4 ms·

Recommendation engines need to have "escape hatches" to make sure society doesn't unravel at the seams.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
That would be self-defeating, as the moment that the word gets out that algorithms are now intentionally manipulating away from certain content, the Streisand effect will instantly kick in. Which is already is. Plus, while I do not buy into election conspiracies, imagine if there was an actual stolen election. Getting all of the tech companies to suppress the actual evidence would be fantastic if I were a dictator in the making. For that reason, I would argue, allowing election conspiracy theories to propagate is a necessary evil of a functioning democracy.
- maxehmookau 4y ago
  > I would argue, allowing election conspiracy theories to propagate is a necessary evil of a functioning democracy. I think real-world experience has proven that this isn't true. I get the idea behind what you're saying but the US (and UK/Europe) has had pretty much a constant onslaught on election conspiracies at all levels of our democracy. The outcome has not been to make our democracies better functioning.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    What's the alternative? Every corrupt leader since Nero has called their opposition's true statements "conspiracy theories" or similar and suppressed their statements as such; or deliberately invented conspiracy theories about their opponents and declared the truth to be the conspiracy. You can look up speeches in which Fascist and Nazi leaders denounced the "conspiracy theories" against them, which were (at the time) actually "unfounded" despite turning out almost completely true. We didn't know about the true horrors of the Nazi death camps until after the war ended, despite the "conspiracy theories" running rampant and often violently suppressed. The alternative is to, quite literally, allow someone to be an arbiter of the truth, and then suppress information they determine is not factual. To which I say, give me this power, and in 30 years, I will be an emperor.
    - mandmandam 4y ago
      The alternative is making it almost impossible to have corrupt leaders in the first place, through taking care of society and the people in it. Strong local media, strong local politics, strong education systems, strong protections for whistleblowers, a healthy environment, clean water, good cheap food, affordable housing, quality entertainment - there are countries in the world where citizens have all of this. And they don't have "single arbiters of truth" managing it.
    - jltsiren 4y ago
      The alternative is listening to the people running the elections at the grassroots level. They should be a mix of people representing various interests. There should also be international observers. If there is widespread fraud, the word will get out before the results. And you will hear about the fraud from everywhere, not just from a handful of weirdos or from top-level people of one of the parties. Every sane electoral system starts from the assumption that the authorities responsible for the elections cannot be trusted. Instead of trusting the authorities, you trust a large number of people watching each other. Then everyone knows that if there is widespread fraud, it will be obvious, and hence the electoral system can be trusted.
- samhyde69 4y ago
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  You could do it transparently, and without targetting certain content. Assuming recommendation engines are showing people what they normally watch, you could simply have every X recommendation be whatever your model says is the polar opposite of that. Label it specifically something like "a change of pace", "counter points", or whatever, to make it transparent. I do wonder if society has got so used to algorithmic bubbles, that just exposing people to the opposite viewpoint would cause outrage.
  - anshorei 4y ago
    > that just exposing people to the opposite viewpoint would cause outrage You mean in the way that video recommendations about stolen elections cause outrage?
- danaris 4y ago
  I think this is one of those cases where optimization on the part of self-interested actors has ruined things for the rest of us. It used to be that if one said, "allowing people to talk about obviously ridiculous things like conspiracy theories is fine, and important actually, because it's part of free speech," that would be pretty clearly true. But at that time, the number of people actually talking about such ridiculous things was pretty small. Since then, the number of people talking about election-related conspiracies has gone up precipitously, largely because of Trump and his supporters. Who, it apparently bears repeating, attempted an actual violent coup to force the election results to go the way they want them to, partly due to the constant repetition of the "election fraud" Big Lie. So no, allowing these theories to propagate is demonstrably antithetical to the continued functioning of democracy.
BitwiseFool 4y ago
"Escape Hatches" sounds like a deceptively benign term for ideologically motivated thought control.
- maxehmookau 4y ago
  No it doesn't. It sounds like a way to stop otherwise normal-minded folks from slipping down a YouTube-encouraged rabbithole of things that are demonstrably untrue.
  - BitwiseFool 4y ago
    I am not at all trying to delve into the topic of the legitimacy of the 2020 election. So, my next question is not an assertion that fraud took place. When you say "demonstrably untrue", who determines such things? It is usually not the case that one side is entirely and wholly untrue. Losing a court case or having one be dismissed on procedural grounds does not mean the defense or prosecution had no merit whatsoever with their claims. What is the process for letting people make up their own minds on conflicting evidence? I sense the danger is letting, or even demanding, that private companies make these judgments and filter dissent away from the masses under the guise of safety. I also sense the people calling for such things understand that their own ideological peers are the ones who would be in control of such algorithms.
    - mjburgess 4y ago
      The issue here is that videos aren't actually "recommended" in the sense that your considered preferences are reviewed and a genuine recommendation made. Youtube isnt a friend, an academic supervisor, or a doctor. It isnt even aware of your interests, let alone "has them at heart". Rather, it's a casino. And that's not value-neutral, freedom-neutral. It's pretty antithetical to freedom, as you can see from all the people destroying their lives at the gambling machines.
    - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
      Here's the thing about truth: the "who" doesn't matter. There shouldn't even be a question of "who determines if something is untrue?", nor should we be advocating for every individual to decide the truth for themselves. There is one objective reality that exists outside of our own minds, desires, and decisions, whether we like that reality or not. What determines truth is empirical evidence. If something has no empirical evidence, it is untrue. If something has empirical evidence, it is true. If there is conflicting evidence, then some of that evidence is invalid and it must be re-analyzed using math, existing knowledge from provable things, and formal logic. After doing so, you will either determine which of those things is true, or arrive at the conclusion that there isn't enough evidence either way and stop after saying "I don't know" rather than deciding which version you prefer. It's not about appeals to authority. Expertise is about people who have more practice at finding, testing, and analyzing the evidence in their field than random Joe Schmo on the street; and it's about nothing more than that. We should not let people "make up their own minds" on conflicting evidence -- which is another way of saying "let people make up their own reality and expect to live in it" -- we should encourage everyone to stop at "I don't know" when they aren't sure where the evidence actually leads, and defer to people who can follow the evidence, if such a person exists. And if no such person exists, then we as a species should all stop at "I don't know (yet)".
jonas21 4y ago
What would such an "escape hatch" look like? I sometimes get YouTube recommendations where I think, "why would I ever watch that?" and I either ignore them or mark them as "not interested". Most people probably do the same.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Stores in my state are legally forbidden from selling alcohol to very very drunk people. Casinos in my state are legally required to help problem gamblers get better and to work with them to limit their problem gambling, even to the business's detriment. Why should ANYONE be allowed to profit from an addiction/slippery slope/radicalization mechanism?

That would be self-defeating, as the moment that the word gets out that algorithms are now intentionally manipulating away from certain content, the Streisand effect will instantly kick in. Which is already is. Plus, while I do not buy into election conspiracies, imagine if there was an actual stolen election. Getting all of the tech companies to suppress the actual evidence would be fantastic if I were a dictator in the making. For that reason, I would argue, allowing election conspiracy theories to propagate is a necessary evil of a functioning democracy.

maxehmookau 4y ago
> I would argue, allowing election conspiracy theories to propagate is a necessary evil of a functioning democracy. I think real-world experience has proven that this isn't true. I get the idea behind what you're saying but the US (and UK/Europe) has had pretty much a constant onslaught on election conspiracies at all levels of our democracy. The outcome has not been to make our democracies better functioning.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  What's the alternative? Every corrupt leader since Nero has called their opposition's true statements "conspiracy theories" or similar and suppressed their statements as such; or deliberately invented conspiracy theories about their opponents and declared the truth to be the conspiracy. You can look up speeches in which Fascist and Nazi leaders denounced the "conspiracy theories" against them, which were (at the time) actually "unfounded" despite turning out almost completely true. We didn't know about the true horrors of the Nazi death camps until after the war ended, despite the "conspiracy theories" running rampant and often violently suppressed. The alternative is to, quite literally, allow someone to be an arbiter of the truth, and then suppress information they determine is not factual. To which I say, give me this power, and in 30 years, I will be an emperor.
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    The alternative is making it almost impossible to have corrupt leaders in the first place, through taking care of society and the people in it. Strong local media, strong local politics, strong education systems, strong protections for whistleblowers, a healthy environment, clean water, good cheap food, affordable housing, quality entertainment - there are countries in the world where citizens have all of this. And they don't have "single arbiters of truth" managing it.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    The alternative is listening to the people running the elections at the grassroots level. They should be a mix of people representing various interests. There should also be international observers. If there is widespread fraud, the word will get out before the results. And you will hear about the fraud from everywhere, not just from a handful of weirdos or from top-level people of one of the parties. Every sane electoral system starts from the assumption that the authorities responsible for the elections cannot be trusted. Instead of trusting the authorities, you trust a large number of people watching each other. Then everyone knows that if there is widespread fraud, it will be obvious, and hence the electoral system can be trusted.
samhyde69 4y ago
RobotToaster 4y ago
You could do it transparently, and without targetting certain content. Assuming recommendation engines are showing people what they normally watch, you could simply have every X recommendation be whatever your model says is the polar opposite of that. Label it specifically something like "a change of pace", "counter points", or whatever, to make it transparent. I do wonder if society has got so used to algorithmic bubbles, that just exposing people to the opposite viewpoint would cause outrage.
- anshorei 4y ago
  > that just exposing people to the opposite viewpoint would cause outrage You mean in the way that video recommendations about stolen elections cause outrage?
danaris 4y ago
I think this is one of those cases where optimization on the part of self-interested actors has ruined things for the rest of us. It used to be that if one said, "allowing people to talk about obviously ridiculous things like conspiracy theories is fine, and important actually, because it's part of free speech," that would be pretty clearly true. But at that time, the number of people actually talking about such ridiculous things was pretty small. Since then, the number of people talking about election-related conspiracies has gone up precipitously, largely because of Trump and his supporters. Who, it apparently bears repeating, attempted an actual violent coup to force the election results to go the way they want them to, partly due to the constant repetition of the "election fraud" Big Lie. So no, allowing these theories to propagate is demonstrably antithetical to the continued functioning of democracy.

BitwiseFool 4y ago

"Escape Hatches" sounds like a deceptively benign term for ideologically motivated thought control.

maxehmookau 4y ago
No it doesn't. It sounds like a way to stop otherwise normal-minded folks from slipping down a YouTube-encouraged rabbithole of things that are demonstrably untrue.
- BitwiseFool 4y ago
  I am not at all trying to delve into the topic of the legitimacy of the 2020 election. So, my next question is not an assertion that fraud took place. When you say "demonstrably untrue", who determines such things? It is usually not the case that one side is entirely and wholly untrue. Losing a court case or having one be dismissed on procedural grounds does not mean the defense or prosecution had no merit whatsoever with their claims. What is the process for letting people make up their own minds on conflicting evidence? I sense the danger is letting, or even demanding, that private companies make these judgments and filter dissent away from the masses under the guise of safety. I also sense the people calling for such things understand that their own ideological peers are the ones who would be in control of such algorithms.
  - mjburgess 4y ago
    The issue here is that videos aren't actually "recommended" in the sense that your considered preferences are reviewed and a genuine recommendation made. Youtube isnt a friend, an academic supervisor, or a doctor. It isnt even aware of your interests, let alone "has them at heart". Rather, it's a casino. And that's not value-neutral, freedom-neutral. It's pretty antithetical to freedom, as you can see from all the people destroying their lives at the gambling machines.
  - IceMetalPunk 4y ago
    Here's the thing about truth: the "who" doesn't matter. There shouldn't even be a question of "who determines if something is untrue?", nor should we be advocating for every individual to decide the truth for themselves. There is one objective reality that exists outside of our own minds, desires, and decisions, whether we like that reality or not. What determines truth is empirical evidence. If something has no empirical evidence, it is untrue. If something has empirical evidence, it is true. If there is conflicting evidence, then some of that evidence is invalid and it must be re-analyzed using math, existing knowledge from provable things, and formal logic. After doing so, you will either determine which of those things is true, or arrive at the conclusion that there isn't enough evidence either way and stop after saying "I don't know" rather than deciding which version you prefer. It's not about appeals to authority. Expertise is about people who have more practice at finding, testing, and analyzing the evidence in their field than random Joe Schmo on the street; and it's about nothing more than that. We should not let people "make up their own minds" on conflicting evidence -- which is another way of saying "let people make up their own reality and expect to live in it" -- we should encourage everyone to stop at "I don't know" when they aren't sure where the evidence actually leads, and defer to people who can follow the evidence, if such a person exists. And if no such person exists, then we as a species should all stop at "I don't know (yet)".

jonas21 4y ago

What would such an "escape hatch" look like? I sometimes get YouTube recommendations where I think, "why would I ever watch that?" and I either ignore them or mark them as "not interested". Most people probably do the same.

mrguyorama 4y ago
Stores in my state are legally forbidden from selling alcohol to very very drunk people. Casinos in my state are legally required to help problem gamblers get better and to work with them to limit their problem gambling, even to the business's detriment. Why should ANYONE be allowed to profit from an addiction/slippery slope/radicalization mechanism?