6 ms·

Indeed, Facebook and YouTube for a conservative and for a liberal are each completely different experiences. This is what blaming the algorithm gets us. It's w

Indeed, Facebook and YouTube for a conservative and for a liberal are each completely different experiences. This is what blaming the algorithm gets us. It's well past time to start shutting down platforms with algorithmic content systems.

tomjen3 6y ago
Doesn't matter, assuming you allow people to pick who they follow. Try to look at the twitter feed of somebody who disagrees with you on a topic you find important - most the posts will be insults towards those who disagree with that persons POV.
andrewstuart2 6y ago
Or, hear me out, requiring certain levels of transparency from content systems that have started to augment such fundamental constructs as human-to-human communication and information sharing. There's nothing inherently wrong with automating content discovery; it's the cost function being optimized that I think we would almost all take issue with.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Agreed. Much of the problem I see is that people can fall down a rabbit hole of polarization without realizing it; no matter how far into the fringes the recommendation algorithm gets, it'll always feel like "oh everyone's saying this" to you as a viewer.
  - andrewstuart2 6y ago
    "What happens when you take a creature with a strong confirmation bias and feed it content specifically chosen for congruence with its particular bias?" Or rather, they knew the answer, but knew that it was the best way to maximize engagement and thus profit.
    - goguy 6y ago
      There still needs to be scope for personal responsibility though. Blaming your own behaviours on the recommendation algorithm of youtube etc is just a cop out.
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        It's a copout on an individual level, but the question of who's responsible is a lot less important than the question of what we're going to do about the problem. In the absence of a plan to make millions upon millions of partisans more individually responsible, we've gotta do something about the recommendation algorithms.
        NateEag 6y ago
        A cop sees a guy crawling around under a streetlight and asks him, "Sir, what are you doing?" The man replies, "Well, officer, I dropped my car keys and I'm trying to find them." The policeman offers to help, and they search fruitlessly for ten minutes. Finally, the officer says, "Are you sure this is where you dropped them?" "Oh, no, it's not. I dropped them way over there in the parking lot." Dumbfounded, the cop says, "WHY are you looking over HERE?" "Well, the light is better over here."
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - kaba0 6y ago
        If it is well known human behaviour, is it their personal responsibility? Especially combined with the deliberate exploitation of said behaviour by corporations?
  - SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
    Rabbit holes are good for most kinds content. I do want to go down a rabbit hole of restoration gardening videos. Its only politics and news which become a problem
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 8note 6y ago
  What does the transparency change though?
polotics 6y ago
I would so love to have sliders on Youtube to be able to adjust bias filtering, and watch the suggested videos switch sides in real time. This would probably get me to pay for the subscription.
- duck 6y ago
  Not quite what you're looking for, but have you seen this? https://www.their.tube/ https://www.their.tube/
zmmmmm 6y ago
Reminds me after the GFC how some of the rules that were brought in were around banning automated real time trading systems. This was in some similar ways recognizing that automated algorithmic treatment can have extremely harmful side effects - even when it successfully executes the goals of its owner (for the stock market - once a certain threshold is breached, get me out of the market as quickly as possible - as an individual, its exactly what I want, for the overall market it is a disaster if everyone does it suddenly).
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Indeed. Generally along with blaming the algorithm, as we start using AI, the problem is the algorithm is no longer even understandable in many cases. Tech companies should be able to explain and demonstrate the logic their systems use. These algorithms should probably be public. And any system which cannot be transparently explained should be shut down.
  - dane-pgp 6y ago
    > These algorithms should probably be public. And any system which cannot be transparently explained should be shut down. But what would even count as an explanation, and what does a "public" algorithm reveal? There is no line of code that says "if (video.content == extreme) { show_to(EVERYONE) }". A lot of the dangers are possible from a simple algorithm which merely performs A/B testing on whether a certain (randomly chosen, at first) video increases the amount of time a user spends on a site. You could pass a law against A/B testing, or require companies to provide deliberately bad suggestions to make their users frustrated, but I'm not sure if that is a proportionate legislative response.
    - zmmmmm 6y ago
      > But what would even count as an explanation That sort of gets to the heart of it - saying "it's impossible to explain my algorithm because it is so complicated" no longer cuts it. It's the same as if I said to the FDA "This drug works in our testing for the indicated purpose but we have no idea if there are side effects" they aren't go to say "well, OK then, you can sell it". They'll say "come back when you have tested for all possible side effects and you can precisly define its behavior" Currently Facebook, Google et al, will measure a narrow set of metrics to define the success of their algorithms (primarily relating to $$$) and then declare victory based on empirical optimisation of those metrics. They have to show that not only does the algorithm work for its stated purpose, it doesn't have undesirable side effects. They could do massive testing to demonstrate a huge range of side effects are not present. That would be similar to and probably as expensive as drug development. But an easier way to do that is to transparently explain what the algorithms do so that side effects can be predicted. If that is actually impossible for a given algorithm - well, maybe that algorithm shouldn't be used on the public at all.
jcfrei 6y ago
Kind of ironic calling for shutting down platforms with algorithmic content systems on HN.
- polka_haunts_us 6y ago
  Probably worth distinguishing between Algorithms targeting individuals and Algorithms running an entire site. Yes HN is algorithmic but you and I see the same things.
mancerayder 6y ago
Why can't there be a Giant Lever on the side that inputs a variable into the Magic Algorithms that you can adjust. Up down, left or right, whatever you want to call it. Why would you do this - even if people never touch it: because at least people KNOW there's a decision-tree at play here. Also there MUST be some randomization or more generalized content introduced. And I'm not talking Trending Now or Hit Songs That Just Came Out. I'm looking at you, YouTube and Facebook. Sometimes I actually want new stuff and it keeps dragging me back into a virtual rabbit hole.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Because: - There's no simple decision tree, but an ML model with countless knobs that are mostly implicit. Not worth the money to make an UI to tweak it. - The puprose of these platforms is to maximize your exposure to ads. Nothing more. Anything that detracts from it is a no-go.
raydev 6y ago
Both FB and YouTube's top shared posts and video are super right-leaning, though (YouTube has other massively popular videos, but they are about gaming or influencer stuff). What would the equivalent "liberal" viral posts be, and why aren't they nearly as popular as the right's?
- mr_toad 6y ago
  My bet is that Facebook’s user demographic skews old and white, and that explains their posting. If you go somewhere like Reddit or TikTok you’ll see an entirely different story.
- gorgoiler 6y ago
  Elsewhere in this thread the point is made that the opposite of a viral conservative video isn’t a viral liberal video. It’s either a moderate video, or no video at all. (This might be the very point you are making, rhetorically?)

tomjen3 6y ago

Doesn't matter, assuming you allow people to pick who they follow. Try to look at the twitter feed of somebody who disagrees with you on a topic you find important - most the posts will be insults towards those who disagree with that persons POV.

andrewstuart2 6y ago

Or, hear me out, requiring certain levels of transparency from content systems that have started to augment such fundamental constructs as human-to-human communication and information sharing. There's nothing inherently wrong with automating content discovery; it's the cost function being optimized that I think we would almost all take issue with.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Agreed. Much of the problem I see is that people can fall down a rabbit hole of polarization without realizing it; no matter how far into the fringes the recommendation algorithm gets, it'll always feel like "oh everyone's saying this" to you as a viewer.
- andrewstuart2 6y ago
  "What happens when you take a creature with a strong confirmation bias and feed it content specifically chosen for congruence with its particular bias?" Or rather, they knew the answer, but knew that it was the best way to maximize engagement and thus profit.
  - goguy 6y ago
    There still needs to be scope for personal responsibility though. Blaming your own behaviours on the recommendation algorithm of youtube etc is just a cop out.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      It's a copout on an individual level, but the question of who's responsible is a lot less important than the question of what we're going to do about the problem. In the absence of a plan to make millions upon millions of partisans more individually responsible, we've gotta do something about the recommendation algorithms.
      - NateEag 6y ago
        A cop sees a guy crawling around under a streetlight and asks him, "Sir, what are you doing?" The man replies, "Well, officer, I dropped my car keys and I'm trying to find them." The policeman offers to help, and they search fruitlessly for ten minutes. Finally, the officer says, "Are you sure this is where you dropped them?" "Oh, no, it's not. I dropped them way over there in the parking lot." Dumbfounded, the cop says, "WHY are you looking over HERE?" "Well, the light is better over here."
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - kaba0 6y ago
      If it is well known human behaviour, is it their personal responsibility? Especially combined with the deliberate exploitation of said behaviour by corporations?
- SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
  Rabbit holes are good for most kinds content. I do want to go down a rabbit hole of restoration gardening videos. Its only politics and news which become a problem
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
8note 6y ago
What does the transparency change though?

polotics 6y ago

I would so love to have sliders on Youtube to be able to adjust bias filtering, and watch the suggested videos switch sides in real time. This would probably get me to pay for the subscription.

duck 6y ago
Not quite what you're looking for, but have you seen this? https://www.their.tube/ https://www.their.tube/

zmmmmm 6y ago

Reminds me after the GFC how some of the rules that were brought in were around banning automated real time trading systems. This was in some similar ways recognizing that automated algorithmic treatment can have extremely harmful side effects - even when it successfully executes the goals of its owner (for the stock market - once a certain threshold is breached, get me out of the market as quickly as possible - as an individual, its exactly what I want, for the overall market it is a disaster if everyone does it suddenly).

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Indeed. Generally along with blaming the algorithm, as we start using AI, the problem is the algorithm is no longer even understandable in many cases. Tech companies should be able to explain and demonstrate the logic their systems use. These algorithms should probably be public. And any system which cannot be transparently explained should be shut down.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > These algorithms should probably be public. And any system which cannot be transparently explained should be shut down. But what would even count as an explanation, and what does a "public" algorithm reveal? There is no line of code that says "if (video.content == extreme) { show_to(EVERYONE) }". A lot of the dangers are possible from a simple algorithm which merely performs A/B testing on whether a certain (randomly chosen, at first) video increases the amount of time a user spends on a site. You could pass a law against A/B testing, or require companies to provide deliberately bad suggestions to make their users frustrated, but I'm not sure if that is a proportionate legislative response.
  - zmmmmm 6y ago
    > But what would even count as an explanation That sort of gets to the heart of it - saying "it's impossible to explain my algorithm because it is so complicated" no longer cuts it. It's the same as if I said to the FDA "This drug works in our testing for the indicated purpose but we have no idea if there are side effects" they aren't go to say "well, OK then, you can sell it". They'll say "come back when you have tested for all possible side effects and you can precisly define its behavior" Currently Facebook, Google et al, will measure a narrow set of metrics to define the success of their algorithms (primarily relating to $$$) and then declare victory based on empirical optimisation of those metrics. They have to show that not only does the algorithm work for its stated purpose, it doesn't have undesirable side effects. They could do massive testing to demonstrate a huge range of side effects are not present. That would be similar to and probably as expensive as drug development. But an easier way to do that is to transparently explain what the algorithms do so that side effects can be predicted. If that is actually impossible for a given algorithm - well, maybe that algorithm shouldn't be used on the public at all.

jcfrei 6y ago

Kind of ironic calling for shutting down platforms with algorithmic content systems on HN.

polka_haunts_us 6y ago
Probably worth distinguishing between Algorithms targeting individuals and Algorithms running an entire site. Yes HN is algorithmic but you and I see the same things.

mancerayder 6y ago

Why can't there be a Giant Lever on the side that inputs a variable into the Magic Algorithms that you can adjust. Up down, left or right, whatever you want to call it. Why would you do this - even if people never touch it: because at least people KNOW there's a decision-tree at play here. Also there MUST be some randomization or more generalized content introduced. And I'm not talking Trending Now or Hit Songs That Just Came Out. I'm looking at you, YouTube and Facebook. Sometimes I actually want new stuff and it keeps dragging me back into a virtual rabbit hole.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
Because: - There's no simple decision tree, but an ML model with countless knobs that are mostly implicit. Not worth the money to make an UI to tweak it. - The puprose of these platforms is to maximize your exposure to ads. Nothing more. Anything that detracts from it is a no-go.

raydev 6y ago

Both FB and YouTube's top shared posts and video are super right-leaning, though (YouTube has other massively popular videos, but they are about gaming or influencer stuff). What would the equivalent "liberal" viral posts be, and why aren't they nearly as popular as the right's?

mr_toad 6y ago
My bet is that Facebook’s user demographic skews old and white, and that explains their posting. If you go somewhere like Reddit or TikTok you’ll see an entirely different story.
gorgoiler 6y ago
Elsewhere in this thread the point is made that the opposite of a viral conservative video isn’t a viral liberal video. It’s either a moderate video, or no video at all. (This might be the very point you are making, rhetorically?)