4 ms·

Unless there is news about Facebook employees intentionally changing their algorithm to promote violence directly, none of these arguments feel genuine. We're p

Unless there is news about Facebook employees intentionally changing their algorithm to promote violence directly, none of these arguments feel genuine. We're past the point where we can compare the world with and without Faceboook, when a social media site becomes unavailable to a certain group they will go to an alternative, as seen with Parler. Facebook mining and profiting from harvesting political user data shows a direct conflict of interest between keep data private and making money. When Facebook is used as a platform by hate groups, I can't see how they would meaningfully profit from it. Saying that encouraging or ignoring it would increase userbase is very short sighted, at the bare minimum it would caused the group being targeted to leave. These situations feel more like the debate of whether ISPs are a public utility and the EARN IT act and section 230. Holding Facebook 100% accountable would set a very dangerous precedent. Facebook is not an entity and without showing hateful posts/comments were highlighted while alternatives were not, this feels like an argument against math. Popular posts reflect the interests of the vocal population. Assigning morality to the math used in an algorithm is a failure to understand the purpose or function of it. "Inciting" would means the algorithm promoted a hateful post despite the underlying signals saying it shouldn't be promoted. https://www.culawreview.org/journal/extending-corporate-tort-liability-to-social-media-algorithms https://www.culawreview.org/journal/extending-corporate-tort...

Eleison23 4y ago
Social media's aims are unlike any other social space to come before. Restaurants gather people together around delicious food and everyone is able to enjoy themselves at the table with a meal and friends. Friendly engagement. Parks invite people to have recreation at various stages in life, whether with team sports, a playground, just running around the grass, or a picnic. Friendly engagement. Public transit helps people congregate on vehicles for the sake of traveling to a common destination, and therefore disparate people are united by this common goal of arriving safe and sound. I could go on about all the public spaces that promote some kind of friendly engagement and socializing, but social media such as Facebook is calibrated and designed to put us at one another's throats. It's not good if we see a post and let it go by, we must lash out and correct or attack. Dislikes are as valuable as Likes in the Facebook economy. Hordes of censors are required to tamp down the inevitable violations that occur when people go out of bounds. Social media thrives and grows from attacks, libel, gossip, and falsehoods. Of course this is all only an extrapolation of print and broadcast media as it came before. Nothing has changed since Moses broke the tablets and Luther nailed up his theses. But social media is concentrated and unadulterated poison.
- knaik94 4y ago
  I have not experienced the toxic negativity you have associated with only modern social media. I am in a couple of online groups of the things you are describing as social spaces of before, there's a local hiking group, an unofficial puzzled pints group, multiple AI and Defcon related groups, TV show discussion groups, and occasionally concert groups for when an artist I enjoy is playing near me. If you're not using Facebook or Discord or some other social media for this, I would suggest you look into it. Social media is focused on self curation as much as algorithmic curation. If you have to approach your social media feed like a warzone, I would start by muting or unfollowing as many problematic people as possible. It'll be up to you to make sure your feed doesn't become an echo chamber, but at a minimum you won't feel such negative anger towards a literal piece of code. Like and Dislikes are only as valuable as users allow them to be. A great counterexample to many of your arguments is the social media site we are discussing this topic on. The culture on Hacker News de-emphasizes Likes and Dislike. Comment karma is visible to the poster, but to a reader, a +100 karma comment is equal to a +4 karma comment with the only difference being what is seen first. I personally forget about that and end up reading comments to the end of threads I enjoy anyway. I think letting such hostility build for the concept of social media is as damaging as any political extremism the censorship is supposed to combat. It feels like the extremism isn't gone, just redirected. Social media and the internet has changed who people interact with, not just how. In the past extreme ideas existed, but were tempered because of others around them. Social media has allowed people to choose to only listen to people with the same perspective, letting extreme ideas go uncontrolled. You can argue that it's the fault of the technology, but the main responsibility falls on the individuals. Social media doesn't make people hateful, it makes it easier for hateful people to convince other to think like them. Bullies have existed long before social media and continue to exist in every context.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
> Assigning morality to the math used in an algorithm is a failure to understand the purpose or function of it. No this is rhetorical judo; no one intends to ascribe moral agency to the algorithm itself. The function of an algorithm is what it does, and the moral culpability is carried by the people who designed it for, and applied it to, a given purpose causing that outcome. We can decide that for example they could not have predicted this outcome and so are not liable, or that they should have and were neglectful, or something else. The full range of tools and consequences we use when assessing culpability in other damaging situations are available to us here. The fact that an algorithm was the tool of harm doesn't constrain us. Whether or not they profit from it is also beside the point. It may make it more evil, it may change their civil liabilities to harmed parties, but it doesn't increase or decrease their responsibility for the outcomes themselves.
- knaik94 4y ago
  > We can decide that for example they could not have predicted this outcome and so are not liable, or that they should have and were neglectful, or something else. We fundamentally disagree on whether or not what Facebook "should" have expected or "should" have done is worth considering. I don't think it's legally relevant. Profits can demonstrate incentive that otherwise wouldn't exist. The existing legal precedent for how algorithms are considered under tort liability [1] are still unclear. It's clear to me that allowing this lawsuit to move forward would be directly contradicting the ruling of Force v. Facebook (2019) and would force a ruling on how AI algorithms should be held liable with respect to section 230. From the perspective of the user, making a platform liable would mean that the platform would fundamentally shift what users are allowed to post and strongly weakens basic rights to freedom of expression. It's hard to depict how different and more censored the internet would be if section 230 continues to become weakened. "Critically, the finding that AI algorithms can be found to be harmful allows for the tort liability process to come into effect. While this kind of legal approach has not yet been taken, Patel indicates that corporate liability is a possibility. If an AI algorithm causes harm, it must be prosecuted through tort liability." "However, in the same timeframe as Patel’s ruling in 2019, ... a group of U.S. citizens who were victims of a Hamas terrorist attack, sued Facebook, arguing that Facebook implicitly assisted Hamas by keeping their violence-promoting content online through their AI algorithm’s oversight. [12] However, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 230(c)(1), the rule that protects social media platforms from liability for content on their platforms, the court found that Facebook could not be found to have criminal or civil liability for content. [13] This case complicates the implications of Patel, as it found that Facebook was shielded from liability because the content itself was not created by the platform. " [1] https://www.culawreview.org/journal/extending-corporate-tort-liability-to-social-media-algorithms https://www.culawreview.org/journal/extending-corporate-tort...
Zak 4y ago
A machine designed to self-optimize to manufacture as many paperclips as possible with no regard to any other parameters is not capable of morality. A person who creates one without taking steps to ensure it does not eat the world to turn the raw materials into paperclips is capable of morality and is morally responsible for that outcome. Facebook has created a machine to capture attention and increase engagement with little regard to any other parameters. Despite being shown evidence that its machine contributes to political extremism and violence, it has typically refused to make changes that would reduce those effects if those changes would also reduce engagement. It's fair to claim innocent intent early on, but someone who is aware their behavior has harmful impacts and continues that behavior has, at best negligent intent.
- daniel_reetz 4y ago
  Yes. And this is an unprecedented industrial process, not least because attention is the input, and behavioral changes (well-tracked viewing and purchasing) are the output.
  - yummypaint 4y ago
    I like this take on social media as the industrialization of behavior modification. Framing it that way effectively communicates the hazards to the layperson who thinks its purpose is to help people stay in touch.
- phendrenad2 4y ago
  So a perfect free-speech forum where there is no algorithm would be okay? Or is the lack of algorithm also an algorithm? Is there any way to win this? Or is every website now doomed to an arbitrary level of required content moderation?
  - throwaway313313 4y ago
    Large crowds in some kinds of shapes of open spaces randomly result in stampedes and people dying. All shapes of spaces are not subject to this. There are general designs that don't have this problem and there are people that have various practical guidelines to counteract the stampede problem. Same with forums where people can say things. For example a simple algorithm that does not suffer from as gross feedback effects, that facebook eliminated early on, was the timeline view of activity. Timeline sorting did not use popularity or advertising promotion to sort items. Would the service be usable like this, well yes, facebook was perfectly usable during the era it worked like this. What is the hit to their bottom line if they changed their algorithm back to simple timeline sorting? Well we can guess it must be pretty big because their current algorithm seems to be pretty psychotic by comparison (in that it intentionally fans the flames of outrage with it's interaction seeking behavior) and they are willing to take all the negative PR for the sake of this interaction uplift.
ickwabe 4y ago
Facebook engineers don't need to explicitly change their algorithm to promote violence. They do it by negligence; by letting the algo maximize for engagememt regardless of the outcomes. Facebook spends most of it's moderation efforts in just a few countries and does relatively little for the rest. https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ranks-the-world-into-tiers-of-importance-report-2021-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ranks-the-world-int... It is not reasonable to moderate to a certain level in a few locations, thereby implicitly acknowledging such moderation is important, while then letting other "gardens" in other parts of the world run wild and untended. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... Once the moderation has begun and leaders in the company have acknowledged that it is necessary for the good of the platform and the communities in which it operates, it ceases to become reasonable to say "oh well, what we meant was, moderation is needed where the profile is highest or will cause the most political/societal blow-back if we don't".

Eleison23 4y ago

Social media's aims are unlike any other social space to come before. Restaurants gather people together around delicious food and everyone is able to enjoy themselves at the table with a meal and friends. Friendly engagement. Parks invite people to have recreation at various stages in life, whether with team sports, a playground, just running around the grass, or a picnic. Friendly engagement. Public transit helps people congregate on vehicles for the sake of traveling to a common destination, and therefore disparate people are united by this common goal of arriving safe and sound. I could go on about all the public spaces that promote some kind of friendly engagement and socializing, but social media such as Facebook is calibrated and designed to put us at one another's throats. It's not good if we see a post and let it go by, we must lash out and correct or attack. Dislikes are as valuable as Likes in the Facebook economy. Hordes of censors are required to tamp down the inevitable violations that occur when people go out of bounds. Social media thrives and grows from attacks, libel, gossip, and falsehoods. Of course this is all only an extrapolation of print and broadcast media as it came before. Nothing has changed since Moses broke the tablets and Luther nailed up his theses. But social media is concentrated and unadulterated poison.

knaik94 4y ago
I have not experienced the toxic negativity you have associated with only modern social media. I am in a couple of online groups of the things you are describing as social spaces of before, there's a local hiking group, an unofficial puzzled pints group, multiple AI and Defcon related groups, TV show discussion groups, and occasionally concert groups for when an artist I enjoy is playing near me. If you're not using Facebook or Discord or some other social media for this, I would suggest you look into it. Social media is focused on self curation as much as algorithmic curation. If you have to approach your social media feed like a warzone, I would start by muting or unfollowing as many problematic people as possible. It'll be up to you to make sure your feed doesn't become an echo chamber, but at a minimum you won't feel such negative anger towards a literal piece of code. Like and Dislikes are only as valuable as users allow them to be. A great counterexample to many of your arguments is the social media site we are discussing this topic on. The culture on Hacker News de-emphasizes Likes and Dislike. Comment karma is visible to the poster, but to a reader, a +100 karma comment is equal to a +4 karma comment with the only difference being what is seen first. I personally forget about that and end up reading comments to the end of threads I enjoy anyway. I think letting such hostility build for the concept of social media is as damaging as any political extremism the censorship is supposed to combat. It feels like the extremism isn't gone, just redirected. Social media and the internet has changed who people interact with, not just how. In the past extreme ideas existed, but were tempered because of others around them. Social media has allowed people to choose to only listen to people with the same perspective, letting extreme ideas go uncontrolled. You can argue that it's the fault of the technology, but the main responsibility falls on the individuals. Social media doesn't make people hateful, it makes it easier for hateful people to convince other to think like them. Bullies have existed long before social media and continue to exist in every context.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

> Assigning morality to the math used in an algorithm is a failure to understand the purpose or function of it. No this is rhetorical judo; no one intends to ascribe moral agency to the algorithm itself. The function of an algorithm is what it does, and the moral culpability is carried by the people who designed it for, and applied it to, a given purpose causing that outcome. We can decide that for example they could not have predicted this outcome and so are not liable, or that they should have and were neglectful, or something else. The full range of tools and consequences we use when assessing culpability in other damaging situations are available to us here. The fact that an algorithm was the tool of harm doesn't constrain us. Whether or not they profit from it is also beside the point. It may make it more evil, it may change their civil liabilities to harmed parties, but it doesn't increase or decrease their responsibility for the outcomes themselves.

knaik94 4y ago
> We can decide that for example they could not have predicted this outcome and so are not liable, or that they should have and were neglectful, or something else. We fundamentally disagree on whether or not what Facebook "should" have expected or "should" have done is worth considering. I don't think it's legally relevant. Profits can demonstrate incentive that otherwise wouldn't exist. The existing legal precedent for how algorithms are considered under tort liability [1] are still unclear. It's clear to me that allowing this lawsuit to move forward would be directly contradicting the ruling of Force v. Facebook (2019) and would force a ruling on how AI algorithms should be held liable with respect to section 230. From the perspective of the user, making a platform liable would mean that the platform would fundamentally shift what users are allowed to post and strongly weakens basic rights to freedom of expression. It's hard to depict how different and more censored the internet would be if section 230 continues to become weakened. "Critically, the finding that AI algorithms can be found to be harmful allows for the tort liability process to come into effect. While this kind of legal approach has not yet been taken, Patel indicates that corporate liability is a possibility. If an AI algorithm causes harm, it must be prosecuted through tort liability." "However, in the same timeframe as Patel’s ruling in 2019, ... a group of U.S. citizens who were victims of a Hamas terrorist attack, sued Facebook, arguing that Facebook implicitly assisted Hamas by keeping their violence-promoting content online through their AI algorithm’s oversight. [12] However, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 230(c)(1), the rule that protects social media platforms from liability for content on their platforms, the court found that Facebook could not be found to have criminal or civil liability for content. [13] This case complicates the implications of Patel, as it found that Facebook was shielded from liability because the content itself was not created by the platform. " [1] https://www.culawreview.org/journal/extending-corporate-tort-liability-to-social-media-algorithms https://www.culawreview.org/journal/extending-corporate-tort...

Zak 4y ago

A machine designed to self-optimize to manufacture as many paperclips as possible with no regard to any other parameters is not capable of morality. A person who creates one without taking steps to ensure it does not eat the world to turn the raw materials into paperclips is capable of morality and is morally responsible for that outcome. Facebook has created a machine to capture attention and increase engagement with little regard to any other parameters. Despite being shown evidence that its machine contributes to political extremism and violence, it has typically refused to make changes that would reduce those effects if those changes would also reduce engagement. It's fair to claim innocent intent early on, but someone who is aware their behavior has harmful impacts and continues that behavior has, at best negligent intent.

daniel_reetz 4y ago
Yes. And this is an unprecedented industrial process, not least because attention is the input, and behavioral changes (well-tracked viewing and purchasing) are the output.
- yummypaint 4y ago
  I like this take on social media as the industrialization of behavior modification. Framing it that way effectively communicates the hazards to the layperson who thinks its purpose is to help people stay in touch.
phendrenad2 4y ago
So a perfect free-speech forum where there is no algorithm would be okay? Or is the lack of algorithm also an algorithm? Is there any way to win this? Or is every website now doomed to an arbitrary level of required content moderation?
- throwaway313313 4y ago
  Large crowds in some kinds of shapes of open spaces randomly result in stampedes and people dying. All shapes of spaces are not subject to this. There are general designs that don't have this problem and there are people that have various practical guidelines to counteract the stampede problem. Same with forums where people can say things. For example a simple algorithm that does not suffer from as gross feedback effects, that facebook eliminated early on, was the timeline view of activity. Timeline sorting did not use popularity or advertising promotion to sort items. Would the service be usable like this, well yes, facebook was perfectly usable during the era it worked like this. What is the hit to their bottom line if they changed their algorithm back to simple timeline sorting? Well we can guess it must be pretty big because their current algorithm seems to be pretty psychotic by comparison (in that it intentionally fans the flames of outrage with it's interaction seeking behavior) and they are willing to take all the negative PR for the sake of this interaction uplift.

ickwabe 4y ago

Facebook engineers don't need to explicitly change their algorithm to promote violence. They do it by negligence; by letting the algo maximize for engagememt regardless of the outcomes. Facebook spends most of it's moderation efforts in just a few countries and does relatively little for the rest. https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ranks-the-world-into-tiers-of-importance-report-2021-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ranks-the-world-int... It is not reasonable to moderate to a certain level in a few locations, thereby implicitly acknowledging such moderation is important, while then letting other "gardens" in other parts of the world run wild and untended. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... Once the moderation has begun and leaders in the company have acknowledged that it is necessary for the good of the platform and the communities in which it operates, it ceases to become reasonable to say "oh well, what we meant was, moderation is needed where the profile is highest or will cause the most political/societal blow-back if we don't".