5 ms·

Except HN isn’t recommending comments, is it? I thought it’s mostly based on popularity and users have the majority of the influence for what bubbles up. Is t

Except HN isn’t recommending comments, is it? I thought it’s mostly based on popularity and users have the majority of the influence for what bubbles up. Is that wrong? HN isn’t interfering with user generated rankings, right? That’s still a platform IMO. I’m sure any regulation changes will benefit big tech. Facebook will have their politically connected staff writing half the bill so it’s burdensome for anyone small (aka competitors), but tolerable for themselves.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 5y ago
> HN isn’t interfering with user generated rankings, right? /u/dang will absolutely step in where necessary, to flag a post, split a thread off, or warn/ban people.
- Miner49er 5y ago
  Yeah, but since it's not an algorithm doing it, and it's not personalized per user, I don't think the law applies
  - xxpor 5y ago
    That's completely irrelevant to the current law.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> Except HN isn’t recommending comments, is it? HN is a recommendations engine and the front page is similar to a feed. HN has user-generated content and comments. HN is definitely a social media platform and would be covered under any such laws. HN has algorithms to determine which stories and comments are shown and in which order. The primary inputs are upvotes, downvotes, and flags, but it’s not a transparent or linear algorithm. Moderators (or single moderator, I’m not sure) have influence to override algorithm decisions like buried stories and force them to be shown again. Which is not really that much different than what Facebook and other sites are doing with likes, follows, and views in their own algorithms. If HN exceeded the unique monthly visitor threshold of this bill, it would absolutely be impacted. HN even has a feature that goes a step further than Facebook: The site allows privileged posters (YC companies) to insert special stories for hiring requests that don’t allow comments and, as far as I can tell, get some special priority in the front page rankings without necessarily requiring user upvotes. If someone decided to argue that such a job posting caused them “emotional harm” under this proposed law, they could have some standing.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 5y ago

> HN isn’t interfering with user generated rankings, right? /u/dang will absolutely step in where necessary, to flag a post, split a thread off, or warn/ban people.

Miner49er 5y ago
Yeah, but since it's not an algorithm doing it, and it's not personalized per user, I don't think the law applies
- xxpor 5y ago
  That's completely irrelevant to the current law.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> Except HN isn’t recommending comments, is it? HN is a recommendations engine and the front page is similar to a feed. HN has user-generated content and comments. HN is definitely a social media platform and would be covered under any such laws. HN has algorithms to determine which stories and comments are shown and in which order. The primary inputs are upvotes, downvotes, and flags, but it’s not a transparent or linear algorithm. Moderators (or single moderator, I’m not sure) have influence to override algorithm decisions like buried stories and force them to be shown again. Which is not really that much different than what Facebook and other sites are doing with likes, follows, and views in their own algorithms. If HN exceeded the unique monthly visitor threshold of this bill, it would absolutely be impacted. HN even has a feature that goes a step further than Facebook: The site allows privileged posters (YC companies) to insert special stories for hiring requests that don’t allow comments and, as far as I can tell, get some special priority in the front page rankings without necessarily requiring user upvotes. If someone decided to argue that such a job posting caused them “emotional harm” under this proposed law, they could have some standing.