2 ms·

>What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect? You mean, "repeal Section 230"? Because the entire po

by xoa 4y ago

>What do you think about calls to remove platform immunity from algorithms that have an editorial effect? You mean, "repeal Section 230"? Because the entire point of Section 230 is to allow imperfect biased moderation without having to eliminate all user content. Such calls are ridiculous, stupid, or malicious on a host of levels. Making editorial decisions about what to allow on your own private property is core 1A Freedom of Speech, with caselaw dating back to well before the web. "Editorial effect" is also an utterly meaningless phrase. You probably have some silly politics thing in mind, but moderating against porn or violence also has an "editorial effect". So does having a forum devoted to aircraft or cats. I think trains and birds are great too. But if I want to run a forum specifically about aircraft or cats, I need to be able to delete train or bird posts, and if necessary ban users who won't follow the rules. This is all completely biased and has the editorial effect of shaping the forum to a specific niche of speech, there is nothing common carrier about running a focused forum. And politics could indeed enter into it, what if some political group proposes a law banning aircraft or cats? Rallying and organizing against that could include being biased against those who want to support that law. Colorful and strident invective may be featured. Such is life in a free society. If you want a soap box that does something else, the law also protects your ability to make that (or to group up to do it or pay someone else to do it or whatever else). And as a practical matter it is now easier and cheaper to do so and get to a potential global audience then at any time in human history (let alone the history of the US). Win the argument in the marketplace of ideas, not using the state monopoly on violence.

HeckFeck 4y ago
This is a great argument. I couldn't put it better.
Zak 4y ago
The main thing I have in mind is machine learning algorithms that optimize for engagement. Those aren't necessarily biased in favor of a specific political position, but tend to amplify rumors over well-sourced reporting, demagoguery over reasoned debate, and often malicious false claims. Off the top of my head, I don't have a good way to differentiate those algorithms in legal terms. As another comment points out, even sorting chronologically has an editorial effect of sorts, but these things are different and I know it when I see it. Perhaps someone wiser than me has an unambiguous definition.
- xoa 4y ago
  OK, that's at least a more reasonable thing to be worried about [0], but as you say trying to use the law there would be damn near impossible. Take the case of a law against airplanes/cats again. I'd definitely feel very, very strongly about such an effort, and want very, very much to defeat it. In the democratic system that means rallying a critical mass of fellow citizens. If it so happens my airplane/cat platform is pretty popular and likely would share my interests amplifying that would be a reasonable way to go about it, using algorithms that optimize for results. You might say "well, commercial use restricted only" but how would that be different the typical ad testing runs which have existed forever, where they are constantly testing to try to figure out what engages people and what doesn't? If it's "malicious false claims" then that's already a violation of defamation, there isn't any need for additional law on that front, but for anything else how can we decide in a way that can't be used the other direction? That's always the rub and the core issue of free speech: there are no oracles. You have to imagine what your worst most hated enemy demagogue would do with the tools you propose to create, because they will have them. Nobody can be trusted with the power. It is hard though, and I won't completely dismiss the idea that the scale networking/storage/ML offers can create emergent effects that don't show up at a smaller level. The legal notion of tracking for example. ---- 0: though "amplify rumors over well-sourced reporting, demagoguery over reasoned debate" = the tabloids that exist right there at a large percentage of supermarket checkout aisles, remember nothing new under the sun, you might be surprised at some of the content of regular newspapers for that matter in the 1800s say.
  - Zak 4y ago
    I'm also wary of solving issues with speech or information technology[0] through regulation. That said... if I run a microblogging site HN-rumors.com, somebody might post "xoa is a thief", and harm might come to you because of that. You could sue the poster, but you could not sue me. This holds true even if I moderate the site and remove other content. Good so far, right? Now what if I hand-curate a front page? If I feature this libelous rumor on it, I'm acting like an editor/publisher rather than a platform and the chances you can successfully sue me go up. What if I pick the users who have been most responsive to that sort of content and email it to them in the hope they'll visit my site and spend more time there as a result? I see my legal risk increasing even more. Of course it's easy to hold a person responsible when a person is making the decisions. It's harder to say exactly what criteria an algorithm can use, and not the sort of thing I'd want a politician or bureaucrat deciding. Perhaps what I really want is for people to voluntarily stop using corporate social media so much, but I don't know how realistic that is. [0] Other technologies are better-suited to regulation; I think I wouldn't want to fly on an airplane that got only the maintenance the market demanded.

by xoa 4y ago

HeckFeck 4y ago

This is a great argument. I couldn't put it better.

Zak 4y ago

The main thing I have in mind is machine learning algorithms that optimize for engagement. Those aren't necessarily biased in favor of a specific political position, but tend to amplify rumors over well-sourced reporting, demagoguery over reasoned debate, and often malicious false claims. Off the top of my head, I don't have a good way to differentiate those algorithms in legal terms. As another comment points out, even sorting chronologically has an editorial effect of sorts, but these things are different and I know it when I see it. Perhaps someone wiser than me has an unambiguous definition.

xoa 4y ago
OK, that's at least a more reasonable thing to be worried about [0], but as you say trying to use the law there would be damn near impossible. Take the case of a law against airplanes/cats again. I'd definitely feel very, very strongly about such an effort, and want very, very much to defeat it. In the democratic system that means rallying a critical mass of fellow citizens. If it so happens my airplane/cat platform is pretty popular and likely would share my interests amplifying that would be a reasonable way to go about it, using algorithms that optimize for results. You might say "well, commercial use restricted only" but how would that be different the typical ad testing runs which have existed forever, where they are constantly testing to try to figure out what engages people and what doesn't? If it's "malicious false claims" then that's already a violation of defamation, there isn't any need for additional law on that front, but for anything else how can we decide in a way that can't be used the other direction? That's always the rub and the core issue of free speech: there are no oracles. You have to imagine what your worst most hated enemy demagogue would do with the tools you propose to create, because they will have them. Nobody can be trusted with the power. It is hard though, and I won't completely dismiss the idea that the scale networking/storage/ML offers can create emergent effects that don't show up at a smaller level. The legal notion of tracking for example. ---- 0: though "amplify rumors over well-sourced reporting, demagoguery over reasoned debate" = the tabloids that exist right there at a large percentage of supermarket checkout aisles, remember nothing new under the sun, you might be surprised at some of the content of regular newspapers for that matter in the 1800s say.
- Zak 4y ago
  I'm also wary of solving issues with speech or information technology[0] through regulation. That said... if I run a microblogging site HN-rumors.com, somebody might post "xoa is a thief", and harm might come to you because of that. You could sue the poster, but you could not sue me. This holds true even if I moderate the site and remove other content. Good so far, right? Now what if I hand-curate a front page? If I feature this libelous rumor on it, I'm acting like an editor/publisher rather than a platform and the chances you can successfully sue me go up. What if I pick the users who have been most responsive to that sort of content and email it to them in the hope they'll visit my site and spend more time there as a result? I see my legal risk increasing even more. Of course it's easy to hold a person responsible when a person is making the decisions. It's harder to say exactly what criteria an algorithm can use, and not the sort of thing I'd want a politician or bureaucrat deciding. Perhaps what I really want is for people to voluntarily stop using corporate social media so much, but I don't know how realistic that is. [0] Other technologies are better-suited to regulation; I think I wouldn't want to fly on an airplane that got only the maintenance the market demanded.