3 ms·

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 Y

by 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.

smt88 3y ago
> 1. What does this labeling get you? It tells you that the recommendation is blind and wasn't reviewed by a human. For example, much of the right-wing US media audience primarily consumes Fox News, while non-right audiences are spread across outlets. So let's say your algorithm is based on what other people view. The entire feed would be Fox (and this was a common issue with Google News before I stopped using it). A minority of people are making it look like a majority of people are consuming that media, which legitimizes it. "Google" (a legitimate company) might be pushing a conspiracy theory as the #1 trending news story. > 2. Why opt-in? That’s a product decision. All experiments should be opt-in. We don't know the effects of algorithmic recommendations, especially because they constantly evolve. > why does the government get to make that kind of product decision? Because the government's job is to make it illegal to do things that are dangerous. Why does the government get to decide that cars have published safety ratings or that food has lists of ingredients? If (for example) Facebook wants to be responsible for its algorithm's recommendations, then sure, take the government out of it. It becomes Facebook's speech, which is protected. But Facebook is hiding behind Section 230, and that should come with additional oversight and restrictions. > 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? Seeing how something worked doesn't tell you how to build it yourself. If TikTok tells me how it recommended a video to me, that information isn't nearly deterministic enough for me to reverse-engineer their algorithm. In fact, their algorithm is impossible to replicate without all of their training data (which remains proprietary). I agree that some "secrets" would be exposed, but they wouldn't be useful to a competitor. They'd be useful to consumers who want to choose the most competitive product.
- nradov 3y ago
  Facebook is not hiding behind Section 230 for their recommendation algorithm. They are hiding behind the First Amendment. By making recommendations, Facebook is expressing an opinion. US courts take a dim view of government attempts to restrict the expression of opinions. There is an extensive body of case law on this issue.
  - smt88 3y ago
    If Facebook's algorithm recommends illegal porn or a terrorist's call to arms (and it has done both), then the First Amendment doesn't protect it. Section 230 does, even though Section 230 should have been limited to the hosting and broadcast of the content (not the recommendation/endorsement of it).
    - nradov 3y ago
      Section 230 does not address recommendation algorithms at all. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/justices-section-230-punt-can-influence-social-media-harm-cases https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/justices-...
      - smt88 3y ago
        Yes, I understand. I understand Section 230 and the First Amendment. Imagine two scenarios: 1. The Meta corporate entity posts a call to arms to kill the president. It is algorithmically shown at the top of every user's feed. 2. Famous actor Tom Cruise posts a call to arms to kill the president. It is algorithmically shown at the top of every user's feed. In the first scenario, Facebook would be liable for inciting violence. In the second, it would not be. The difference is that Facebook is not responsible for anything posted by Tom Cruise. That effectively allows Facebook to "speak" with impunity as long as they use Facebook users as volunteer sockpuppets. This is only possible because of Section 230. Otherwise they'd be liable for any illegal speech on the platform, regardless of whether the algorithm spreads it or not.
abdullahkhalids 3y ago
> 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? The same reason ingredients are listed on food products, and detailed nutritional information. Governmental agencies also physically audit food factories to ensure they conform to openly available health standards. The products you sell have positive and negative impact on society, and society can choose for you to disclose exactly what's in your product or force you to limit how you make your product to limit the negative impacts.
- SllX 3y ago
  There is also a substantive difference between the proposed legislation here and the FDA's mandate: the FDA's mandate covers substances we put into our bodies in order to live and/or not die, and even their mandate only goes so far. Even then, an ingredients list doesn't tell you everything. There are cooking processes that can effect the final appeal (read: "healthiness") of the product but which do not need to be disclosed. You're going to need to give me something more than "it impacts society in some way" for the government to begin mandating product decisions, presentation and the disclosure of proprietary information. Human activity and economy doesn't occur in a vacuum, but that doesn't automatically give the government a mandate to regulate every aspect of society including all forms of business activity with a direct government interest and that's a tough sell when we're talking about voluntary services[1]. [1] Notwithstanding systems like Facebook's infamous "shadow profiles" which I am A-OK with the government axing. If you effectively have a "profile" without having a profile you created, that undermines your own agency.
  - SllX 3y ago
    > with a direct government interest Future readers! This is supposed to read “without a direct government interest” but I am only catching this well outside the edit window.

by SllX 3y ago

smt88 3y ago

> 1. What does this labeling get you? It tells you that the recommendation is blind and wasn't reviewed by a human. For example, much of the right-wing US media audience primarily consumes Fox News, while non-right audiences are spread across outlets. So let's say your algorithm is based on what other people view. The entire feed would be Fox (and this was a common issue with Google News before I stopped using it). A minority of people are making it look like a majority of people are consuming that media, which legitimizes it. "Google" (a legitimate company) might be pushing a conspiracy theory as the #1 trending news story. > 2. Why opt-in? That’s a product decision. All experiments should be opt-in. We don't know the effects of algorithmic recommendations, especially because they constantly evolve. > why does the government get to make that kind of product decision? Because the government's job is to make it illegal to do things that are dangerous. Why does the government get to decide that cars have published safety ratings or that food has lists of ingredients? If (for example) Facebook wants to be responsible for its algorithm's recommendations, then sure, take the government out of it. It becomes Facebook's speech, which is protected. But Facebook is hiding behind Section 230, and that should come with additional oversight and restrictions. > 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? Seeing how something worked doesn't tell you how to build it yourself. If TikTok tells me how it recommended a video to me, that information isn't nearly deterministic enough for me to reverse-engineer their algorithm. In fact, their algorithm is impossible to replicate without all of their training data (which remains proprietary). I agree that some "secrets" would be exposed, but they wouldn't be useful to a competitor. They'd be useful to consumers who want to choose the most competitive product.

nradov 3y ago
Facebook is not hiding behind Section 230 for their recommendation algorithm. They are hiding behind the First Amendment. By making recommendations, Facebook is expressing an opinion. US courts take a dim view of government attempts to restrict the expression of opinions. There is an extensive body of case law on this issue.
- smt88 3y ago
  If Facebook's algorithm recommends illegal porn or a terrorist's call to arms (and it has done both), then the First Amendment doesn't protect it. Section 230 does, even though Section 230 should have been limited to the hosting and broadcast of the content (not the recommendation/endorsement of it).
  - nradov 3y ago
    Section 230 does not address recommendation algorithms at all. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/justices-section-230-punt-can-influence-social-media-harm-cases https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-and-telecom-law/justices-...
    - smt88 3y ago
      Yes, I understand. I understand Section 230 and the First Amendment. Imagine two scenarios: 1. The Meta corporate entity posts a call to arms to kill the president. It is algorithmically shown at the top of every user's feed. 2. Famous actor Tom Cruise posts a call to arms to kill the president. It is algorithmically shown at the top of every user's feed. In the first scenario, Facebook would be liable for inciting violence. In the second, it would not be. The difference is that Facebook is not responsible for anything posted by Tom Cruise. That effectively allows Facebook to "speak" with impunity as long as they use Facebook users as volunteer sockpuppets. This is only possible because of Section 230. Otherwise they'd be liable for any illegal speech on the platform, regardless of whether the algorithm spreads it or not.

abdullahkhalids 3y ago

> 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? The same reason ingredients are listed on food products, and detailed nutritional information. Governmental agencies also physically audit food factories to ensure they conform to openly available health standards. The products you sell have positive and negative impact on society, and society can choose for you to disclose exactly what's in your product or force you to limit how you make your product to limit the negative impacts.

SllX 3y ago
There is also a substantive difference between the proposed legislation here and the FDA's mandate: the FDA's mandate covers substances we put into our bodies in order to live and/or not die, and even their mandate only goes so far. Even then, an ingredients list doesn't tell you everything. There are cooking processes that can effect the final appeal (read: "healthiness") of the product but which do not need to be disclosed. You're going to need to give me something more than "it impacts society in some way" for the government to begin mandating product decisions, presentation and the disclosure of proprietary information. Human activity and economy doesn't occur in a vacuum, but that doesn't automatically give the government a mandate to regulate every aspect of society including all forms of business activity with a direct government interest and that's a tough sell when we're talking about voluntary services[1]. [1] Notwithstanding systems like Facebook's infamous "shadow profiles" which I am A-OK with the government axing. If you effectively have a "profile" without having a profile you created, that undermines your own agency.
- SllX 3y ago
  > with a direct government interest Future readers! This is supposed to read “without a direct government interest” but I am only catching this well outside the edit window.