4 ms·

I find this article unconvincing, in that it looks at this issue through the usual bias and superiority complex of HN folks. Politicians no longer want any com

I find this article unconvincing, in that it looks at this issue through the usual bias and superiority complex of HN folks. Politicians no longer want any company to be able to mass manipulate their constituents. The fact that operating a platform at scale relying on user submitted content would be impossible with this bill is precisely the outcome being sought. This requires tech companies to either change their business model or take editorial responsibility for the content promoted on their platform. I actually find this bill clever and elegant since it excludes search engines, discussion boards and more. Yes certain business models and startup dreams relying on making algorithmic recommendations without being accountable for the outcomes on individuals and society will die, but is this really a bad thing? To me this is a total positive, there are still plenty of opportunities to build large scale platforms with the web. Simply moving forward, this will require bringing more value to the table rather than just putting people in a walled garden and making money by poisoning their mind and society at the same time.

lmm 5y ago
> I actually find this bill clever and elegant since it excludes search engines, discussion boards and more. If you give a specific exemption for narrow classes of existing things, you're crushing all of the un-thought-of things that innovation would create. There's no reasonable boundary that permits search engines and discussion boards but disallows "algorithmic recommendation systems", because they're the same thing.
- prox 5y ago
  I am not so sure. Laws are defined to be as limited in scope as possible. When cars were getting faster in the 20th century, we made speed limits. This didn’t hinder building faster cars, just that you needed to start speeding on race tracks and rallies. At some point we must define whats more harmful than beneficial. Ads driven models with algorithmic recommendation systems are not very beneficial, or so it seems.
  - lmm 5y ago
    We limited speed on public roads. We didn't make a blanket ban on going fast and then give specific exceptions for race tracks as they existed at the time. (If we had, rallying would probably never have been invented).
mjburgess 5y ago
> this requires tech companies to either change their business model or take editorial responsibility So youre for the end of Youtube, et al.?
- icebraining 5y ago
  Why would YouTube need to end? You could still search for videos, subscribe to channels, share them, etc. You'd just lose the sidebar.
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    It's user-generated content. As the article explains, since all sites use some identifying information (eg., location) -- all a person needs to do is *claim* some emotional harm for "203 summary dismissal" not to apply. Ie., This opens every site up to massive amounts of litigation.
    - icebraining 5y ago
      No, not all sites use identifying information to "enhance the prominence of information with respect to other information". YouTube doesn't have to use my location to decide which videos do show. In fact, I'd prefer it didn't.
- throw5321e 5y ago
  Actually YouTube will be able to survive, for example by opening up their platform and API to allow users to bring their own discovery and recommendation engines. An ecosystem of SaaS enabling users to no-code build their own engine, or one click-install open-source ones will here be enabled. And since the goal of users is not to maximize engagement but to protect their health and find interesting content, this will not lead us back to the current state of affairs. Very few people will choose toxic algorithms, and at the very least people will now have choice. YouTube would still be able to sell ads, but it will be the dumb pipe it was always supposed to be under section 230. This will be a much healthier situation with many regards. I think the key thing is to stop considering that the current status quo is the golden age: there is so much abuse everywhere from misinformation and manipulation to wall gardens and monopolies, but somehow we've rationalized it and accepted it as a fact of life. What this law will do, is introduce some much needed rule of law in the digital landscape, and I believe create a healthier and even more competitive landscape.
snarf21 5y ago
Well, I agree politicians find it annoying that a company can mass manipulate their constituents. However, they are perfectly fine if that same platform lets THEM mass manipulate their constituents. This isn't about manipulation, it is about control and power. I think people would hate an internet without 230. Everyone is just acting like a kid tattling in kindergarten to get their way. The thing that gets lost is that Hatebook, etc. are mass manipulating because it is insanely profitable. Make it less profitable and the algorithm will change. This is why I feel the solution is a tax on digital advertising revenue. People will never choose paid over free w/ ads at scale and rules like this could offer users a more pragmatic choice.
- throw5321e 5y ago
  Unfortunately with such a tax you would also punish businesses doing digital advertising in a healthy manner (not everyone is out there building a reckless engagement maximization machine while completely disregarding ethics). Many people and businesses monetize their online properties without letting advertisers dictate what kind of content they produce. For example, the traffic of unregistered people is monetized using advertising but they then have membership plans.

lmm 5y ago

> I actually find this bill clever and elegant since it excludes search engines, discussion boards and more. If you give a specific exemption for narrow classes of existing things, you're crushing all of the un-thought-of things that innovation would create. There's no reasonable boundary that permits search engines and discussion boards but disallows "algorithmic recommendation systems", because they're the same thing.

prox 5y ago
I am not so sure. Laws are defined to be as limited in scope as possible. When cars were getting faster in the 20th century, we made speed limits. This didn’t hinder building faster cars, just that you needed to start speeding on race tracks and rallies. At some point we must define whats more harmful than beneficial. Ads driven models with algorithmic recommendation systems are not very beneficial, or so it seems.
- lmm 5y ago
  We limited speed on public roads. We didn't make a blanket ban on going fast and then give specific exceptions for race tracks as they existed at the time. (If we had, rallying would probably never have been invented).

mjburgess 5y ago

> this requires tech companies to either change their business model or take editorial responsibility So youre for the end of Youtube, et al.?

icebraining 5y ago
Why would YouTube need to end? You could still search for videos, subscribe to channels, share them, etc. You'd just lose the sidebar.
- mjburgess 5y ago
  It's user-generated content. As the article explains, since all sites use some identifying information (eg., location) -- all a person needs to do is *claim* some emotional harm for "203 summary dismissal" not to apply. Ie., This opens every site up to massive amounts of litigation.
  - icebraining 5y ago
    No, not all sites use identifying information to "enhance the prominence of information with respect to other information". YouTube doesn't have to use my location to decide which videos do show. In fact, I'd prefer it didn't.
throw5321e 5y ago
Actually YouTube will be able to survive, for example by opening up their platform and API to allow users to bring their own discovery and recommendation engines. An ecosystem of SaaS enabling users to no-code build their own engine, or one click-install open-source ones will here be enabled. And since the goal of users is not to maximize engagement but to protect their health and find interesting content, this will not lead us back to the current state of affairs. Very few people will choose toxic algorithms, and at the very least people will now have choice. YouTube would still be able to sell ads, but it will be the dumb pipe it was always supposed to be under section 230. This will be a much healthier situation with many regards. I think the key thing is to stop considering that the current status quo is the golden age: there is so much abuse everywhere from misinformation and manipulation to wall gardens and monopolies, but somehow we've rationalized it and accepted it as a fact of life. What this law will do, is introduce some much needed rule of law in the digital landscape, and I believe create a healthier and even more competitive landscape.

snarf21 5y ago

Well, I agree politicians find it annoying that a company can mass manipulate their constituents. However, they are perfectly fine if that same platform lets THEM mass manipulate their constituents. This isn't about manipulation, it is about control and power. I think people would hate an internet without 230. Everyone is just acting like a kid tattling in kindergarten to get their way. The thing that gets lost is that Hatebook, etc. are mass manipulating because it is insanely profitable. Make it less profitable and the algorithm will change. This is why I feel the solution is a tax on digital advertising revenue. People will never choose paid over free w/ ads at scale and rules like this could offer users a more pragmatic choice.

throw5321e 5y ago
Unfortunately with such a tax you would also punish businesses doing digital advertising in a healthy manner (not everyone is out there building a reckless engagement maximization machine while completely disregarding ethics). Many people and businesses monetize their online properties without letting advertisers dictate what kind of content they produce. For example, the traffic of unregistered people is monetized using advertising but they then have membership plans.