3 ms·

IANAL, but if you remove Section 230 protection from algorithmically-curated content, Facebook would have to switch entirely to manually curating everything to

IANAL, but if you remove Section 230 protection from algorithmically-curated content, Facebook would have to switch entirely to manually curating everything to avoid accidentally including libelous user-submitted content they could be sued over. Even basic features like ordering new posts by people you follow to show the most popular ones first are algorithmically-driven. There's no way Facebook could manage to do anything individualized, so it would turn into a chronological feed + manually-curated, Taboola-style content (which I doubt anyone wants). I agree with your perspective on the negative impacts of social media, and I'm open to the idea of some kind of regulation to improve things. But I think effectively banning algorithms from internet services is going to hurt more than help.

ryan29 6y ago
My general reaction to that is "tough luck!" If a site algorithmically generated recipes, but accidentally created recipes that poison people once in a while we'd ban those algorithms without thought or, at the very least, make the algorithm owners liable. If social media is destabilizing the mental health and critical thinking skills of the general public to the point that a subset of the population is becoming dangerous (and violent), isn't that basically the same thing? I don't care if Mark Zuckerberg needs to buy a smaller mansion if that means my friends / neighbors / family aren't going to get brainwashed by propaganda.
- root_axis 6y ago
  Your friends and family should take responsibility for their own media consumption rather than blaming a website.
  - ubertaco 6y ago
    Yeah, based on the really awful cases of my wife's family, the problem exists between the keyboard and the chair. When faced with fact-checking or truth that refutes their insane conspiracies, they double down and call the fact-checkers or truth-tellers liars and invent even more insane conspiracies about how the "real truth" (read: heinous virulent BS) is being suppressed because the clickbait article about how "liberals are planning to euthanize all whites!" now has a disclaimer under it that says "this claim is disputed" (a caveat so weak that it'd be almost funny if it weren't depressing how many psychos eat up the totally-untrue headline). It's the only thing that is starting to turn them on Fox News for example; though they still watch it religiously, the fact that the most feeble, CYA-grade questions were asked during their brief "news" segment that slightly challenged Trump's baseless "stolen election" narrative now means that they've moved from "only Fox is telling the truth" to "well, I don't like everything they say, bit they do a good job, like Tucker Carlson" (who is probably the most prominent disinformation propagandist on the whole festering network). In response, they've turned to just any old 2-hour-old "freedom eagle dot biz" site as their "real true sources", because Fox had a brief lapse of allegiance to the Trump cult. You can't fix that with an RFC, a law, or a moderation policy because they've rejected any possibility of accepting the truth. They're thoroughly deceived, most especially by themselves, and any attempt to un-deceive them is seen as a sinister plot. They refuse the truth outright because it's not what they want to believe. You can't fix it by shutting down or "breaking up" the site where they go to get their much-desired disinformation, because there's always another con artist with a Squarespace or WordPress license who'll gladly capitalize on having less competition in the "cult propaganda dissemination warehouse" market (like OANN capitalizing on Trump's brief lashing out at Fox, or Parler springing up because Republicans started getting "this might not be true" disclaimers on their lies). I've always seen "you can't fix stupid" as a harsh redneck insult, but I'm starting to believe a slight variant on it: "you can't fix willfully-ignorant." You'd have to change their thought patterns and their habits and often their motivations, and that kind of change doesn't come from outside but from the person themselves.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree, I think you've articulated the difficulty of the situation really well. This is a cultural problem not a technology problem.
    - ryan29 6y ago
      I think having massive, mainstream social media sites acting as onboarding for lunacy is a major contributing factor. Competitors trying to capitalize on the fringes wouldn't have a viable market to capture if Facebook et al wouldn't have created it in the first place.
      - ubertaco 6y ago
        The antivaxxers of the world might be a counterexample here; for example, here's [0] a newspaper cartoon from the 30s showing "misinformation" as a cliff which "antivax" and "anti-fad" and others willingly walk right off. The antivax movement, fueled by misinformation at every step, long pre-dates Facebook or the internet, instead living on backwater gossip and sketchy snake-oil salesmen, who have since moved on to running their own websites and TV shows (see also: "Dr. Mercola" and "Dr. Oz"). The internet didn't create the market for crazy fringe beliefs; like most markets, the internet just accelerated and connected it. [0] "Here's What A Depression-Era Cartoonist Had To Say About The Anti-Vaccination Movement" https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6608366/amp https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6608366/amp
bcrl 6y ago
Banning algorithms that push users into extremist positions far beyond what is generally acceptable to the public would be a net improvement over the situation that exists today. Conspiracy theories used to be fringe content that one had to make an effort to seek out. The biggest problem facing society today is the complete lack of discourse across segments of the population. The filter bubble exacerbates this. It the tech platforms were to sprinkle in even just a little bit of content from outside of one's filter bubble, there would be a benefit to society. Just look at the platforms of old (broadcasting, newspapers): you could only target general populations. Today's platforms can target across so many variables there is no need to publish content that's generally acceptable when you can limit its viewing to those that your algorithm has determined can be easily manipulated. Maximum effect, minimum cost.
- baumandm 6y ago
  I totally agree, but how do you separate algorithms that radicalize people from ones that show you more funny cat videos? Like I said, I'm open to the idea that something should be done, just not sure exactly what.

ryan29 6y ago

My general reaction to that is "tough luck!" If a site algorithmically generated recipes, but accidentally created recipes that poison people once in a while we'd ban those algorithms without thought or, at the very least, make the algorithm owners liable. If social media is destabilizing the mental health and critical thinking skills of the general public to the point that a subset of the population is becoming dangerous (and violent), isn't that basically the same thing? I don't care if Mark Zuckerberg needs to buy a smaller mansion if that means my friends / neighbors / family aren't going to get brainwashed by propaganda.

root_axis 6y ago
Your friends and family should take responsibility for their own media consumption rather than blaming a website.
- ubertaco 6y ago
  Yeah, based on the really awful cases of my wife's family, the problem exists between the keyboard and the chair. When faced with fact-checking or truth that refutes their insane conspiracies, they double down and call the fact-checkers or truth-tellers liars and invent even more insane conspiracies about how the "real truth" (read: heinous virulent BS) is being suppressed because the clickbait article about how "liberals are planning to euthanize all whites!" now has a disclaimer under it that says "this claim is disputed" (a caveat so weak that it'd be almost funny if it weren't depressing how many psychos eat up the totally-untrue headline). It's the only thing that is starting to turn them on Fox News for example; though they still watch it religiously, the fact that the most feeble, CYA-grade questions were asked during their brief "news" segment that slightly challenged Trump's baseless "stolen election" narrative now means that they've moved from "only Fox is telling the truth" to "well, I don't like everything they say, bit they do a good job, like Tucker Carlson" (who is probably the most prominent disinformation propagandist on the whole festering network). In response, they've turned to just any old 2-hour-old "freedom eagle dot biz" site as their "real true sources", because Fox had a brief lapse of allegiance to the Trump cult. You can't fix that with an RFC, a law, or a moderation policy because they've rejected any possibility of accepting the truth. They're thoroughly deceived, most especially by themselves, and any attempt to un-deceive them is seen as a sinister plot. They refuse the truth outright because it's not what they want to believe. You can't fix it by shutting down or "breaking up" the site where they go to get their much-desired disinformation, because there's always another con artist with a Squarespace or WordPress license who'll gladly capitalize on having less competition in the "cult propaganda dissemination warehouse" market (like OANN capitalizing on Trump's brief lashing out at Fox, or Parler springing up because Republicans started getting "this might not be true" disclaimers on their lies). I've always seen "you can't fix stupid" as a harsh redneck insult, but I'm starting to believe a slight variant on it: "you can't fix willfully-ignorant." You'd have to change their thought patterns and their habits and often their motivations, and that kind of change doesn't come from outside but from the person themselves.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    I wholeheartedly agree, I think you've articulated the difficulty of the situation really well. This is a cultural problem not a technology problem.
  - ryan29 6y ago
    I think having massive, mainstream social media sites acting as onboarding for lunacy is a major contributing factor. Competitors trying to capitalize on the fringes wouldn't have a viable market to capture if Facebook et al wouldn't have created it in the first place.
    - ubertaco 6y ago
      The antivaxxers of the world might be a counterexample here; for example, here's [0] a newspaper cartoon from the 30s showing "misinformation" as a cliff which "antivax" and "anti-fad" and others willingly walk right off. The antivax movement, fueled by misinformation at every step, long pre-dates Facebook or the internet, instead living on backwater gossip and sketchy snake-oil salesmen, who have since moved on to running their own websites and TV shows (see also: "Dr. Mercola" and "Dr. Oz"). The internet didn't create the market for crazy fringe beliefs; like most markets, the internet just accelerated and connected it. [0] "Here's What A Depression-Era Cartoonist Had To Say About The Anti-Vaccination Movement" https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6608366/amp https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6608366/amp

bcrl 6y ago

Banning algorithms that push users into extremist positions far beyond what is generally acceptable to the public would be a net improvement over the situation that exists today. Conspiracy theories used to be fringe content that one had to make an effort to seek out. The biggest problem facing society today is the complete lack of discourse across segments of the population. The filter bubble exacerbates this. It the tech platforms were to sprinkle in even just a little bit of content from outside of one's filter bubble, there would be a benefit to society. Just look at the platforms of old (broadcasting, newspapers): you could only target general populations. Today's platforms can target across so many variables there is no need to publish content that's generally acceptable when you can limit its viewing to those that your algorithm has determined can be easily manipulated. Maximum effect, minimum cost.

baumandm 6y ago
I totally agree, but how do you separate algorithms that radicalize people from ones that show you more funny cat videos? Like I said, I'm open to the idea that something should be done, just not sure exactly what.