenge through a regulatory framework that actually feels like it could work and I encourage all HN users to absorb: https://stratechery.com/2019/a-regulatory-framework-for-the-internet/ https://stratechery.com/2019/a-regulatory-framework-for-the-...

maksimum 8y ago
> platform providers that primarily monetize through advertising should be in their own category: as I noted above, because these platform providers separate monetization from content supply and consumption, there is no price or payment mechanism to incentivize them to be concerned with problematic content The article does a good job of explaining why YouTube and Facebook don't currently do a good job of currating content, or whether that should even be their responsibility. It's not about machine learning, it's about price incentives.
- nnq 8y ago
  Maybe forcing separation of content providing companies and advertising companies should be the modern equivalent of separating State from Church. An advertising company would always want to get more and more infos about the users that it sees as "resources" instead of customers. A content providing company would be forced to treat its users as actual customers and respect their rights at least a bit, and would push back against the advertising company asking for more surveillance data. Now, unfortunately this can't actually work because the more an advertising company makes, the more it can afford to pay the content creators/channels/providers, and everyone just wants more $. But if anyone has any idea how to make it work, do share!
spaced-out 8y ago
I've read a lot of these types of articles, which are heavy on hand-wringing and light of suggestions that would actually help things. I think the core problem is that under our current model of free-market capitalism, there really is no way to constrain what companies like Google and Facebook are doing. You can add on some additional privacy protections like Europe does, but it only goes so far, since the core model of these companies is to make products that people want and give them away in exchange for data. Google and the like will continue to get the data they want because people will keep giving it to them voluntarily. Me personally, I don't want to give up my free gmail, or my free maps app. I was on a trip in Japan and Google Translate works amazingly well. Way better than a few years ago, and also free. Even if I am uncomfortable with some of Google's practices, I'm not going to stop using their products.
bartimus 8y ago
I believe the issue is overblown and we're underestimating how well platforms are succeeding in curating their content. The controversy evolves around opinionated content where group A sees a problem with group B having a certain opinion heard. We need to think about extreme cases. Take for example a political party for pedophiles. You can rest assured any free market player will be laser focused as soon as such content shows up on their platform. Reputations are at stake. Many will execute their freedom to have such content removed. They don't need to provide a reason. Now with a regulatory system it becomes a different story. There is no way to define a set of rules that prevents people from advocating pedophilia without sacrificing freedom of speech.
- close04 8y ago
  > There is no way to define a set of rules that prevents people from advocating pedophilia without sacrificing freedom of speech. I disagree. The problem is just that people interpret "freedom of speech" as "I'm free to say whatever I want [period]". There are some limits however, that most fail to recognize. One of them which is both the letter and the spirit of freedom of speech ever since its first proclamation: the speaker shall be responsible for any abuse as defined by law. Being allowed to speak freely doesn't absolve you of supporting the consequences. This is why you can speak state secrets or instigate violence against refugees but will be prosecuted (there are corner cases as in every other legal area). In your example you are perfectly free to support that case. There's no actual "censorship office" to physically close your mouth while you do it. You may even escape any kind of legal prosecution. But in the court of public opinion you will not fare well.
  - skummetmaelk 8y ago
    Free speech is taken too far by so many people. It is freedom under responsibility. You can say what you want, but you can also be prosecuted for going up to people and screaming your opinions at them because that's harassment.
  - bartimus 8y ago
    I'm not sure we are in disagreement. > In your example you are perfectly free to support that case. There's no actual "censorship office". So without regulation the content platforms are free to make up their own rules and remove any content they consider unsuitable for their audience. In the article a regulatory framework is proposed for ad supported platforms. The responsibility is taken away from the platform. You now have a situation where the regulatory entity will either need to allow people advocating for things like pedophilia or other "uncomfortable things" or otherwise introduces censorship for it. It's a double edged sword.

maksimum 8y ago

> platform providers that primarily monetize through advertising should be in their own category: as I noted above, because these platform providers separate monetization from content supply and consumption, there is no price or payment mechanism to incentivize them to be concerned with problematic content The article does a good job of explaining why YouTube and Facebook don't currently do a good job of currating content, or whether that should even be their responsibility. It's not about machine learning, it's about price incentives.

nnq 8y ago
Maybe forcing separation of content providing companies and advertising companies should be the modern equivalent of separating State from Church. An advertising company would always want to get more and more infos about the users that it sees as "resources" instead of customers. A content providing company would be forced to treat its users as actual customers and respect their rights at least a bit, and would push back against the advertising company asking for more surveillance data. Now, unfortunately this can't actually work because the more an advertising company makes, the more it can afford to pay the content creators/channels/providers, and everyone just wants more $. But if anyone has any idea how to make it work, do share!

spaced-out 8y ago

I've read a lot of these types of articles, which are heavy on hand-wringing and light of suggestions that would actually help things. I think the core problem is that under our current model of free-market capitalism, there really is no way to constrain what companies like Google and Facebook are doing. You can add on some additional privacy protections like Europe does, but it only goes so far, since the core model of these companies is to make products that people want and give them away in exchange for data. Google and the like will continue to get the data they want because people will keep giving it to them voluntarily. Me personally, I don't want to give up my free gmail, or my free maps app. I was on a trip in Japan and Google Translate works amazingly well. Way better than a few years ago, and also free. Even if I am uncomfortable with some of Google's practices, I'm not going to stop using their products.

bartimus 8y ago

I believe the issue is overblown and we're underestimating how well platforms are succeeding in curating their content. The controversy evolves around opinionated content where group A sees a problem with group B having a certain opinion heard. We need to think about extreme cases. Take for example a political party for pedophiles. You can rest assured any free market player will be laser focused as soon as such content shows up on their platform. Reputations are at stake. Many will execute their freedom to have such content removed. They don't need to provide a reason. Now with a regulatory system it becomes a different story. There is no way to define a set of rules that prevents people from advocating pedophilia without sacrificing freedom of speech.

close04 8y ago
> There is no way to define a set of rules that prevents people from advocating pedophilia without sacrificing freedom of speech. I disagree. The problem is just that people interpret "freedom of speech" as "I'm free to say whatever I want [period]". There are some limits however, that most fail to recognize. One of them which is both the letter and the spirit of freedom of speech ever since its first proclamation: the speaker shall be responsible for any abuse as defined by law. Being allowed to speak freely doesn't absolve you of supporting the consequences. This is why you can speak state secrets or instigate violence against refugees but will be prosecuted (there are corner cases as in every other legal area). In your example you are perfectly free to support that case. There's no actual "censorship office" to physically close your mouth while you do it. You may even escape any kind of legal prosecution. But in the court of public opinion you will not fare well.
- skummetmaelk 8y ago
  Free speech is taken too far by so many people. It is freedom under responsibility. You can say what you want, but you can also be prosecuted for going up to people and screaming your opinions at them because that's harassment.
- bartimus 8y ago
  I'm not sure we are in disagreement. > In your example you are perfectly free to support that case. There's no actual "censorship office". So without regulation the content platforms are free to make up their own rules and remove any content they consider unsuitable for their audience. In the article a regulatory framework is proposed for ad supported platforms. The responsibility is taken away from the platform. You now have a situation where the regulatory entity will either need to allow people advocating for things like pedophilia or other "uncomfortable things" or otherwise introduces censorship for it. It's a double edged sword.