4 ms·

There's probably a lot of politics behind this judgement that shaped it. But to a certain degree it's fair. Why would social media companies only make money fro

There's probably a lot of politics behind this judgement that shaped it. But to a certain degree it's fair. Why would social media companies only make money from what users do on their platform but be spared any accountability? Everything a user does on a social media platform is visible to the company and is monetized. Is any other sector spared any accountability when they know the customer is breaking the law? This will be expensive for the company because they have to not just moderate, but do it under a patchwork of different countries' laws. But they were more than happy to make bank for years from this, put all that money to good use. It will also create some opportunity for abuse but then again so is allowing anything and everything on the platform.

FirmwareBurner 1y ago
>Why would social media companies only make money from what users do on their platform but be spared any accountability? Here's the thing that confuses me. In every country I know, TV and radio stations are liable for the content they broadcast. Both in terms of programs and also ads. I've seen several fines being issued for such breaches, and my country is very liberal and loosely regulated here. So then why do we let social media broadcast whatever poison they want, plus all those scammy and predatory ads to people and get away with it? That's how big-tech social media oligarchies got so insanely rich compared to brick and mortar businesses. All the scale of the global internet, with none of the liability. Maybe it's time to change that?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  There is a legitimate argument social media can for being treated differently given their content is user generated. But that argument falls to pieces given algorithmic boosting, which is clearly an editorial slant.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >as its content is user generated Content on TV stations is also mostly third party generated. Channel 5 didn't make The Punisher, they bought the rights to play it on air. Radio 2 didn't make In da Club, but 50 Cent did, they're just playing it on air. Newspapers also publish letters and content from readers, yet unlike social media they're the ones responsible for that content. Because in many countries, content is age restricted per times of day, so the TV and radio statins need to edit the songs and movies they play to cut out various swear words, violence and sex scenes if they want to air to to general audiences, otherwise they get fined. So why are social media companies allowed to wreak havok?
    - diggan 1y ago
      That's highlighting the difference, TV stations actively chose what to show, defaulting to rejecting. Social media is the opposite, kind of makes sense to have different rules.
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        >Social media is the opposite Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue. If they don't want to be responsible for what they show to users, maybe they should leave all that ad money on the table, but it seems like they have no moral issues cashing those cheques while outsourcing their externalities to society. It's not like Meta is scrambling for change between the couch cushions and can't invest in better human plus bot moderation and curation. But then Zuck will only be able to afford a gold trim on his yacht instead of the platinum one, and a smaller island. Oh no, how sad, how terrible. So tell me again, why do we have double standards for super wealthy social media oligopolies compared to traditional mediums?
        diggan 1y ago
        > Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue. That's not true, Bluesky has "chose your own algorithm" and Mastodon even less, it's just in chronological order (or "chose your own client"), and lots of other social media sites that don't have algorithms that decide what you're seeing. Classic web forums (which I'd call social media too) also typically show content in chronological order.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        With LLMs, the solution seems simple: the utility provides your device with a fire hose. And your agent, the author of which has some liability for what it shows you, curates it. If the company providing the fire hose also wants to supply the agent, or even lock its users into its own agent, that sums up who’s responsible.
  - BugheadTorpeda6 1y ago
    Yep, just another reason they should be held liable the same as everybody else.
  - orbisvicis 1y ago
    Think about how this would apply to hacker news? Not all algorithmic bias is evil. If you want to avoid an echo chamber, design an algorithm to boost interesting content that missed the front page. That shouldn't render you vulnerable to legislation. And would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies... I think the line should be drawn at ads... and maybe even all profit centers of social media companies.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > how this would apply to hacker news? HN features group-based passive moderation based on well-communicated rules. And active moderation based on a fuzzier standard. The latter is absolutely an editorial standard. > would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair. Where this current ruling is ambiguous is in being totally non-specific about how it should be complied with.
      - orbisvicis 1y ago
        > The latter is absolutely an editorial standard. It is the editorial standard of the community not the company. It seems that this law would pit the company against the community at the behest of the local state. Whereas I suggest removing bias introduced by and benefiting the company (ads). This legislation forces the company to introduce additional bias which, though not financial, benefits the company legally. > If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair. To clarify, it would be fair for hackernews to be sued for failing to remove or geoblock such content? Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet? The cesspit of social media is due to forced bias and the solution is to introduce more bias?
        1y ago
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    Depends on what you mean by "algorithmic boosting". If you mean, "this user viewed A, B, and C. Other users who viewed them also viewed D; let's show D to this user", then no, that's not an editorial slant or an editorial choice. That's an unbiased algorithm driven by users' choices. If you mean, "Let's identify posts that are related to position Y on subject Z, and boost them extra", then yes, I agree that is an editorial slant. My impression is that, when people talk about "editorial control", they usually include the first kind, not just the second. So: How much of the second kind is going on? More than none, I agree, but how much? Does anyone have data? If not, then we're left with impressions, and my impression is that it's fairly small. (Rather, that it's a quite small number of topics, but since it's probably fairly popular topics it may still amount to a fair number of user impressions.)
  - saynay 1y ago
    "Algorithmic boosting" is not (always?) the same as an editorial slant. Promoting the post with the longest title would be an "algorithmic boost", but clearly not editorial in any way. The most common forms of algorithms are just a function of the number of times people viewed it weighted against the age of the post; there is still no editorial slant there. Even recommendations algorithms like YouTube are mostly the same, with an additional weight based on how likely others who watched the same things as you were to view that video.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > "Algorithmic boosting" is not (always?) the same as an editorial slant I'd argue any algorithmic prioritisation whose rules are not made public, or where discretion is applied, constittues editorial slant. It's why I'd argue HN up/down voting (even flagging) is not editorial slant, while e.g. @dang removing a post is.
- phantomathkg 1y ago
  are you and GP are saying that all social media platform should perform policing to the point that everything outlaw in every countries should be banned?
  - mlinhares 1y ago
    yes, that's how the law works, social media platforms can't show nazi content in germany cos that's the law there. they're perfectly fine doing it.
    - logicchains 1y ago
      Germany is a country without freedom of speech, where people can be fined for criticising politicians online. It's not something anyone should be aiming to emulate.
      - matheusmoreira 1y ago
        > where people can be fined for criticising politicians online Brazil has flirted with that sort of tyranny as well. This is what this is all about. Censorship of political "fake news" that harms the ruling party. They decide what's fake, of course.
      - mlinhares 1y ago
        That is up for Germans to decide, not foreign social media platforms.
        ty6853 1y ago
        Disagree, freedom of speech is a natural right.
        FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        Here's the thing, Germans don't get to make that choice, their politicians do it for them. Sure, you can vote on some politicians, but what do you do when freedom of speech is not on anyone's menu as they all share different views than you on what freedom of speech is? Having something like the First Amendment in the constitution means no politician can fuck with your freedom of speech too much. It's one of the things that makes the US the longest running democracy to date.
- saynay 1y ago
  This isn't entirely true in all cases. Consider something like a live broadcast of a sporting event. If some streaker runs naked across the field, are the stations held to account? That is, in a way, similar to the problem of user-generated content. There is a limit to how much control a social media company will be able to have over the actions of its users. Unless you replace the system entirely with one where all posts are manually approved by a person before they go up, you will need to have at least some reduced liability for the platform owner.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >If some streaker runs naked across the field, are the stations held to account? If they made no reasonable attempts to move the camera away or cut the feed to something else, yes absolutely they are held accountable. That's why you have TV directors in the studio. Do you think you can get away with lengthy broadcasting of obscene nudity just because you're live? Have you seen major sporting events like F1? Their broadcasting rooms look like NASA, dozens of people looking as several camera feeds simultaneously and picking the best one. They'll definitely see a naked man running on the field with his junk out in due time and not share that feed. I assume it's the same for FIFA, NFL, NBA, NHL, Golf, Tennis, Cricket and any other major sporting event.
    - saynay 1y ago
      Of course, but that was my point. Even in traditional media, exceptions are made for factors outside the control of the publisher. User-generated content is, by definition, outside the control of the platform so there should be at least some exceptions made for it. Some mix of filtering, moderation, and content flagging are its form of "reasonable attempts" to moderate the platform.
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
> Everything a user does on a social media platform is visible to the company and is monetized. Well, it's visible to the computers. It's potentially visible to a human, but no company has humans actually reading all that content. And no, an AI is not adequate to filter it, either.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

>Why would social media companies only make money from what users do on their platform but be spared any accountability? Here's the thing that confuses me. In every country I know, TV and radio stations are liable for the content they broadcast. Both in terms of programs and also ads. I've seen several fines being issued for such breaches, and my country is very liberal and loosely regulated here. So then why do we let social media broadcast whatever poison they want, plus all those scammy and predatory ads to people and get away with it? That's how big-tech social media oligarchies got so insanely rich compared to brick and mortar businesses. All the scale of the global internet, with none of the liability. Maybe it's time to change that?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
There is a legitimate argument social media can for being treated differently given their content is user generated. But that argument falls to pieces given algorithmic boosting, which is clearly an editorial slant.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >as its content is user generated Content on TV stations is also mostly third party generated. Channel 5 didn't make The Punisher, they bought the rights to play it on air. Radio 2 didn't make In da Club, but 50 Cent did, they're just playing it on air. Newspapers also publish letters and content from readers, yet unlike social media they're the ones responsible for that content. Because in many countries, content is age restricted per times of day, so the TV and radio statins need to edit the songs and movies they play to cut out various swear words, violence and sex scenes if they want to air to to general audiences, otherwise they get fined. So why are social media companies allowed to wreak havok?
  - diggan 1y ago
    That's highlighting the difference, TV stations actively chose what to show, defaulting to rejecting. Social media is the opposite, kind of makes sense to have different rules.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >Social media is the opposite Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue. If they don't want to be responsible for what they show to users, maybe they should leave all that ad money on the table, but it seems like they have no moral issues cashing those cheques while outsourcing their externalities to society. It's not like Meta is scrambling for change between the couch cushions and can't invest in better human plus bot moderation and curation. But then Zuck will only be able to afford a gold trim on his yacht instead of the platinum one, and a smaller island. Oh no, how sad, how terrible. So tell me again, why do we have double standards for super wealthy social media oligopolies compared to traditional mediums?
      - diggan 1y ago
        > Disagree here, all social media platforms have "the algorithm" which chooses what to show and to who, in order o maximize engagement and ad revenue. That's not true, Bluesky has "chose your own algorithm" and Mastodon even less, it's just in chronological order (or "chose your own client"), and lots of other social media sites that don't have algorithms that decide what you're seeing. Classic web forums (which I'd call social media too) also typically show content in chronological order.
        JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        With LLMs, the solution seems simple: the utility provides your device with a fire hose. And your agent, the author of which has some liability for what it shows you, curates it. If the company providing the fire hose also wants to supply the agent, or even lock its users into its own agent, that sums up who’s responsible.
- BugheadTorpeda6 1y ago
  Yep, just another reason they should be held liable the same as everybody else.
- orbisvicis 1y ago
  Think about how this would apply to hacker news? Not all algorithmic bias is evil. If you want to avoid an echo chamber, design an algorithm to boost interesting content that missed the front page. That shouldn't render you vulnerable to legislation. And would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies... I think the line should be drawn at ads... and maybe even all profit centers of social media companies.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > how this would apply to hacker news? HN features group-based passive moderation based on well-communicated rules. And active moderation based on a fuzzier standard. The latter is absolutely an editorial standard. > would this allow Brazil to prosecute hacker news for cyber security violations if a user posts content regarding Flipper Zero or Japanese IC cards, or data breaches of Brazilian companies If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair. Where this current ruling is ambiguous is in being totally non-specific about how it should be complied with.
    - orbisvicis 1y ago
      > The latter is absolutely an editorial standard. It is the editorial standard of the community not the company. It seems that this law would pit the company against the community at the behest of the local state. Whereas I suggest removing bias introduced by and benefiting the company (ads). This legislation forces the company to introduce additional bias which, though not financial, benefits the company legally. > If it were posted here, moderators were notified and they chose not to flag (or geoblock) it, yes, I think that’s not totally unfair. To clarify, it would be fair for hackernews to be sued for failing to remove or geoblock such content? Doesn't this in essence balkanize international communities and defeat the spirit of the Internet? The cesspit of social media is due to forced bias and the solution is to introduce more bias?
      - 1y ago
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  Depends on what you mean by "algorithmic boosting". If you mean, "this user viewed A, B, and C. Other users who viewed them also viewed D; let's show D to this user", then no, that's not an editorial slant or an editorial choice. That's an unbiased algorithm driven by users' choices. If you mean, "Let's identify posts that are related to position Y on subject Z, and boost them extra", then yes, I agree that is an editorial slant. My impression is that, when people talk about "editorial control", they usually include the first kind, not just the second. So: How much of the second kind is going on? More than none, I agree, but how much? Does anyone have data? If not, then we're left with impressions, and my impression is that it's fairly small. (Rather, that it's a quite small number of topics, but since it's probably fairly popular topics it may still amount to a fair number of user impressions.)
- saynay 1y ago
  "Algorithmic boosting" is not (always?) the same as an editorial slant. Promoting the post with the longest title would be an "algorithmic boost", but clearly not editorial in any way. The most common forms of algorithms are just a function of the number of times people viewed it weighted against the age of the post; there is still no editorial slant there. Even recommendations algorithms like YouTube are mostly the same, with an additional weight based on how likely others who watched the same things as you were to view that video.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > "Algorithmic boosting" is not (always?) the same as an editorial slant I'd argue any algorithmic prioritisation whose rules are not made public, or where discretion is applied, constittues editorial slant. It's why I'd argue HN up/down voting (even flagging) is not editorial slant, while e.g. @dang removing a post is.
phantomathkg 1y ago
are you and GP are saying that all social media platform should perform policing to the point that everything outlaw in every countries should be banned?
- mlinhares 1y ago
  yes, that's how the law works, social media platforms can't show nazi content in germany cos that's the law there. they're perfectly fine doing it.
  - logicchains 1y ago
    Germany is a country without freedom of speech, where people can be fined for criticising politicians online. It's not something anyone should be aiming to emulate.
    - matheusmoreira 1y ago
      > where people can be fined for criticising politicians online Brazil has flirted with that sort of tyranny as well. This is what this is all about. Censorship of political "fake news" that harms the ruling party. They decide what's fake, of course.
    - mlinhares 1y ago
      That is up for Germans to decide, not foreign social media platforms.
      - ty6853 1y ago
        Disagree, freedom of speech is a natural right.
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        Here's the thing, Germans don't get to make that choice, their politicians do it for them. Sure, you can vote on some politicians, but what do you do when freedom of speech is not on anyone's menu as they all share different views than you on what freedom of speech is? Having something like the First Amendment in the constitution means no politician can fuck with your freedom of speech too much. It's one of the things that makes the US the longest running democracy to date.
saynay 1y ago
This isn't entirely true in all cases. Consider something like a live broadcast of a sporting event. If some streaker runs naked across the field, are the stations held to account? That is, in a way, similar to the problem of user-generated content. There is a limit to how much control a social media company will be able to have over the actions of its users. Unless you replace the system entirely with one where all posts are manually approved by a person before they go up, you will need to have at least some reduced liability for the platform owner.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  >If some streaker runs naked across the field, are the stations held to account? If they made no reasonable attempts to move the camera away or cut the feed to something else, yes absolutely they are held accountable. That's why you have TV directors in the studio. Do you think you can get away with lengthy broadcasting of obscene nudity just because you're live? Have you seen major sporting events like F1? Their broadcasting rooms look like NASA, dozens of people looking as several camera feeds simultaneously and picking the best one. They'll definitely see a naked man running on the field with his junk out in due time and not share that feed. I assume it's the same for FIFA, NFL, NBA, NHL, Golf, Tennis, Cricket and any other major sporting event.
  - saynay 1y ago
    Of course, but that was my point. Even in traditional media, exceptions are made for factors outside the control of the publisher. User-generated content is, by definition, outside the control of the platform so there should be at least some exceptions made for it. Some mix of filtering, moderation, and content flagging are its form of "reasonable attempts" to moderate the platform.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

> Everything a user does on a social media platform is visible to the company and is monetized. Well, it's visible to the computers. It's potentially visible to a human, but no company has humans actually reading all that content. And no, an AI is not adequate to filter it, either.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]