4 ms·

Obama says social media companies making editorial choices, algorithms or not

50 points by kordlessagain 6y ago

didibus 6y ago
Much better to read the original article this quotes: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-obama-fears-for-our-democracy/617087/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-obama-...
- kordlessagain 6y ago
  Thanks for the tip!
prepend 6y ago
This is going to be a massive class action lawsuit, I think. I wonder if firms are just trying to find the right post to take advantage of this. I think the good lawsuit elements are: -incorrect statement about some big group with defined membership. Maybe a Facebook group with 500k+ -harm as a result of the statement, preferably with something that is made better with like 20 counseling sessions at $200 a pop -lots of shares of the incorrect statement So it could end up as something simple as a form where group members can choose to get cash as some percentage of 20x$200 unless they opt out. Facebook would pay $2B (500000x20x200) with the law firm taking 30%. This should be repeatable and will turn Facebook/Google (through YouTube)/Twitter into the new mesothelioma/lung cancer cash cow (see Owens Corning and Phillip Morris).
- sjg007 6y ago
  I an not sure I understand the argument. Are you saying that if FB censors something as part of its terms of service and this opens them up to a lawsuit?
  - prepend 6y ago
    Right, since they are not a carrier, if they are performing editorial actions on content then they are liable for content. I think this will open them up to lawsuits over the content of messages on their platform.
whimsicalism 6y ago
Honestly, I am so glad to hear Obama at least saying this. My impression was that many "establishment" (ie. employed in politics) Democrats were refraining from this criticism since tech as an industry is closely aligned with the party. Good to see that is not entirely true.
blueplanet200 6y ago
There's more content on these platforms than anyone can view. Therefore, platforms must make decisions about what to show to users. In service of growth, platforms often _choose_ content that users are likely to watch and share. This type of viral content often does not correlate with the truth. I agree with Obama. Platforms have made editorial choices. Their north star metric is engagement, instead of facts. I think Facebook/Youtube/Twitter are unlikely to sufficiently self-regulate. We need new regulations governing the spread of misinformation.
mucholove 6y ago
How I would change Section 230? An unedited feed keeps you immune from editorial choices. You can allow a user to sort by likes, retweets or time. Anything else is considered publishing. One more thing. We can in fact read the things we want to read by using a “Where” clause. This functionality can be exposed as well and you can retain your Section 230 rights so long as no magic happens in the “Where” clause.
- didibus 6y ago
  > You can allow a user to sort by likes, retweets or time. Anything else is considered publishing. I think this is also editorial in nature. That's what I think Obama was referring too when he said "even without algorithms". Because even likes and retweets are a way to editorialize what people are most likely to see. It promotes what is popular, and that's often click bait sensational things (which are often inaccurate or worded in misleading ways). And it also makes them a target for abuse, in that you can create bot campaigns or use human farms to push things to the top by having them artificially retweeted and liked. Or to hide things if there are downvotes as well. Think about Hackernews, even it still needs moderation even though it only has upvotes/downvotes. Now I think they are more tame compared to algorithms and machine learning models, but you can still argue they are a form of editorialization. Sorted by date isn't editorial. Same for search by keyword. Filtered by category or tag or user or date and all those are not editorial in nature. And if you think back to Google, the big breakthrough for search was to consider the number of backlinks to some content. I think that be a great way to replace sort by likes and retweets. Basically, force a user to post something new that talks about another post and links to it. And then you could have a sort be "number of reference". As long as you force the new post to not only be a link to another one, like require some additional content to be there as well, so someone adds to the conversation, even if it's just: "This is a great read: link". I feel that create a much higher quality content. Edit: Okay, re-reading this, I'm thinking my last idea is a lot similar to retweet, since it's basically a new post that back links to some existing one. So most retweeted might be fine. And I'm thinking why that is. I think it's because by retweeting, you're not promoting existing content above others, you're creating more copies of the same content. In a way, it is very transparent as to how many people have the same voice about something. So it makes it clear that it is users who are being vocal about some topic, and not the platform using some metric to promote one thing over others. Where as with likes, it's not clear if it's a user trying to push something to the top, thus editorializing, or if they are just trying to also say the same thing. I don't know, need to think about it some more probably.
cwhiz 6y ago
Get rid of 230. We don’t need to socialize through anonymous centralized services. Peer to peer and/or decentralized communities will form to replace centralized social media. And humanity will be better for it.

50 points by kordlessagain 6y ago

Much better to read the original article this quotes: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-obama-fears-for-our-democracy/617087/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-obama-...

kordlessagain 6y ago
Thanks for the tip!

prepend 6y ago

This is going to be a massive class action lawsuit, I think. I wonder if firms are just trying to find the right post to take advantage of this. I think the good lawsuit elements are: -incorrect statement about some big group with defined membership. Maybe a Facebook group with 500k+ -harm as a result of the statement, preferably with something that is made better with like 20 counseling sessions at $200 a pop -lots of shares of the incorrect statement So it could end up as something simple as a form where group members can choose to get cash as some percentage of 20x$200 unless they opt out. Facebook would pay $2B (500000x20x200) with the law firm taking 30%. This should be repeatable and will turn Facebook/Google (through YouTube)/Twitter into the new mesothelioma/lung cancer cash cow (see Owens Corning and Phillip Morris).

sjg007 6y ago
I an not sure I understand the argument. Are you saying that if FB censors something as part of its terms of service and this opens them up to a lawsuit?
- prepend 6y ago
  Right, since they are not a carrier, if they are performing editorial actions on content then they are liable for content. I think this will open them up to lawsuits over the content of messages on their platform.

whimsicalism 6y ago

Honestly, I am so glad to hear Obama at least saying this. My impression was that many "establishment" (ie. employed in politics) Democrats were refraining from this criticism since tech as an industry is closely aligned with the party. Good to see that is not entirely true.

blueplanet200 6y ago

There's more content on these platforms than anyone can view. Therefore, platforms must make decisions about what to show to users. In service of growth, platforms often _choose_ content that users are likely to watch and share. This type of viral content often does not correlate with the truth. I agree with Obama. Platforms have made editorial choices. Their north star metric is engagement, instead of facts. I think Facebook/Youtube/Twitter are unlikely to sufficiently self-regulate. We need new regulations governing the spread of misinformation.

mucholove 6y ago

How I would change Section 230? An unedited feed keeps you immune from editorial choices. You can allow a user to sort by likes, retweets or time. Anything else is considered publishing. One more thing. We can in fact read the things we want to read by using a “Where” clause. This functionality can be exposed as well and you can retain your Section 230 rights so long as no magic happens in the “Where” clause.

didibus 6y ago
> You can allow a user to sort by likes, retweets or time. Anything else is considered publishing. I think this is also editorial in nature. That's what I think Obama was referring too when he said "even without algorithms". Because even likes and retweets are a way to editorialize what people are most likely to see. It promotes what is popular, and that's often click bait sensational things (which are often inaccurate or worded in misleading ways). And it also makes them a target for abuse, in that you can create bot campaigns or use human farms to push things to the top by having them artificially retweeted and liked. Or to hide things if there are downvotes as well. Think about Hackernews, even it still needs moderation even though it only has upvotes/downvotes. Now I think they are more tame compared to algorithms and machine learning models, but you can still argue they are a form of editorialization. Sorted by date isn't editorial. Same for search by keyword. Filtered by category or tag or user or date and all those are not editorial in nature. And if you think back to Google, the big breakthrough for search was to consider the number of backlinks to some content. I think that be a great way to replace sort by likes and retweets. Basically, force a user to post something new that talks about another post and links to it. And then you could have a sort be "number of reference". As long as you force the new post to not only be a link to another one, like require some additional content to be there as well, so someone adds to the conversation, even if it's just: "This is a great read: link". I feel that create a much higher quality content. Edit: Okay, re-reading this, I'm thinking my last idea is a lot similar to retweet, since it's basically a new post that back links to some existing one. So most retweeted might be fine. And I'm thinking why that is. I think it's because by retweeting, you're not promoting existing content above others, you're creating more copies of the same content. In a way, it is very transparent as to how many people have the same voice about something. So it makes it clear that it is users who are being vocal about some topic, and not the platform using some metric to promote one thing over others. Where as with likes, it's not clear if it's a user trying to push something to the top, thus editorializing, or if they are just trying to also say the same thing. I don't know, need to think about it some more probably.

cwhiz 6y ago

Get rid of 230. We don’t need to socialize through anonymous centralized services. Peer to peer and/or decentralized communities will form to replace centralized social media. And humanity will be better for it.