4 ms·

All search providers that I am aware of rank search results should we hold them accountable as well? They have paid results which are ranked even higher. This

All search providers that I am aware of rank search results should we hold them accountable as well? They have paid results which are ranked even higher. This site accepts user votes for promotion of content are they a publisher?

ksaj 5y ago
AFAIK this site doesn't put added vote weight on content it likes. The users do. The point, which you started with, is that the site in question (facebook) actively pumps up content that makes it more money, regardless of what the users vote on it. And they do it regardless of the content, as long as it isn't straight-up illegal. That's the specific issue at hand - the content they are willing to point to because of the money, regardless whether it might be creating harms. Google, as a Search Engine, pumps up paid content as well, but they also actively suppress the content in question here. That's why people made such a big deal about Bing's video search that kept on suggesting kiddy porn terms. Google doesn't do that, but Bing did and it was considered a big thing. Therefor no, HN isn't a publisher (although they do actively censor content that doesn't belong here, so they're doing this already, even if they aren't Publishers). And yes, publishers do have the ability to control decisions on what content they point to. Including Facebook, who allegedly chose not to suppress the money-making yet harmful bits.
- thrower123 5y ago
  That's not really accurate. There are a number of ways that the moderators can put their thumb on the scale of the algorithm if they choose, by collapsing together submissions, changing titles, disabling flags, putting posts in the second-chance pool, etc.
  - ksaj 5y ago
    Okay, please point to a time on HN that this was done to actively promote something harmful. Because that's really the only point here - the ethics of actively promoting something harmful since it makes money. Facebook would not have developed the "Fix" if they didn't recognize the problem at hand. They just actively decided the problem was too profitable.
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      HN promotes launches and hiring posts by their portfolio companies. It wouldn’t be a stretch, given their size, to suggest some of these companies do harm. And since the definition of “harmful” varies so much, I don’t think it’s a useful adjective. Half of the US seems to think vaccines are harmful - would a YC company who promotes vaccine access be harmful in their view?
      - ksaj 5y ago
        Harmful, for this purpose all along, is that the company actively spent money to develop something to deal with what they deemed to be a problem. But they then sat on it ONLY because of the money that problem was actually making them. If they didn't deem it to be harmful, they wouldn't have developed the "Fix" in the first place. That would have been a waste of money, and this is all about money.
        edmundsauto 5y ago
        Did they develop a solution that could be deployed in production, or was this a series of adhoc SQL queries that a group of employees was using to advocate for a change? I've worked at big companies, and there is a massive gap between "some DS' notebook" and a "fix". The truth is we are only projecting/inferring this is about money - it could also have unintended consequences, or had unacceptable tradeoffs internally. At every bigco, employees disagree and create slide decks to sway others to their side - and those decks are very charged, tend to overstate findings, and advocate for more resources to be deployed under the management of the report writer.
- literallyaduck 5y ago
  It was more of a question than an accusation. Allowing user ranking is a conscious choice, and crowd/outsourcing the control decision. Courts have the say rather than you or me obviously, but I believe in a healthy discussion. A similar format site, Reddit has been caught manipulating its votes and has paid boosting content in the form of "gold". Would they fit your standard of monetary incentives being key to a publisher? How does a nonprofit publisher fit with that model?
  - ksaj 5y ago
    If users are buying the Gold and assign the Gold, then it isn't the same thing. Facebook actively created a tool to suppress something they recognized as harmful, then chose not to use it because that content was too profitable.
    - literallyaduck 5y ago
      1. Reddit admins have the ability to give free gold. As another poster said, they also manipulate votes directly and create the illusion of user guided content. 2. The non-profit publisher question wasn't answered. 3. Chosing to moderate via users is still moderation.
      - ksaj 5y ago
        Just to get off this strawman path, Reddit is owned by Advance Publications. I don't wish to go on a path about ways some things they do are not signatures of being a publisher, because they are publishers.
        literallyaduck 5y ago
        How about nonprofit publishers?
        ksaj 5y ago
        Yes if a "nonprofit publisher" made a tool to deal with something they found harmful, but then failed to deploy it because the harmful matter was so profitable (profitable in this usage doesn't always mean money. It can be any type of gain, such as user base, and stirring the pot to get users more active), I would say exactly the same thing I've been saying repeatedly here. Yes. Being non-profit doesn't absolve one of purposely letting harmful content by, and/or actively promoting it.

ksaj 5y ago

AFAIK this site doesn't put added vote weight on content it likes. The users do. The point, which you started with, is that the site in question (facebook) actively pumps up content that makes it more money, regardless of what the users vote on it. And they do it regardless of the content, as long as it isn't straight-up illegal. That's the specific issue at hand - the content they are willing to point to because of the money, regardless whether it might be creating harms. Google, as a Search Engine, pumps up paid content as well, but they also actively suppress the content in question here. That's why people made such a big deal about Bing's video search that kept on suggesting kiddy porn terms. Google doesn't do that, but Bing did and it was considered a big thing. Therefor no, HN isn't a publisher (although they do actively censor content that doesn't belong here, so they're doing this already, even if they aren't Publishers). And yes, publishers do have the ability to control decisions on what content they point to. Including Facebook, who allegedly chose not to suppress the money-making yet harmful bits.

thrower123 5y ago
That's not really accurate. There are a number of ways that the moderators can put their thumb on the scale of the algorithm if they choose, by collapsing together submissions, changing titles, disabling flags, putting posts in the second-chance pool, etc.
- ksaj 5y ago
  Okay, please point to a time on HN that this was done to actively promote something harmful. Because that's really the only point here - the ethics of actively promoting something harmful since it makes money. Facebook would not have developed the "Fix" if they didn't recognize the problem at hand. They just actively decided the problem was too profitable.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    HN promotes launches and hiring posts by their portfolio companies. It wouldn’t be a stretch, given their size, to suggest some of these companies do harm. And since the definition of “harmful” varies so much, I don’t think it’s a useful adjective. Half of the US seems to think vaccines are harmful - would a YC company who promotes vaccine access be harmful in their view?
    - ksaj 5y ago
      Harmful, for this purpose all along, is that the company actively spent money to develop something to deal with what they deemed to be a problem. But they then sat on it ONLY because of the money that problem was actually making them. If they didn't deem it to be harmful, they wouldn't have developed the "Fix" in the first place. That would have been a waste of money, and this is all about money.
      - edmundsauto 5y ago
        Did they develop a solution that could be deployed in production, or was this a series of adhoc SQL queries that a group of employees was using to advocate for a change? I've worked at big companies, and there is a massive gap between "some DS' notebook" and a "fix". The truth is we are only projecting/inferring this is about money - it could also have unintended consequences, or had unacceptable tradeoffs internally. At every bigco, employees disagree and create slide decks to sway others to their side - and those decks are very charged, tend to overstate findings, and advocate for more resources to be deployed under the management of the report writer.
literallyaduck 5y ago
It was more of a question than an accusation. Allowing user ranking is a conscious choice, and crowd/outsourcing the control decision. Courts have the say rather than you or me obviously, but I believe in a healthy discussion. A similar format site, Reddit has been caught manipulating its votes and has paid boosting content in the form of "gold". Would they fit your standard of monetary incentives being key to a publisher? How does a nonprofit publisher fit with that model?
- ksaj 5y ago
  If users are buying the Gold and assign the Gold, then it isn't the same thing. Facebook actively created a tool to suppress something they recognized as harmful, then chose not to use it because that content was too profitable.
  - literallyaduck 5y ago
    1. Reddit admins have the ability to give free gold. As another poster said, they also manipulate votes directly and create the illusion of user guided content. 2. The non-profit publisher question wasn't answered. 3. Chosing to moderate via users is still moderation.
    - ksaj 5y ago
      Just to get off this strawman path, Reddit is owned by Advance Publications. I don't wish to go on a path about ways some things they do are not signatures of being a publisher, because they are publishers.
      - literallyaduck 5y ago
        How about nonprofit publishers?
        ksaj 5y ago
        Yes if a "nonprofit publisher" made a tool to deal with something they found harmful, but then failed to deploy it because the harmful matter was so profitable (profitable in this usage doesn't always mean money. It can be any type of gain, such as user base, and stirring the pot to get users more active), I would say exactly the same thing I've been saying repeatedly here. Yes. Being non-profit doesn't absolve one of purposely letting harmful content by, and/or actively promoting it.