3 ms·

> But as of right now, platforms are allowed to be arbitrary. And IMO they shouldn't be. > Publishing algorithms would make it easy to defeat spam filters a

> But as of right now, platforms are allowed to be arbitrary. And IMO they shouldn't be. > Publishing algorithms would make it easy to defeat spam filters and anti evil filters. They are black boxes for a reason. Security through obscurity. Besides, if I have to choose between slightly poorer spam detection and algorithmic transparency on the sites that are setting the public discourse, I'm gonna pick transparency. Wouldn't you?

basch 4y ago
Should a Christian website be allowed to foster a Christian community, without disruptive trolls? Should a Republican website be allowed to create a Republican eco chamber? Should Reddit be liable for the moderator of a food community removing a post about android tech support? Should sites where dang censors whatever he wants for the sake of the community values suddenly become liable for the speech that isn’t removed? No. It’s my speech not his. Let’s be real, the threat of benevolent censorship is what keeps this place civil and upstanding. You might say, but but transparency. Now you are creating a new problem. For example, the Christian website above. If I go there extolling the virtues of Satan, you are forcing them to host copies of speech they find deplorable, in their public censorship reports. And if you obscure or roll up censorship reports, now you need independent speech removal auditors. I would choose a better spam filter and a free market for you to make a competing service with transparency. The free market breaks down when institutions become proprietary and monolithic. A better angle is the government to better force protocols, decentralization, federation etc. Even email is kinda controlled by two players, but at least if I got kicked off one I can still email all my old friends from my new account on the other. Data portability, service interoperability, and privacy better address a lack of transparency than forcing homogenous censorship rules on all sites.
- BaseballPhysics 4y ago
  You seem very confused. I never advocated for any requirements regarding what can or can't be censored or promoted. I am arguing for transparency, specifically because I recognize that codifying editorial standards could be exceedingly difficult. Yet the vast majority of you comment is dedicated to standing up a straw man you erected. Am I being confusing, or are you just shifting the argument to your preferred turf?
  - basch 4y ago
    I included the problem I see transparency causing. I think moderation, at some level, needs to be a black box to prevent attack and abuse. Opaque censorship should be an optional design choice private companies have the option of designing their products around.
    - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
      And I don't agree with that, but we can agree to disagree on that point! I would expect any transparency requirement to be limited to only services with a userbase over a certain size, since the concern is with very large entities that have an oversized impact on public communication. So if you're a small community or a startup, fine, no need for disclosure. But if you're a public company or have more than X users, I truly believe these companies have far too much control over public communication for us to be comfortable with the current model of total opacity in algorithmic behaviour.
      - basch 4y ago
        And I believe data portability and interoperability would achieve the same ends. If you can just migrate to not-Facebook and still see posts from Facebook and message Facebook people, I can be on my opaque platform, and you can move to your transparent one. That said, I could see a requirement for support commitments. Being able to get human support and transparent answers to account questions. If you can’t support people you accidentally lock out, you are too big. Like fire department requirements for a city population. Another product I could see requiring regulation is login auth services. If I use my social media account to auth against other websites, you can’t just take that auth away from me if you don’t want to serve me anymore. Force a forwarder so I can use my new auth service to log into my old accounts.
        BaseballPhysics 4y ago
        Honestly those are great ideas, as well, and maybe should be the starting point. I admit I'm deeply skeptical that reducing barriers to transition between services would allow the market to actually function in a way that results in better outcomes--the reality is the information asymmetry between users and tech companies is enormously high, hence my belief in the value of mandated transparency--but it's a very good place to begin.

basch 4y ago

Should a Christian website be allowed to foster a Christian community, without disruptive trolls? Should a Republican website be allowed to create a Republican eco chamber? Should Reddit be liable for the moderator of a food community removing a post about android tech support? Should sites where dang censors whatever he wants for the sake of the community values suddenly become liable for the speech that isn’t removed? No. It’s my speech not his. Let’s be real, the threat of benevolent censorship is what keeps this place civil and upstanding. You might say, but but transparency. Now you are creating a new problem. For example, the Christian website above. If I go there extolling the virtues of Satan, you are forcing them to host copies of speech they find deplorable, in their public censorship reports. And if you obscure or roll up censorship reports, now you need independent speech removal auditors. I would choose a better spam filter and a free market for you to make a competing service with transparency. The free market breaks down when institutions become proprietary and monolithic. A better angle is the government to better force protocols, decentralization, federation etc. Even email is kinda controlled by two players, but at least if I got kicked off one I can still email all my old friends from my new account on the other. Data portability, service interoperability, and privacy better address a lack of transparency than forcing homogenous censorship rules on all sites.

BaseballPhysics 4y ago
You seem very confused. I never advocated for any requirements regarding what can or can't be censored or promoted. I am arguing for transparency, specifically because I recognize that codifying editorial standards could be exceedingly difficult. Yet the vast majority of you comment is dedicated to standing up a straw man you erected. Am I being confusing, or are you just shifting the argument to your preferred turf?
- basch 4y ago
  I included the problem I see transparency causing. I think moderation, at some level, needs to be a black box to prevent attack and abuse. Opaque censorship should be an optional design choice private companies have the option of designing their products around.
  - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
    And I don't agree with that, but we can agree to disagree on that point! I would expect any transparency requirement to be limited to only services with a userbase over a certain size, since the concern is with very large entities that have an oversized impact on public communication. So if you're a small community or a startup, fine, no need for disclosure. But if you're a public company or have more than X users, I truly believe these companies have far too much control over public communication for us to be comfortable with the current model of total opacity in algorithmic behaviour.
    - basch 4y ago
      And I believe data portability and interoperability would achieve the same ends. If you can just migrate to not-Facebook and still see posts from Facebook and message Facebook people, I can be on my opaque platform, and you can move to your transparent one. That said, I could see a requirement for support commitments. Being able to get human support and transparent answers to account questions. If you can’t support people you accidentally lock out, you are too big. Like fire department requirements for a city population. Another product I could see requiring regulation is login auth services. If I use my social media account to auth against other websites, you can’t just take that auth away from me if you don’t want to serve me anymore. Force a forwarder so I can use my new auth service to log into my old accounts.
      - BaseballPhysics 4y ago
        Honestly those are great ideas, as well, and maybe should be the starting point. I admit I'm deeply skeptical that reducing barriers to transition between services would allow the market to actually function in a way that results in better outcomes--the reality is the information asymmetry between users and tech companies is enormously high, hence my belief in the value of mandated transparency--but it's a very good place to begin.