5 ms·

> The algorithms platforms use to recommend content should be heavily regulated. ... More ambitiously, a wholesale restructuring of the platform ecosystem may b

> The algorithms platforms use to recommend content should be heavily regulated. ... More ambitiously, a wholesale restructuring of the platform ecosystem may be required. I agree with the premise of the article but I'm not sure anything new is being said here and the conclusion is lacking substance. What would regulations of algorithms look like? What does restructuring of the platform ecosystem entail? Requiring all social media companies implement ActivityPub? What are the author's opinions on how any of this would come to fruition?

ianai 6y ago
Restricting who may purchase which ads would be a start. Placing a financial value and further fines on misusing personal data would continue to hinder the attack vector. Ie not just hippa/PII.
- secondcoming 6y ago
  Saving democracy via dictatorship?
  - ahartmetz 6y ago
    Who would be the dictator and how would they not have any checks and balances?
    - secondcoming 6y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your question, but the dictator would be the onewho decides what is and isn't acceptable, and it's a trait of dictators that they don't pay much attention to checks and balances. Of course, any dictator worth their salt will immediately ban any expression of discontent with said dictatorship. Similar to how in Thailand it's an offense to criticise the monarchy.
  - arrosenberg 6y ago
    You have the right to free speech, not to the broadcast thereof. When is the last time you saw a cigarette ad?
    - secondcoming 6y ago
      Cigarette ads aren't political. Cigarettes are a product, not an opinion or set of beliefs. Nobody walks into a shop and asks for a pack of '20 Right Wing', or '20 Menthol SJWs'
627467 6y ago
In my opinion a simple regulations would target notifications and feeds: 1. You can't enable content notifications by default. (unless it's system or performance related one) users have to manually turn them on 2. You can't nudge users to enable notifications. 3. You have to enable switching off notifications easily 4. By default feeds have to be strictly time-based. No 'recommendation engines' by default. No exceptions. 5. Related to 4. No paid posts. Advertiser can buy banner ads, interstitial, but those should not be presented as posts. Should be clearly marked and displayed distinctively from feed content (content I get because it specifically looked for and followed) I think the points above will take us back to social media of 10 years or so ago. But if it not suficien, here's another one: 6. Platform cannot recommend accounts to be followed. Follows need to be discovered actively by user
- rusk 6y ago
  > 4. By default feeds have to be strictly time-based. No 'recommendation engines' by default. No exceptions Yes! Only recently twitter have reenabled this “feature” - I can now safely browse without some algorithm showing me things that enrage me. It’s a much nicer place to be now. EDIT I’m quite happy wrt (5) how twitter to the promoted adds. They’re clearly labelled and easy to block if I don’t like them. The algorithm soon learns what to show if you take a zero tolerance approach.
- lemming 6y ago
  What about: 0. Platforms may not customise information presented to an individual user based on knowledge the platform has about that user. I guess the issue with that is how far do you go - a webmail client could be considered to be customising what each user sees, because each sees different email. However it's the level of personalisation which is the root of the problem. Perhaps instead: 0.b) Platforms may not customise advertising material presented to an individual user based on knowledge the platform has about that user.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
vmception 6y ago
Regulate the financial ad markets, not ads, just the future value of ads and bidding process. More strictly regulate the data brokers as well, and ad dealers.
- rusk 6y ago
  Easy to formulate as a principal - much harder to execute in principle - we have actual data protection laws at this point in time that should in principle negate a lot of this but they’re openly flauted all the time!
intended 6y ago
I'd suggest that we figure out what our algos are measuring, first. Given how new this field is, and how many different disciplines are looking at it, we need a common set to work on. "Online Harms", was the broadest set of terms I found. (UK Gov - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-whi...) Here is count of categories in transparency reports for 3 firms (full list at the end): * Online harms paper: 24/22 harms * Facebook, 10 harms (1) * Twitter 12 (2) * Reddit 8 (3) Here's a paper from May 2020, which focused on hate speech detection using SA. The intro lays out the case for clearer, more compatible categories: "the lack of clear definitions of key categories is a critical issue. The authors argue that researchers use different, sometimes theoretically ambiguous or misleading terms for equivalent categories." https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.lrec-1.838/ https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.lrec-1.838/ Which brings us to the problem of secrecy in tech firms. ------ What we know about how the firms work, is based on leaks and people who break NDAs. Reasons range from: 1) It's a trade secret 2) An open list means attackers will use new words 3) It exposes their approach to criticism. To whatever. Researchers are likely recreating the wheel. The question is whether the information on the "public square" needs to be released and made open. This punts the question on regulating algos, to after we figure out what algos are working on in the first place. After that, maybe you can start talking about algorithms which curate, ban, promote, profile anything that humans do. --------------------------- (1) FB harms: Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity, Bullying and Harassment, Child Nudity and Sexual Exploitation of Children, Dangerous Organizations: Terrorism and Organized Hate, Fake Accounts, Hate Speech, Regulated Goods: Drugs and Firearms, Spam, Suicide and Self-Injury, Violent and Graphic Con (2) Twitter harms: Hateful conduct, Abuse/harassment, Sensitive media, Promoting suicide or self-harm, Violence, Illegal or certain regulated goods or services, Non-consensual nudity, Private information, Impersonation, Child sexual exploitation, Civic integrity, Terrorism/violent extremism (3) Harassment, Minor Sexualization, Violent Content, Involuntary Porn, Controlled Goods, Private Information, Impersonation, Ban Evasion
Barrin92 6y ago
>What would regulations of algorithms look like? Giving users full control and transparency about what categories the algorithm puts them into and if they desire, turn all algorithmic content delivery off and just give me content I'm subscribed to as it comes in. For a start.
intended 6y ago
Review of the algorithms and data, in a public and ongoing work of research to make sure we know how and what these systems are doing/

ianai 6y ago

Restricting who may purchase which ads would be a start. Placing a financial value and further fines on misusing personal data would continue to hinder the attack vector. Ie not just hippa/PII.

secondcoming 6y ago
Saving democracy via dictatorship?
- ahartmetz 6y ago
  Who would be the dictator and how would they not have any checks and balances?
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your question, but the dictator would be the onewho decides what is and isn't acceptable, and it's a trait of dictators that they don't pay much attention to checks and balances. Of course, any dictator worth their salt will immediately ban any expression of discontent with said dictatorship. Similar to how in Thailand it's an offense to criticise the monarchy.
- arrosenberg 6y ago
  You have the right to free speech, not to the broadcast thereof. When is the last time you saw a cigarette ad?
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    Cigarette ads aren't political. Cigarettes are a product, not an opinion or set of beliefs. Nobody walks into a shop and asks for a pack of '20 Right Wing', or '20 Menthol SJWs'

627467 6y ago

In my opinion a simple regulations would target notifications and feeds: 1. You can't enable content notifications by default. (unless it's system or performance related one) users have to manually turn them on 2. You can't nudge users to enable notifications. 3. You have to enable switching off notifications easily 4. By default feeds have to be strictly time-based. No 'recommendation engines' by default. No exceptions. 5. Related to 4. No paid posts. Advertiser can buy banner ads, interstitial, but those should not be presented as posts. Should be clearly marked and displayed distinctively from feed content (content I get because it specifically looked for and followed) I think the points above will take us back to social media of 10 years or so ago. But if it not suficien, here's another one: 6. Platform cannot recommend accounts to be followed. Follows need to be discovered actively by user

rusk 6y ago
> 4. By default feeds have to be strictly time-based. No 'recommendation engines' by default. No exceptions Yes! Only recently twitter have reenabled this “feature” - I can now safely browse without some algorithm showing me things that enrage me. It’s a much nicer place to be now. EDIT I’m quite happy wrt (5) how twitter to the promoted adds. They’re clearly labelled and easy to block if I don’t like them. The algorithm soon learns what to show if you take a zero tolerance approach.
lemming 6y ago
What about: 0. Platforms may not customise information presented to an individual user based on knowledge the platform has about that user. I guess the issue with that is how far do you go - a webmail client could be considered to be customising what each user sees, because each sees different email. However it's the level of personalisation which is the root of the problem. Perhaps instead: 0.b) Platforms may not customise advertising material presented to an individual user based on knowledge the platform has about that user.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

vmception 6y ago

Regulate the financial ad markets, not ads, just the future value of ads and bidding process. More strictly regulate the data brokers as well, and ad dealers.

rusk 6y ago
Easy to formulate as a principal - much harder to execute in principle - we have actual data protection laws at this point in time that should in principle negate a lot of this but they’re openly flauted all the time!

intended 6y ago

I'd suggest that we figure out what our algos are measuring, first. Given how new this field is, and how many different disciplines are looking at it, we need a common set to work on. "Online Harms", was the broadest set of terms I found. (UK Gov - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-whi...) Here is count of categories in transparency reports for 3 firms (full list at the end): * Online harms paper: 24/22 harms * Facebook, 10 harms (1) * Twitter 12 (2) * Reddit 8 (3) Here's a paper from May 2020, which focused on hate speech detection using SA. The intro lays out the case for clearer, more compatible categories: "the lack of clear definitions of key categories is a critical issue. The authors argue that researchers use different, sometimes theoretically ambiguous or misleading terms for equivalent categories." https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.lrec-1.838/ https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.lrec-1.838/ Which brings us to the problem of secrecy in tech firms. ------ What we know about how the firms work, is based on leaks and people who break NDAs. Reasons range from: 1) It's a trade secret 2) An open list means attackers will use new words 3) It exposes their approach to criticism. To whatever. Researchers are likely recreating the wheel. The question is whether the information on the "public square" needs to be released and made open. This punts the question on regulating algos, to after we figure out what algos are working on in the first place. After that, maybe you can start talking about algorithms which curate, ban, promote, profile anything that humans do. --------------------------- (1) FB harms: Adult Nudity and Sexual Activity, Bullying and Harassment, Child Nudity and Sexual Exploitation of Children, Dangerous Organizations: Terrorism and Organized Hate, Fake Accounts, Hate Speech, Regulated Goods: Drugs and Firearms, Spam, Suicide and Self-Injury, Violent and Graphic Con (2) Twitter harms: Hateful conduct, Abuse/harassment, Sensitive media, Promoting suicide or self-harm, Violence, Illegal or certain regulated goods or services, Non-consensual nudity, Private information, Impersonation, Child sexual exploitation, Civic integrity, Terrorism/violent extremism (3) Harassment, Minor Sexualization, Violent Content, Involuntary Porn, Controlled Goods, Private Information, Impersonation, Ban Evasion

Barrin92 6y ago

>What would regulations of algorithms look like? Giving users full control and transparency about what categories the algorithm puts them into and if they desire, turn all algorithmic content delivery off and just give me content I'm subscribed to as it comes in. For a start.

intended 6y ago

Review of the algorithms and data, in a public and ongoing work of research to make sure we know how and what these systems are doing/