9 ms·

I saw Mark Cuban advocating for any platform which shows content to children to be required to publish their algorithm. IMO it is the most logical approach to t

I saw Mark Cuban advocating for any platform which shows content to children to be required to publish their algorithm. IMO it is the most logical approach to the entire discussion.

AlexandrB 2y ago
Why limit it to sites that show content to children?
- lupusreal 2y ago
  It makes for a more realistic proposal that is more likely to survive legal scrutiny.
dmix 2y ago
That would be great, never going to happen.
Analemma_ 2y ago
I'm not opposed to "open algorithm requirements" on social media sites, but the chattering about them is starting to remind me of back when we thought real-name requirements might fix toxic behavior online, until YouTube and Facebook implemented them and found that, no, they absolutely do not: people will happily be despicable under their real names too. It seems to me like something people are desperately grasping for in the naive hope that there's a quick-and-easy fix to the endemic problems of human nature. X/Twitter does now publish their algorithm, and it hasn't made it any less of a shithole.
- giantg2 2y ago
  I agree. Most people just want the quick and easy fix regardless of efficacy. Make them show the algorithm, some other entity will review it for you and tell you if you should be outraged or not, you continue using the site while complaining about the changes that need to happen. The most effective method is to severely limit or elimate your own (or kids) usage. But creating your own standards and standing by them seem to be out of favor these days (integrity and self control). It's all about FOMO and consumption.
vasco 2y ago
The problem is the "algorithm" should be a timestamp reverse sorted list of whoever they follow. They will make less ad money and engagement will go down because we won't be training children to become 5 second scrollers, but this doesn't seem like an issue to me.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Doing almost anything else with a “feed” should expose a company to liability for anything they elect to promote, I’d say.
- cortesoft 2y ago
  This would be a horrible experience. Do you only view hackernews through the "new" feed? Or do you prefer to view the front page that has had an "algorithm" applied. How would new content discovery happen in your proposed world?
  - biftek 2y ago
    Maybe you're too young to remember or there's some sarcasm I'm missing, but that's literally how social media sites used to work. Content discovery was word of mouth or a separate page dedicated to popular stuff.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      Ranking has been a thing since at least Slashdot. There is simply too much stuff for most people to go back to pure chronological only.
    - gunapologist99 2y ago
      > Maybe you're too young to remember An ad hominem attack doesn't seem necessary to prove your point (speaking as someone who actually is old enough to remember).
      - biftek 2y ago
nradov 2y ago
Sounds good. I'm sure the Chinese Communist Party would be entirely truthful and never "accidentally" run a different algorithm on the TikTok servers.
- digital_sawzall 2y ago
  The 'TikTok servers' are actually Oracle servers hosted in the USA.
  - gruez 2y ago
    I thought that deal fell through?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- vasco 2y ago
  Did you read Project Texas goals? I don't think there's a better way to do it. I don't know insider details but when I heard Shou Zi Chew explain it and I read the plan, I think it'd be easy for the US to have the assurances it needs.
saalweachter 2y ago
Just out of curiosity, what do people mean when they say "publish the algorithm"? A poster-sized UML diagram? A million lines of spaghetti code saying "if foo > 11.78 then bar += 2.6"? An exhaustive design document exactly specifying the entire ranking system (which absolutely does not exist at any company)? The ranking signals the algorithm operates on?
- munksbeer 2y ago
  > Just out of curiosity, what do people mean when they say "publish the algorithm"? In whatever form it takes such that a regulator can scrutinise it. If that seems arduous or impacts the social media business model, too bad. Nothing of value will have been lost. I am not typically a person who favours over regulation, even my views on AI are likely too liberal for HN, but on the matter of social media impacting children, I'm all in for regulation.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  They should have to publish everything required to independently reproduce the recommendations, given a user's inputs. If their code is spaghetti that makes this neigh impossible, that's their problem and they shouldn't be in business.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >They should have to publish everything required to independently reproduce the recommendations, given a user's inputs. So they also have to give up all their user data?
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      > given a user's inputs Meaning if I record my own inputs, I should be able to recreate the suggestions I see using the published software. This doesn't mean the inputs of other users are exposed to me, but it does imply that "the algorithm" can only use data that is either publicly exposed or is my own inputs.
biftek 2y ago
Sounds good in theory but how many people are actually qualified to interpret those algorithms? Average Joe on facebook is going to believe it does what ever Bob tells him it does.
- Intralexical 2y ago
  > Sounds good in theory but how many people are actually qualified to interpret those algorithms? Enough researchers, at enough institutions with sufficiently diverse motives, that if multiple of them identify a problem and agree about it, Joe can make a reasonably confident assessment that there's probably something there.
cortesoft 2y ago
Knowing the algorithm doesn't help much... you wouldn't know the data that is going into the algorithm, and you would have no way of proving they were actually using said algorithm.
- _factor 2y ago
  Right, if my algorithm stores weights based on recent input data, the execution path will vary.
cortesoft 2y ago
I feel like this sort of idea is one of those that sounds great until you actually start to think about it. If you publish your algorithm, you are giving interested parties the instruction manual on how to game it; spammers and propagandists can use that algorithm to make sure their content gets to the top.
- InvisGhost 2y ago
  Instruction manuals make it easy to game it but people can still game it without an instruction manual. This seems similar to the idea of security through obscurity. The same argument could be made about linux, right? Letting people see into it could make it easier for people to learn how to game the system but it could also make the system harder to game in the first place.
  - gruez 2y ago
    The "security by obscurity is bad" mentality works in cases where issues are easy to fixed when identified. Most bugs fit in this category. It's doubtful this applies to recommendation algorithms. If you know which factors are most important in making a post go viral, and a bad actor exploits this, how are you supposed prevent them from doing so?
jarjoura 2y ago
The algorithm isn’t really the problem if the content itself isn’t made accessible. The moderators could just remove content they disagree with and that’s more than enough power. The engagement ranking done to keep you hooked is probably not that interesting.

I saw Mark Cuban advocating for any platform which shows content to children to be required to publish their algorithm. IMO it is the most logical approach to the entire discussion.

AlexandrB 2y ago

Why limit it to sites that show content to children?

lupusreal 2y ago
It makes for a more realistic proposal that is more likely to survive legal scrutiny.

dmix 2y ago

That would be great, never going to happen.

Analemma_ 2y ago

I'm not opposed to "open algorithm requirements" on social media sites, but the chattering about them is starting to remind me of back when we thought real-name requirements might fix toxic behavior online, until YouTube and Facebook implemented them and found that, no, they absolutely do not: people will happily be despicable under their real names too. It seems to me like something people are desperately grasping for in the naive hope that there's a quick-and-easy fix to the endemic problems of human nature. X/Twitter does now publish their algorithm, and it hasn't made it any less of a shithole.

giantg2 2y ago
I agree. Most people just want the quick and easy fix regardless of efficacy. Make them show the algorithm, some other entity will review it for you and tell you if you should be outraged or not, you continue using the site while complaining about the changes that need to happen. The most effective method is to severely limit or elimate your own (or kids) usage. But creating your own standards and standing by them seem to be out of favor these days (integrity and self control). It's all about FOMO and consumption.

vasco 2y ago

The problem is the "algorithm" should be a timestamp reverse sorted list of whoever they follow. They will make less ad money and engagement will go down because we won't be training children to become 5 second scrollers, but this doesn't seem like an issue to me.

vundercind 2y ago
Doing almost anything else with a “feed” should expose a company to liability for anything they elect to promote, I’d say.
cortesoft 2y ago
This would be a horrible experience. Do you only view hackernews through the "new" feed? Or do you prefer to view the front page that has had an "algorithm" applied. How would new content discovery happen in your proposed world?
- biftek 2y ago
  Maybe you're too young to remember or there's some sarcasm I'm missing, but that's literally how social media sites used to work. Content discovery was word of mouth or a separate page dedicated to popular stuff.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Ranking has been a thing since at least Slashdot. There is simply too much stuff for most people to go back to pure chronological only.
  - gunapologist99 2y ago
    > Maybe you're too young to remember An ad hominem attack doesn't seem necessary to prove your point (speaking as someone who actually is old enough to remember).
    - biftek 2y ago

nradov 2y ago

Sounds good. I'm sure the Chinese Communist Party would be entirely truthful and never "accidentally" run a different algorithm on the TikTok servers.

digital_sawzall 2y ago
The 'TikTok servers' are actually Oracle servers hosted in the USA.
- gruez 2y ago
  I thought that deal fell through?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
vasco 2y ago
Did you read Project Texas goals? I don't think there's a better way to do it. I don't know insider details but when I heard Shou Zi Chew explain it and I read the plan, I think it'd be easy for the US to have the assurances it needs.

saalweachter 2y ago

Just out of curiosity, what do people mean when they say "publish the algorithm"? A poster-sized UML diagram? A million lines of spaghetti code saying "if foo > 11.78 then bar += 2.6"? An exhaustive design document exactly specifying the entire ranking system (which absolutely does not exist at any company)? The ranking signals the algorithm operates on?

munksbeer 2y ago
> Just out of curiosity, what do people mean when they say "publish the algorithm"? In whatever form it takes such that a regulator can scrutinise it. If that seems arduous or impacts the social media business model, too bad. Nothing of value will have been lost. I am not typically a person who favours over regulation, even my views on AI are likely too liberal for HN, but on the matter of social media impacting children, I'm all in for regulation.
lupusreal 2y ago
They should have to publish everything required to independently reproduce the recommendations, given a user's inputs. If their code is spaghetti that makes this neigh impossible, that's their problem and they shouldn't be in business.
- gruez 2y ago
  >They should have to publish everything required to independently reproduce the recommendations, given a user's inputs. So they also have to give up all their user data?
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    > given a user's inputs Meaning if I record my own inputs, I should be able to recreate the suggestions I see using the published software. This doesn't mean the inputs of other users are exposed to me, but it does imply that "the algorithm" can only use data that is either publicly exposed or is my own inputs.

biftek 2y ago

Sounds good in theory but how many people are actually qualified to interpret those algorithms? Average Joe on facebook is going to believe it does what ever Bob tells him it does.

Intralexical 2y ago
> Sounds good in theory but how many people are actually qualified to interpret those algorithms? Enough researchers, at enough institutions with sufficiently diverse motives, that if multiple of them identify a problem and agree about it, Joe can make a reasonably confident assessment that there's probably something there.

cortesoft 2y ago

Knowing the algorithm doesn't help much... you wouldn't know the data that is going into the algorithm, and you would have no way of proving they were actually using said algorithm.

_factor 2y ago
Right, if my algorithm stores weights based on recent input data, the execution path will vary.

cortesoft 2y ago

I feel like this sort of idea is one of those that sounds great until you actually start to think about it. If you publish your algorithm, you are giving interested parties the instruction manual on how to game it; spammers and propagandists can use that algorithm to make sure their content gets to the top.

InvisGhost 2y ago
Instruction manuals make it easy to game it but people can still game it without an instruction manual. This seems similar to the idea of security through obscurity. The same argument could be made about linux, right? Letting people see into it could make it easier for people to learn how to game the system but it could also make the system harder to game in the first place.
- gruez 2y ago
  The "security by obscurity is bad" mentality works in cases where issues are easy to fixed when identified. Most bugs fit in this category. It's doubtful this applies to recommendation algorithms. If you know which factors are most important in making a post go viral, and a bad actor exploits this, how are you supposed prevent them from doing so?

jarjoura 2y ago

The algorithm isn’t really the problem if the content itself isn’t made accessible. The moderators could just remove content they disagree with and that’s more than enough power. The engagement ranking done to keep you hooked is probably not that interesting.