3 ms·

> Addictive feeds, or algorithmically driven feeds, facilitate unhealthy levels of social media use. This legislation will require social media companies to res

by tqi 2y ago

> Addictive feeds, or algorithmically driven feeds, facilitate unhealthy levels of social media use. This legislation will require social media companies to restrict addictive feeds on their platforms for users under 18. Unless parental consent is granted, users under 18 will not receive addictive feeds. Notably, the SAFE for Kids Act is the first bill of its kind to be signed into law in any state across the nation. What is an "algorithmically driven feed"? Does sorting by most commented, most upvoted, or most viewed count? Does Hackernews count as social media, and will it now require age verification / parental consent?

newzisforsukas 2y ago
> Despite numerous exceptions, an “addictive feed” is a platform where multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users are recommended, selected, or prioritized based on user-related information. From: https://www.hinshawlaw.com/newsroom-updates-pcad-new-york-child-privacy-protection-bills.html https://www.hinshawlaw.com/newsroom-updates-pcad-new-york-ch...
1propionyl 2y ago
The term "algorithmic" in this context is frustratingly, but obviously, not the general CS usage. What's meant, more or less, as indicated by the "addictive", are feeds that: 1. Optimize for user engagement. 2. Are opaque to the user. 3. Are not controlled by the user. A sort by a field does not constitute such an "algorithm". One might argue that even having a default to sort by "most views" or "popularity" is a gray zone, but I'd say they differ per #2/3 in that the data used to order the items are completely visible to the user, and they are making an affirmative choice to sort by that data. I would prefer the use of terminology such as "metric-driven/metric-independent", "user-opaque/user-transparent" and "user-controlled/service-controlled". I would also prefer we refer to "predictive models" rather than algorithms, as that immediately implies the presence of some likelihood/metric being optimized for (by the service, not the user) in an almost certainly opaque or incomprehensible way. That said, I think for now we're stuck with "algorithm" having a very overloaded lay definition and just have to play ball rather than split hairs. There's too much at stake.
Aloisius 2y ago
The law appears to be limited to feeds that are personalized based on user/device information or interactions, with various exceptions for things like explicit subscriptions, search results and more. Based on the language, it kind of looks like it might apply to sites like Amazon though since users do upload content and there are personalized recommendations that are core to the site. https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S7694A https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S7694A
xg15 2y ago
Trying to deconstruct some relatively obvious everyday term into nothingness to somehow evade its definition seems to be the standard counter strategy of tech against any kind of regulation by now...
- tqi 2y ago
  And "I know it when I see it" is the go-to rationale of people who merely want to arbitrarily ban stuff they don't personally enjoy.
jcranmer 2y ago
There's a definition in the law of "addictive feed" that (cleaning up some of the obtuse terminology) boils down to: "user-generated content, sorted or displayed in any user-specific manner except if that manner is one of the following: * transient and not based on user's interaction with content * an accessibility option * user's subscribed list (assuming that subsort/subfiltering also independently complies with these rules) * user's follow or block list (again assuming subsort/subfiltering also independently complies) * DMs * response to a search query * author's explicit ordering for content * anything we the state make you do" By my reading, HN qualifies, as does any site that has a "threads you replied to" page, because it doesn't quite fit any of the categories (although there is an argument that it's a "response to a specific search inquiry).
- sseagull 2y ago
  The law largely says that the “addictive feed” is ordered based on some trait of the user. The part of the definition: “display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device” So HN wouldn’t qualify, as the ordering is independent of the user.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    The posts you have made is information "associated with the user", is it not? The fact of the matter is that there is a link on this page called "threads" that, if I click it, gives me a different result than if you were to click it. The result of that difference is a different list of user-generated posts... so it seems to me that it absolutely qualifies the preamble of the definition, and it's not clear to me that it satisfies any of the exceptions.
    - sseagull 2y ago
      But the posts on HN are not re-ordered according to the user. It’s about prioritizing or recommending, not just “there’s a difference”. IMO the “threads” would fall under the exceptions of (f) the media are recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user Or maybe (g) the media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a pre-existing sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source;
yieldcrv 2y ago
I think the state could offer harm reduction programs to adults, in these initiatives I hear so many people either lamenting or criticizing children’s behaviors, not knowing they themselves are affected the same way Take an in person community college class and see for yourself. Many of us will be wishing we had a fidget spinner too
oliwarner 2y ago
HN isn't personalised. I'm not sure if that's how this law is defined but it feels fairly easy to see the difference between an aggregator like HN and a bottomless feed designed to exploit my previous activity.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
The term "algorithmically driven feed" is not used in the statute. It uses the term "addictive feed". This term is defined in the statute. Section 1500(1): "Addictive feed" shall mean a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, either concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another: ..." Is sorting by most commented, most upvoted or most viewed "based on information associated with the user or the user's device"? The answer should be self-evident. Whether HN "counts as social media" is irrelevant if it is not an "addictive social media platform", another term defined in the statute. Under that definition, if a website does not offer an "addictive feed" then it is not an "addictive social media platform".

by tqi 2y ago

newzisforsukas 2y ago

> Despite numerous exceptions, an “addictive feed” is a platform where multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users are recommended, selected, or prioritized based on user-related information. From: https://www.hinshawlaw.com/newsroom-updates-pcad-new-york-child-privacy-protection-bills.html https://www.hinshawlaw.com/newsroom-updates-pcad-new-york-ch...

1propionyl 2y ago

The term "algorithmic" in this context is frustratingly, but obviously, not the general CS usage. What's meant, more or less, as indicated by the "addictive", are feeds that: 1. Optimize for user engagement. 2. Are opaque to the user. 3. Are not controlled by the user. A sort by a field does not constitute such an "algorithm". One might argue that even having a default to sort by "most views" or "popularity" is a gray zone, but I'd say they differ per #2/3 in that the data used to order the items are completely visible to the user, and they are making an affirmative choice to sort by that data. I would prefer the use of terminology such as "metric-driven/metric-independent", "user-opaque/user-transparent" and "user-controlled/service-controlled". I would also prefer we refer to "predictive models" rather than algorithms, as that immediately implies the presence of some likelihood/metric being optimized for (by the service, not the user) in an almost certainly opaque or incomprehensible way. That said, I think for now we're stuck with "algorithm" having a very overloaded lay definition and just have to play ball rather than split hairs. There's too much at stake.

Aloisius 2y ago

The law appears to be limited to feeds that are personalized based on user/device information or interactions, with various exceptions for things like explicit subscriptions, search results and more. Based on the language, it kind of looks like it might apply to sites like Amazon though since users do upload content and there are personalized recommendations that are core to the site. https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S7694A https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2023/S7694A

xg15 2y ago

Trying to deconstruct some relatively obvious everyday term into nothingness to somehow evade its definition seems to be the standard counter strategy of tech against any kind of regulation by now...

tqi 2y ago
And "I know it when I see it" is the go-to rationale of people who merely want to arbitrarily ban stuff they don't personally enjoy.

jcranmer 2y ago

There's a definition in the law of "addictive feed" that (cleaning up some of the obtuse terminology) boils down to: "user-generated content, sorted or displayed in any user-specific manner except if that manner is one of the following: * transient and not based on user's interaction with content * an accessibility option * user's subscribed list (assuming that subsort/subfiltering also independently complies with these rules) * user's follow or block list (again assuming subsort/subfiltering also independently complies) * DMs * response to a search query * author's explicit ordering for content * anything we the state make you do" By my reading, HN qualifies, as does any site that has a "threads you replied to" page, because it doesn't quite fit any of the categories (although there is an argument that it's a "response to a specific search inquiry).

sseagull 2y ago
The law largely says that the “addictive feed” is ordered based on some trait of the user. The part of the definition: “display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device” So HN wouldn’t qualify, as the ordering is independent of the user.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  The posts you have made is information "associated with the user", is it not? The fact of the matter is that there is a link on this page called "threads" that, if I click it, gives me a different result than if you were to click it. The result of that difference is a different list of user-generated posts... so it seems to me that it absolutely qualifies the preamble of the definition, and it's not clear to me that it satisfies any of the exceptions.
  - sseagull 2y ago
    But the posts on HN are not re-ordered according to the user. It’s about prioritizing or recommending, not just “there’s a difference”. IMO the “threads” would fall under the exceptions of (f) the media are recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user Or maybe (g) the media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a pre-existing sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source;

yieldcrv 2y ago

I think the state could offer harm reduction programs to adults, in these initiatives I hear so many people either lamenting or criticizing children’s behaviors, not knowing they themselves are affected the same way Take an in person community college class and see for yourself. Many of us will be wishing we had a fidget spinner too

oliwarner 2y ago

HN isn't personalised. I'm not sure if that's how this law is defined but it feels fairly easy to see the difference between an aggregator like HN and a bottomless feed designed to exploit my previous activity.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

The term "algorithmically driven feed" is not used in the statute. It uses the term "addictive feed". This term is defined in the statute. Section 1500(1): "Addictive feed" shall mean a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, either concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another: ..." Is sorting by most commented, most upvoted or most viewed "based on information associated with the user or the user's device"? The answer should be self-evident. Whether HN "counts as social media" is irrelevant if it is not an "addictive social media platform", another term defined in the statute. Under that definition, if a website does not offer an "addictive feed" then it is not an "addictive social media platform".