8 ms·

Society should discuss if recommendation algorithms and targeted advertisement must be regulated. It is known that people have more probability of sharing conte

Society should discuss if recommendation algorithms and targeted advertisement must be regulated. It is known that people have more probability of sharing content that shocks them more. It lights a cycle where recommendation algorithms will give users ever increasing extremism inducing videos. This makes people more radical and makes them consume more of the same drug-like content. Result: polarized society and a few content creators making a good amount of money generating extremist content and google and advertisers making billions regardless of how much they threat democracy elsewhere. Yes, people are making lots of money with lies and half-truths. It is well known and I think that some liars know they are lying but don't care because they are making money. My girlfriend's father ate so much of these absurd things that nobody sane can talk to him anymore. Last year, after elections, he insisted that Lula was dead and that someone was impersonating him. At the new years eve, instead of spending time with his family, he was watching one of these youtube channels expecting to see a coup in brazil. He is still saying to everyone that our money in banks will be seized by the government. Summarizing: recommendation algorithms and targeted advertisement are destroying families and people.

harrisoned 3y ago
People click on what they want. Those are symptoms of underlying issues from someone who shouldn't be using such services in the first place. Protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability and ignorance is futile, as there will always be an issue to be resolved. The focus should be on education, and (for parents) control on what they should be accessing.
- marcodiego 3y ago
  > Protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability and ignorance is futile Drugs are regulated for the very same reason. While prohibition may be a polemic topic, regulation is not.
  - harrisoned 3y ago
    The example is good, and look where we are. Regulation brings immediate partial results to a problem, but doesn't solve it. I agree that the problem should be resolved, but those methods are only put in place to please shareholders and the law. The hard path, of education and compromises (and possible lower revenue) no one wants to take. Those services exploit "mental and moral malleability", and for that there will never be enough regulation to solve unless you take down all services.
- fugalfervor 3y ago
  "We made an addictive product. Fuck you for being addicted to it."
- ticviking 3y ago
  > The focus should be on education, and (for parents) control on what they should be accessing. I've worked in education, and spend a good deal of time working with folks who are in dire straits. The hard fact that a community where our 'median commenter' is above the median in the general population hates to realize is that roughly 1/3 or so of all people are just not remotely the type of person who can do the abstract meta-cognition to see they're being manipulated. No amount of education will actually make them see something to abstract for them to grok.
  - harrisoned 3y ago
    > The hard fact that a community where our 'median commenter' is above the median in the general population hates to realize is that roughly 1/3 or so of all people are just not remotely the type of person who can do the abstract meta-cognition to see they're being manipulated. True! This is a complex subject that i have been interested in a long time. It all boils down to 'digital inclusion' (making services dumber/simpler to be easier for the average person) for profit, and it's long term effects. But that's another whole can of worms. There is no easy solution for that problem.
    - ticviking 3y ago
      That's the first time I've heard this challenge described as 'digital inclusion' but that is exactly what it is. We are pretty clearly in a world where people who understand computers are a new scribe class who have mountains of power over others, and hesitate to admit as much because it burdens us with the responsibility think about and be mindful about how we use that power.
- pixl97 3y ago
  >People click on what they want Do they? >Protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability and ignorance is futile, Where are you from? I'm guessing some first world country that has all kinds of consumer protections.
  - harrisoned 3y ago
    > Do they? They do. Can they be influenced? Yes. Can they be coerced trough social pressure? Yes. Can they fall for targeted advertisement and/or manipulation? Yes as well. Does this exclude the responsibility of their own actions? I don't think so. We can argue that this problem was born because of their parents or their own lack of knowledge/critical thinking later in life. > Where are you from? I am brazilian.
- kurikuri 3y ago
  > Those are symptoms of underlying issues from someone who shouldn't be using such services in the first place. Protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability and ignorance is futile, as there will always be an issue to be resolved. Why is the blame on people for what is made available to them? This wouldn't be 'protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability,' this would be preventing others from making this which abuse those malleability for profit. The same type of argument you have made here could be made for legalizing ponzi schemes. People _should_ know that there is no quick rich scheme and the history of these schemes are full of fraudsters. Is it wrong to ban this type of abuse because their victims made the choice to engage in the first place? And, to preempt the "ponzi schemes are different" response, I ask for a response of this type to qualify it with how those differences matter. - If it is in legality, that only applies until a law is made about addiction-intended media and is circular (it is wrong because it is legal <--> it is legal because it is wrong). - If the difference is in the intent of the ones perpetrating it, both perpetrate primarily for monetary gain. I don't believe a ponzi-scheme's primary intent is ever malicious (with the qualifier that I'm not assuming pursing monetary gain is malicious in of itself), nor do I believe this about social media. - If it is the directness of ponzi schemes in their fraud versus social media, I don't view that is very relevant... I think it would be reasonable to not blame someone for being the proximal cause of an issue if they didn't know beforehand, but the abusers in this case know by now that they are at _least_ a proximal cause.
  - harrisoned 3y ago
    > Why is the blame on people for what is made available to them? This wouldn't be 'protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability,' this would be preventing others from making this which abuse those malleability for profit. I do believe our own actions are the only thing we have absolute control in life. In a perfect world, maybe such efforts would be more effective. I take in account the subjectivity of human actions and behavior in that case. The amount of safeguards you would need to put in order to protect people in that scenario would leak into many other areas, or create an eternal conflict at minimum (it isn't like we don't have one already...). I believe that education and knowledge is the path to solve such issues, because it creates a mechanism for people to deal with them (like a vaccine), not to never see them. > The same type of argument you have made here could be made for legalizing ponzi schemes. People _should_ know that there is no quick rich scheme and the history of these schemes are full of fraudsters. Is it wrong to ban this type of abuse because their victims made the choice to engage in the first place? People should be educated about it. It wouldn't solve all the problems immediately, but it is more efficient if people protect themselves from these issues. Ponzi schemes are illegal and they still an issue, the same would happen to other regulations in my opinion. Companies always find a way to profit. Social media is a moneymaking machine, and data is valuable. It's not just internet fun, it's serious business. In a way, i don't think they are too far apart. I dislike social media and haven't used it in many years. You could apply regulations, is not that it is wrong, it's just ineffective against underlying issues and the problem itself in the long term. The effort should be more towards a long term solution. The line here is blury, that's what happen when you deal with humans. You could go towards the "protect people from harm" or "give them tools for self-protection" idea, i honestly prefer the latter.
- ROTMetro 3y ago
  I don't know. Before I went to prison (so I guess I was in a very poor state to make choices) I somehow gravitated to a bunch of conservative websites. Instapundit was the start. And I bought into it all. Having a 'nice' 5 year 'break' and then coming back I saw what total hateful/emotionally manipulative crap it was. But I think if I wouldn't have had that 'break' they would have been able to bring me along on their journey. I'm hippie love child love everybody libertarian (in the hippy sense) who is pro open borders and they were getting me to have hate over some straight up bullshit. I still have to have those sites in my NextDNS to prevent me from going there to 'just see' what they are talking about.
  - harrisoned 3y ago
    This is what i mean by underlying problems. Every extremist organization lures people with manipulative tactics, and if you are not in a good state of mind to spot those, you will be caught. That's why education and knowledge about those subjects is important, so people can understand and think about them. If you never understood why they are so bad, you would rely on others to never see it on your screen.
- daniel-cussen 3y ago
  [dead]
SllX 3y ago
> Society should discuss if recommendation algorithms and targeted advertisement must be regulated. It is known that people have more probability of sharing content that shocks them more. We can have that discussion now: “No.” To the extent that you want to apply any law, it’s to content, not the recommendation algorithm: copyright infringing stuff[1], pornography, snuff films, and other already illegal stuff. I don’t like people like say, Tucker Carlson, their whole schtick is making themselves viral by making a very shocking mountain out of a mole hill and riling people up, but the government also has no place passing legislation against or “regulating” that. [1]: I’m setting aside my own issues with extant copyright laws for the sake of a more productive discussion on the proposed topic, but I’m not entirely happy with them either.
- smt88 3y ago
  > I don’t like people like say, Tucker Carlson, their whole schtick is making themselves viral by making a very shocking mountain out of a mole hill and riling people up, but the government also has no place passing legislation against or “regulating” that. You can regulate recommendation algorithms (by making them transparent, opt-in, etc.) without infringing on Carlson's right to speech. My proposed regulations would be that all automated recommendation algorithms are: 1. clearly labelled as automated (not "editor's picks" or "other people are watching," which connote social validation that may not exist) 2. opt-in (no recommendations shown unless you request them) 3. auditable (for X days after a recommendation is made, it should be possible to see each step involved in it being recommended to that user) None of these infringe on anyone's speech. They just make it harder for massive, irresponsible companies to do psychological experiments on billions of people without transparency or culpability.
  - SllX 3y ago
    My concerns aren’t purely first amendment related. Some of this is just product decisions and business progresses. 1. What does this labeling get you? Taking YouTube as an example, it is basically some combination of what other people watch, what channels I Subscribe to, what’s picked out and even in those exceptional circumstances where I’m like 1 of maybe 40 views ever on a video, someone uploaded something similar to something I watched before. That’s the point of the algorithm: it takes multiple inputs, and spits them out in an automated fashion. I think most people also understand that these are machine generated recommendations, even if they might phrase it differently. So again, what does it get you? 2. Why opt-in? That’s a product decision. If you’re using the service, you’re opting into how the service functions as is, and the service provider may provide additional options for how it works beyond that, but why does the government get to make that kind of product decision? Then, if YouTube isn’t providing a list of recommendations when you load it, what are you seeing instead? Is that going to be decided by the government as well? 3. Why are users entitled to see an audit of what’s basically proprietary product information about how the website works, effectively making that information available to competitors as well? > None of these infringe on anyone's speech. They just make it harder for massive, irresponsible companies to do psychological experiments on billions of people without transparency or culpability. This experimentation is a genuine ethics concern, and also from a practical standpoint I can’t walk up to SaaS that I paid for and expect it to work the same way as I had been using it every time. I would not support your proposed remedies though, but there may be a productive route in governing psychological experimentation.

harrisoned 3y ago

People click on what they want. Those are symptoms of underlying issues from someone who shouldn't be using such services in the first place. Protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability and ignorance is futile, as there will always be an issue to be resolved. The focus should be on education, and (for parents) control on what they should be accessing.

marcodiego 3y ago
> Protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability and ignorance is futile Drugs are regulated for the very same reason. While prohibition may be a polemic topic, regulation is not.
- harrisoned 3y ago
  The example is good, and look where we are. Regulation brings immediate partial results to a problem, but doesn't solve it. I agree that the problem should be resolved, but those methods are only put in place to please shareholders and the law. The hard path, of education and compromises (and possible lower revenue) no one wants to take. Those services exploit "mental and moral malleability", and for that there will never be enough regulation to solve unless you take down all services.
fugalfervor 3y ago
"We made an addictive product. Fuck you for being addicted to it."
ticviking 3y ago
> The focus should be on education, and (for parents) control on what they should be accessing. I've worked in education, and spend a good deal of time working with folks who are in dire straits. The hard fact that a community where our 'median commenter' is above the median in the general population hates to realize is that roughly 1/3 or so of all people are just not remotely the type of person who can do the abstract meta-cognition to see they're being manipulated. No amount of education will actually make them see something to abstract for them to grok.
- harrisoned 3y ago
  > The hard fact that a community where our 'median commenter' is above the median in the general population hates to realize is that roughly 1/3 or so of all people are just not remotely the type of person who can do the abstract meta-cognition to see they're being manipulated. True! This is a complex subject that i have been interested in a long time. It all boils down to 'digital inclusion' (making services dumber/simpler to be easier for the average person) for profit, and it's long term effects. But that's another whole can of worms. There is no easy solution for that problem.
  - ticviking 3y ago
    That's the first time I've heard this challenge described as 'digital inclusion' but that is exactly what it is. We are pretty clearly in a world where people who understand computers are a new scribe class who have mountains of power over others, and hesitate to admit as much because it burdens us with the responsibility think about and be mindful about how we use that power.
pixl97 3y ago
>People click on what they want Do they? >Protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability and ignorance is futile, Where are you from? I'm guessing some first world country that has all kinds of consumer protections.
- harrisoned 3y ago
  > Do they? They do. Can they be influenced? Yes. Can they be coerced trough social pressure? Yes. Can they fall for targeted advertisement and/or manipulation? Yes as well. Does this exclude the responsibility of their own actions? I don't think so. We can argue that this problem was born because of their parents or their own lack of knowledge/critical thinking later in life. > Where are you from? I am brazilian.
kurikuri 3y ago
> Those are symptoms of underlying issues from someone who shouldn't be using such services in the first place. Protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability and ignorance is futile, as there will always be an issue to be resolved. Why is the blame on people for what is made available to them? This wouldn't be 'protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability,' this would be preventing others from making this which abuse those malleability for profit. The same type of argument you have made here could be made for legalizing ponzi schemes. People _should_ know that there is no quick rich scheme and the history of these schemes are full of fraudsters. Is it wrong to ban this type of abuse because their victims made the choice to engage in the first place? And, to preempt the "ponzi schemes are different" response, I ask for a response of this type to qualify it with how those differences matter. - If it is in legality, that only applies until a law is made about addiction-intended media and is circular (it is wrong because it is legal <--> it is legal because it is wrong). - If the difference is in the intent of the ones perpetrating it, both perpetrate primarily for monetary gain. I don't believe a ponzi-scheme's primary intent is ever malicious (with the qualifier that I'm not assuming pursing monetary gain is malicious in of itself), nor do I believe this about social media. - If it is the directness of ponzi schemes in their fraud versus social media, I don't view that is very relevant... I think it would be reasonable to not blame someone for being the proximal cause of an issue if they didn't know beforehand, but the abusers in this case know by now that they are at _least_ a proximal cause.
- harrisoned 3y ago
  > Why is the blame on people for what is made available to them? This wouldn't be 'protecting people from their own mental and moral malleability,' this would be preventing others from making this which abuse those malleability for profit. I do believe our own actions are the only thing we have absolute control in life. In a perfect world, maybe such efforts would be more effective. I take in account the subjectivity of human actions and behavior in that case. The amount of safeguards you would need to put in order to protect people in that scenario would leak into many other areas, or create an eternal conflict at minimum (it isn't like we don't have one already...). I believe that education and knowledge is the path to solve such issues, because it creates a mechanism for people to deal with them (like a vaccine), not to never see them. > The same type of argument you have made here could be made for legalizing ponzi schemes. People _should_ know that there is no quick rich scheme and the history of these schemes are full of fraudsters. Is it wrong to ban this type of abuse because their victims made the choice to engage in the first place? People should be educated about it. It wouldn't solve all the problems immediately, but it is more efficient if people protect themselves from these issues. Ponzi schemes are illegal and they still an issue, the same would happen to other regulations in my opinion. Companies always find a way to profit. Social media is a moneymaking machine, and data is valuable. It's not just internet fun, it's serious business. In a way, i don't think they are too far apart. I dislike social media and haven't used it in many years. You could apply regulations, is not that it is wrong, it's just ineffective against underlying issues and the problem itself in the long term. The effort should be more towards a long term solution. The line here is blury, that's what happen when you deal with humans. You could go towards the "protect people from harm" or "give them tools for self-protection" idea, i honestly prefer the latter.
ROTMetro 3y ago
I don't know. Before I went to prison (so I guess I was in a very poor state to make choices) I somehow gravitated to a bunch of conservative websites. Instapundit was the start. And I bought into it all. Having a 'nice' 5 year 'break' and then coming back I saw what total hateful/emotionally manipulative crap it was. But I think if I wouldn't have had that 'break' they would have been able to bring me along on their journey. I'm hippie love child love everybody libertarian (in the hippy sense) who is pro open borders and they were getting me to have hate over some straight up bullshit. I still have to have those sites in my NextDNS to prevent me from going there to 'just see' what they are talking about.
- harrisoned 3y ago
  This is what i mean by underlying problems. Every extremist organization lures people with manipulative tactics, and if you are not in a good state of mind to spot those, you will be caught. That's why education and knowledge about those subjects is important, so people can understand and think about them. If you never understood why they are so bad, you would rely on others to never see it on your screen.
daniel-cussen 3y ago
[dead]

SllX 3y ago

> Society should discuss if recommendation algorithms and targeted advertisement must be regulated. It is known that people have more probability of sharing content that shocks them more. We can have that discussion now: “No.” To the extent that you want to apply any law, it’s to content, not the recommendation algorithm: copyright infringing stuff[1], pornography, snuff films, and other already illegal stuff. I don’t like people like say, Tucker Carlson, their whole schtick is making themselves viral by making a very shocking mountain out of a mole hill and riling people up, but the government also has no place passing legislation against or “regulating” that. [1]: I’m setting aside my own issues with extant copyright laws for the sake of a more productive discussion on the proposed topic, but I’m not entirely happy with them either.

smt88 3y ago
> I don’t like people like say, Tucker Carlson, their whole schtick is making themselves viral by making a very shocking mountain out of a mole hill and riling people up, but the government also has no place passing legislation against or “regulating” that. You can regulate recommendation algorithms (by making them transparent, opt-in, etc.) without infringing on Carlson's right to speech. My proposed regulations would be that all automated recommendation algorithms are: 1. clearly labelled as automated (not "editor's picks" or "other people are watching," which connote social validation that may not exist) 2. opt-in (no recommendations shown unless you request them) 3. auditable (for X days after a recommendation is made, it should be possible to see each step involved in it being recommended to that user) None of these infringe on anyone's speech. They just make it harder for massive, irresponsible companies to do psychological experiments on billions of people without transparency or culpability.
- SllX 3y ago
  My concerns aren’t purely first amendment related. Some of this is just product decisions and business progresses. 1. What does this labeling get you? Taking YouTube as an example, it is basically some combination of what other people watch, what channels I Subscribe to, what’s picked out and even in those exceptional circumstances where I’m like 1 of maybe 40 views ever on a video, someone uploaded something similar to something I watched before. That’s the point of the algorithm: it takes multiple inputs, and spits them out in an automated fashion. I think most people also understand that these are machine generated recommendations, even if they might phrase it differently. So again, what does it get you? 2. Why opt-in? That’s a product decision. If you’re using the service, you’re opting into how the service functions as is, and the service provider may provide additional options for how it works beyond that, but why does the government get to make that kind of product decision? Then, if YouTube isn’t providing a list of recommendations when you load it, what are you seeing instead? Is that going to be decided by the government as well? 3. Why are users entitled to see an audit of what’s basically proprietary product information about how the website works, effectively making that information available to competitors as well? > None of these infringe on anyone's speech. They just make it harder for massive, irresponsible companies to do psychological experiments on billions of people without transparency or culpability. This experimentation is a genuine ethics concern, and also from a practical standpoint I can’t walk up to SaaS that I paid for and expect it to work the same way as I had been using it every time. I would not support your proposed remedies though, but there may be a productive route in governing psychological experimentation.