3 ms·

Just don't promote, suggest, or downvote content. This is a distraction and non-issue... “The court might think it's doing one thing and it's actually doing so

Just don't promote, suggest, or downvote content. This is a distraction and non-issue... “The court might think it's doing one thing and it's actually doing something very different,” said Evelyn Douek, a law professor at Stanford who specializes in tech law. “It’s ill-matched to the problem.” If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason, then perhaps it is broken anyway. The fact is Big Tech has dug its own grave long ago, and that should have been obvious since the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

jen20 4y ago
I broadly agree with you, but: > If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason This might be true of appointed judges. It certainly is not true of elected ones.
thwayunion 4y ago
> Just don't promote, suggest, or downvote content. Certain types of promotion and downvoting are clearly within the legislative intent of Section 230. Suggestion may not be, and I am sympathetic to the plaintiff's argument that recommendations -- and particularly push notifications and the like -- may not be covered by 230. (As always, it would be much better if the legislature simply did their damn job, but we seem to be content with permanent gridlock.) > If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason, then perhaps it is broken anyway. I have no doubt that many in the legal field have this opinion -- particularly judges -- but you seem to be wildly under-estimating the degree of innumeracy on the bench. And, indeed, through most of the America's professional class. Most of the lawyers that I know haven't taken a mathematics course since high school, and one has never even taken a Calculus course (his college mathematics requirement was essentially a repeat of high school algebra). Neither of the judges I know are capable of even non-trivial computer use. Technological illiteracy really is an apt metaphor. Within the legal community, somehow, wanton ignorance of the very basics of human knowledge in various fields is considered a major deficit. But technological illiteracy is if anything a badge of pride and a sign of status. I have no doubt that these people are capable of understanding the technical details, but I'm also highly skeptical that they have the time for such an enormous undertaking given the typical state of numeracy and technical literacy on the bench.
- freedude 4y ago
  My expectation is that the judges you know are not Supreme Court Justices. Education comes in many forms. One of which is sitting in a class. I would propose that experience is a more powerful teacher. Another is the desire to learn. Possessing one or the other is infinitely more valuable than the degree. I would expect this drive to be in a Supreme Court Justice at least as far as to get them through the confirmation hearing. Does this mean they need to understand Calculus? Not at all. They need to understand the algorithm in a way that pertains to the law. Not in a way that they could rewrite it. This is a common misconception among those in the tech industry. Nobody really cares about the minutia like you or I would. What they care about is the end result. so... Does the "suggestion algorithm" violate section 230 or not? The ones I have interacted with and researched I believe do. But the lawyers don't have to convince me. They need to convince a Judge. A person designated by the republic to uphold the law.
  - thwayunion 4y ago
    > My expectation is that the judges you know are not Supreme Court Justices. This is true, but one is federal. And substantially younger than most of the SCOTUS justices. He doesn't know how to use a web browser. Which, to be honest, was actually unbelievable to me, since even the older clients at the homeless shelter I volunteer with know how to use a web browser. How do you even function in today's world without this knowledge? I guess a job for life and a rotating staff of ambitious brown nosers who are willing to google things for you is the answer. Of course judges don't need to be experts on everything. But you seem to misunderstand my critique of the bench. This isn't akin to "can't write a novel" or "never read Shakespeare"; it's more akin to "actually functionally illiterate in anything outside of law and some subset of the humanities". You might not care that a judge hasn't read this or that book, or never wrote a short story, for example. But if your judge didn't know how to read?! You might have some serious concerns. That's the state of affairs with respect to numeracy and technology. For that reason, the rest of your post seems like fairly non-responsive to my primary concern. In particular, I don't doubt the raw capability or intelligence of SCOTUS justices (or other judges). Becoming a federal judge is incredibly difficult; these are bright and highly motivated people. But I do think many judges lack the basic numeracy and technical literacy required to know what they don't know, or learn what they need to learn. Again, the baseline here is less like "never written code" and like "doesn't know how to use Chrome". A secondary concern is a lack of humility, which is of course a precondition for learning. Combined with a sort of general innumeracy among the elite set. I can give some examples of opinions that put this combination on display.
infamouscow 4y ago
> If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason, then perhaps it is broken anyway. Yup! I'm proud to say the algorithms we designed in the healthcare space are 100% explainable and deterministic to staff, executives, and lawyers. Everyone that uses our software knows exactly what went into the decisions we made, and they can always make the determination for themselves using all the same data and process. When hiring, we made a point about deriding FAANG for their stupidity* of throwing their hands up, saying healthcare is too hard, and letting AI do it. It also had a way of filtering out careerists, and a way of finding people with very deep respect for data privacy and security. :) * Yes, stupidity. Haters can fuck off. There's no other valid excuse you can give that won't make a judge say the same, albeit more politely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc

jen20 4y ago

I broadly agree with you, but: > If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason This might be true of appointed judges. It certainly is not true of elected ones.

thwayunion 4y ago

> Just don't promote, suggest, or downvote content. Certain types of promotion and downvoting are clearly within the legislative intent of Section 230. Suggestion may not be, and I am sympathetic to the plaintiff's argument that recommendations -- and particularly push notifications and the like -- may not be covered by 230. (As always, it would be much better if the legislature simply did their damn job, but we seem to be content with permanent gridlock.) > If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason, then perhaps it is broken anyway. I have no doubt that many in the legal field have this opinion -- particularly judges -- but you seem to be wildly under-estimating the degree of innumeracy on the bench. And, indeed, through most of the America's professional class. Most of the lawyers that I know haven't taken a mathematics course since high school, and one has never even taken a Calculus course (his college mathematics requirement was essentially a repeat of high school algebra). Neither of the judges I know are capable of even non-trivial computer use. Technological illiteracy really is an apt metaphor. Within the legal community, somehow, wanton ignorance of the very basics of human knowledge in various fields is considered a major deficit. But technological illiteracy is if anything a badge of pride and a sign of status. I have no doubt that these people are capable of understanding the technical details, but I'm also highly skeptical that they have the time for such an enormous undertaking given the typical state of numeracy and technical literacy on the bench.

freedude 4y ago
My expectation is that the judges you know are not Supreme Court Justices. Education comes in many forms. One of which is sitting in a class. I would propose that experience is a more powerful teacher. Another is the desire to learn. Possessing one or the other is infinitely more valuable than the degree. I would expect this drive to be in a Supreme Court Justice at least as far as to get them through the confirmation hearing. Does this mean they need to understand Calculus? Not at all. They need to understand the algorithm in a way that pertains to the law. Not in a way that they could rewrite it. This is a common misconception among those in the tech industry. Nobody really cares about the minutia like you or I would. What they care about is the end result. so... Does the "suggestion algorithm" violate section 230 or not? The ones I have interacted with and researched I believe do. But the lawyers don't have to convince me. They need to convince a Judge. A person designated by the republic to uphold the law.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  > My expectation is that the judges you know are not Supreme Court Justices. This is true, but one is federal. And substantially younger than most of the SCOTUS justices. He doesn't know how to use a web browser. Which, to be honest, was actually unbelievable to me, since even the older clients at the homeless shelter I volunteer with know how to use a web browser. How do you even function in today's world without this knowledge? I guess a job for life and a rotating staff of ambitious brown nosers who are willing to google things for you is the answer. Of course judges don't need to be experts on everything. But you seem to misunderstand my critique of the bench. This isn't akin to "can't write a novel" or "never read Shakespeare"; it's more akin to "actually functionally illiterate in anything outside of law and some subset of the humanities". You might not care that a judge hasn't read this or that book, or never wrote a short story, for example. But if your judge didn't know how to read?! You might have some serious concerns. That's the state of affairs with respect to numeracy and technology. For that reason, the rest of your post seems like fairly non-responsive to my primary concern. In particular, I don't doubt the raw capability or intelligence of SCOTUS justices (or other judges). Becoming a federal judge is incredibly difficult; these are bright and highly motivated people. But I do think many judges lack the basic numeracy and technical literacy required to know what they don't know, or learn what they need to learn. Again, the baseline here is less like "never written code" and like "doesn't know how to use Chrome". A secondary concern is a lack of humility, which is of course a precondition for learning. Combined with a sort of general innumeracy among the elite set. I can give some examples of opinions that put this combination on display.

infamouscow 4y ago

> If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason, then perhaps it is broken anyway. Yup! I'm proud to say the algorithms we designed in the healthcare space are 100% explainable and deterministic to staff, executives, and lawyers. Everyone that uses our software knows exactly what went into the decisions we made, and they can always make the determination for themselves using all the same data and process. When hiring, we made a point about deriding FAANG for their stupidity* of throwing their hands up, saying healthcare is too hard, and letting AI do it. It also had a way of filtering out careerists, and a way of finding people with very deep respect for data privacy and security. :) * Yes, stupidity. Haters can fuck off. There's no other valid excuse you can give that won't make a judge say the same, albeit more politely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww47bR86wSc