4 ms·

We often make fun at stupid European regulations, like AI ones, but it is typically in such a case that it is useful. So to ensure that it could not happen when

We often make fun at stupid European regulations, like AI ones, but it is typically in such a case that it is useful. So to ensure that it could not happen when companies like that have such a monopoly that users have no power.

chao- 1y ago
Do those regulations really "ensure that [incidents like this] could not happen"? I ask this in good faith, because my observation of the last few years is that the incidents still occur, with all of the harms to individuals also occurring. Then, after N number of incidents, the company pays a fine*, and the company does not necessarily make substantive changes. Superficial changes, but not always meaningful changes that would prevent future harms to individuals. *Do these fines tend to be used to compensate the affected individuals? I am not educated on that detail, and would appreciate info from someone who is.
- philipwhiuk 1y ago
  > Do those regulations really "ensure that [incidents like this] could not happen"? Regulations never prevent stuff happening. They offer recompense when they do. Laws don't either. In terms of distribution of fines, it is rare.
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    Something prevented these services from originating in the EU to begin with. If not overregulation, what's responsible?
    - diffeomorphism 1y ago
      History, venture capital, single language market, ... . Probably a dozen different factors you could point at instead.
    - Ralfp 1y ago
      We've had services like that. But US competition employing thousands of people and churning billions in budgets killed them off.
- gmueckl 1y ago
  I don't recall the full stack of EU rwgulations in detail, but a requirement that appeal to an actual human is possible after automated decisions is in there somewhere AFAIK.
  - david_allison 1y ago
    > The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
  - nalak 1y ago
    If I were Google I would make it a point to have the human always confirm what the AI said.
    - badsectoracula 1y ago
      Why?
      - naIak 1y ago
        Because humans cost a lot of money and I don’t want to train my users to think they can get a more favourable answer by asking to have a human review the decision.
    - sidewndr46 1y ago
      That'd likely be a violation of some kind of laws, but you could probably work to have HR ensure that various teams were aligned in the goals of the operational attributes the company finds necessary to produce an an environment which maximizes the opportunities for individuals to contribute without fear of repression.
  - chao- 1y ago
    That's a good requirement to place on these services. Thanks for educating me.
epolanski 1y ago
I don't think there's any regulation that can really help here. You can't force a plumber to do business with Rita, American Airlines to accept Steve who's been super rude to the stewards on board, you can't force anybody really to do business with you. The only exception I know of, for which there is some regulation where they can't just say "no", legally, are banks. And trust me, if banks don't want you as a customer they will do everything in their power to maliciously comply to the point your account is useless and perma frozen. What is this lunacy about Google regulation about? If Google doesn't want Enderman, you can't force them to have him. I get what you really mean is regulating so companies are forced to process and communicate via non-automated, non-AI systems for whatever a, b, c issue or reason, but this doesn't change anything because of how simple and cheap is malicious compliance. All Google needs to do is "yeah, okay, we'll also review it with human", and put some intern to press a green button manually. Unless you can prove discrimination, it's their house, it's their business, they can and should do what they want. The issue is that Youtube is one of the strongest and hardest to break monopolies on the internet. It's the hardest part of the degoogling process.
- danaris 1y ago
  > If Google or any other platform doesn't want you on their platform, nobody can force them to have you. That's just not true. Up till now, no government has (to my knowledge) tried to dictate to a major American platform owner that they may not ban certain users or classes of users, but that doesn't mean that they can't. It's really not the same thing as the issue of forcing an employer to rehire an illegally-fired employee—where the employee then remains there under a cloud, because they have to continually interact with the people who wanted them gone. In 99.999% of cases, when a platform removes a user, there's zero relationship between that user and the people involved in making that decision. If Congress made a law tomorrow (laughable in the current environment, I know) that said that any public video platform provider with over X users couldn't ban anyone except for specific reasons, then YouTube would, indeed, have to keep such people on their platform.
  - epolanski 1y ago
    > That's just not true. Prove me the contrary: find me a single law that forces any business to have business with any other, regardless of them wanting to or not. I'm 100% sure nobody can force me to do business with people I don't want and if you're a professional I can't force you either to do business with me. Why would you think this would be a good law to have? Only discrimination would be a valid reason. If Google (business) doesn't want to platform a creator (another business), that's their right. Of course we can question the morale or ethics, but that's about it. > If Congress made a law tomorrow (laughable in the current environment, I know) that said that any public video platform provider with over X users couldn't ban anyone except for specific reasons, then YouTube would, indeed, have to keep such people on their platform. But such laws do not exist in pretty much any part of the world: you can't force a business (Youtube) to do business with another one (a creator). The reason why this is obviously different is because Youtube is a de facto monopoly on large parts of internet content.

chao- 1y ago

Do those regulations really "ensure that [incidents like this] could not happen"? I ask this in good faith, because my observation of the last few years is that the incidents still occur, with all of the harms to individuals also occurring. Then, after N number of incidents, the company pays a fine*, and the company does not necessarily make substantive changes. Superficial changes, but not always meaningful changes that would prevent future harms to individuals. *Do these fines tend to be used to compensate the affected individuals? I am not educated on that detail, and would appreciate info from someone who is.

philipwhiuk 1y ago
> Do those regulations really "ensure that [incidents like this] could not happen"? Regulations never prevent stuff happening. They offer recompense when they do. Laws don't either. In terms of distribution of fines, it is rare.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  Something prevented these services from originating in the EU to begin with. If not overregulation, what's responsible?
  - diffeomorphism 1y ago
    History, venture capital, single language market, ... . Probably a dozen different factors you could point at instead.
  - Ralfp 1y ago
    We've had services like that. But US competition employing thousands of people and churning billions in budgets killed them off.
gmueckl 1y ago
I don't recall the full stack of EU rwgulations in detail, but a requirement that appeal to an actual human is possible after automated decisions is in there somewhere AFAIK.
- david_allison 1y ago
  > The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
- nalak 1y ago
  If I were Google I would make it a point to have the human always confirm what the AI said.
  - badsectoracula 1y ago
    Why?
    - naIak 1y ago
      Because humans cost a lot of money and I don’t want to train my users to think they can get a more favourable answer by asking to have a human review the decision.
  - sidewndr46 1y ago
    That'd likely be a violation of some kind of laws, but you could probably work to have HR ensure that various teams were aligned in the goals of the operational attributes the company finds necessary to produce an an environment which maximizes the opportunities for individuals to contribute without fear of repression.
- chao- 1y ago
  That's a good requirement to place on these services. Thanks for educating me.

epolanski 1y ago

I don't think there's any regulation that can really help here. You can't force a plumber to do business with Rita, American Airlines to accept Steve who's been super rude to the stewards on board, you can't force anybody really to do business with you. The only exception I know of, for which there is some regulation where they can't just say "no", legally, are banks. And trust me, if banks don't want you as a customer they will do everything in their power to maliciously comply to the point your account is useless and perma frozen. What is this lunacy about Google regulation about? If Google doesn't want Enderman, you can't force them to have him. I get what you really mean is regulating so companies are forced to process and communicate via non-automated, non-AI systems for whatever a, b, c issue or reason, but this doesn't change anything because of how simple and cheap is malicious compliance. All Google needs to do is "yeah, okay, we'll also review it with human", and put some intern to press a green button manually. Unless you can prove discrimination, it's their house, it's their business, they can and should do what they want. The issue is that Youtube is one of the strongest and hardest to break monopolies on the internet. It's the hardest part of the degoogling process.

danaris 1y ago
> If Google or any other platform doesn't want you on their platform, nobody can force them to have you. That's just not true. Up till now, no government has (to my knowledge) tried to dictate to a major American platform owner that they may not ban certain users or classes of users, but that doesn't mean that they can't. It's really not the same thing as the issue of forcing an employer to rehire an illegally-fired employee—where the employee then remains there under a cloud, because they have to continually interact with the people who wanted them gone. In 99.999% of cases, when a platform removes a user, there's zero relationship between that user and the people involved in making that decision. If Congress made a law tomorrow (laughable in the current environment, I know) that said that any public video platform provider with over X users couldn't ban anyone except for specific reasons, then YouTube would, indeed, have to keep such people on their platform.
- epolanski 1y ago
  > That's just not true. Prove me the contrary: find me a single law that forces any business to have business with any other, regardless of them wanting to or not. I'm 100% sure nobody can force me to do business with people I don't want and if you're a professional I can't force you either to do business with me. Why would you think this would be a good law to have? Only discrimination would be a valid reason. If Google (business) doesn't want to platform a creator (another business), that's their right. Of course we can question the morale or ethics, but that's about it. > If Congress made a law tomorrow (laughable in the current environment, I know) that said that any public video platform provider with over X users couldn't ban anyone except for specific reasons, then YouTube would, indeed, have to keep such people on their platform. But such laws do not exist in pretty much any part of the world: you can't force a business (Youtube) to do business with another one (a creator). The reason why this is obviously different is because Youtube is a de facto monopoly on large parts of internet content.