5 ms·

Yes, you said it better than me. Fundamentally if you know a user's choices, you should be able to reproduce what that user sees.

by slg 11mo ago

Manuel_D 11mo ago
But Meta's content ranking would conform to this too: in theory a user that had the exact same friends, is a member of the exact same groups, had the exact same watch history, etc. would be served the same content. Although I'm pretty sure there's at least some degree of randomization, but putting that aside it remains unclear how you're constructing a set of criteria that does Hacker News, and plenty of other sites but not Meta.
- rafabulsing 11mo ago
  Even that, I don't think is entirely true. I'm pretty sure they use signals as implicit as how long you took to scroll past an autoplaying video, or if you even hovered your mouse pointer over the video but ultimately didn't click on it. Same with friends, even if you have the exact same friends, if you message friend A more than friend B, and this otherwise identical account does the opposite, than the recommendation engine will give you different friend-related suggestions. Then there's geolocation data, connection type/speeds, OS and browser type, account name (which, if they are real names such as on Facebook, can be used to infer age, race, etc), and many others, which can also be taken into account for further tailoring suggestions. You can say that, oh, but some automated system that sent the exact same signals on all these fronts would end up with the same recommendations, which I guess is probably true, but it's definitely not reasonable. No two (human) users would ever be able to achieve such state for any extended period of time. That's why we are arguing that only explicit individual actions should be allowed into these systems. You can maybe argue what would count as an explicit action. You mention adding friends, I don't think that should count as an explicit action for changing your content feed, but I can see that being debated. Maybe the ultimate solution could be legislation requiring that any action that influences recommendation engines to be explicitly labeled as such (similar to how advertising needs to be labeled), and maybe require at least a confirmation prompt, instead of working with a single click. Then platforms would be incentivized to ask as little as possible, as otherwise confirming every single action would become a bit vexing.
  - Manuel_D 11mo ago
    > Even that, I don't think is entirely true. I'm pretty sure they use signals as implicit as how long you took to scroll past an autoplaying video, And? These are still user's choices. They choose how long to view videos or scroll past them.
    - rafabulsing 11mo ago
      People also slow down to look at the flipped car on the side of the road. Doesn't mean you want to see more flipped cars down the road. Either way. Do you have any points other than that you think any and every action, no matter how small, is explicit, and therefore it's ok that for it to be fed into the recommendation engine? Cause that's an ok position to have, even if one I disagree with. But if that's all, I think that's as long as this conversation needs to go. But if there's any nuance I'm failing to get, or you have comments on other points I raised such as labeling of recommendation altering actions, I'm happy to hear it.
      - Manuel_D 11mo ago
        I'm mostly interested in getting concrete answers as to what people are referring to when they talk about "algorithmically served" content. This kind of phrasing is thrown around a lot, and I'm still unsure by what people are referring to by this phrase and I've rarely found people proposing fleshed out ideas as to how to define "algorithmically served content". Some people take the stance that even using view counts as part of ranking should result in a company listing section 230 protections, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46027529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46027529 You proposed an interesting framing around reproducibility of content ranking, as in two users who have the exact same watch history, liked posts, group memberships, etc. should have the same content served to them. But in subsequent responses it sounds like reproducibility isn't enough, certain actions shouldn't be used for recommendation even if it is entirely reproducible. My reading is that in your model, there are "small" actions that user take that shouldn't be used for recommendations, and presumably there are also "big" actions that are okay to use for recommendation. If that's the case, then what user actions would you permit to be used for recommendations and which ones would not be permitted to use? What are the delineation between "small" and "big" actions? Labeling is another idea but Meta does, in fact, disclaim which user actions are used for content recommendations: https://transparency.meta.com/features/ranking-and-content/ https://transparency.meta.com/features/ranking-and-content/ Basically, I still don't have a clear picture of what does and doesn't qualify as "algorithmically served" content in your model.
- slg 11mo ago
  >had the exact same watch history Watching the content that is being served to you is a passive decision. It's totally different from clicking a button that says you want to see specific content in the future. You show me something that enrages me, I might watch it, but I'll never click a button saying "show me more stuff that enrages me". It's the platform taking advantage of human psychology and that is a huge part of what I want to stop. >it remains unclear how you're constructing a set of criteria that does Hacker News, and plenty of other sites but not Meta. I already said "This will still impact HN because of stuff like the flame war downranker...". I don't know this and your reply to my other comment seem to be implying that I think HN is perfect and untouchable. My proposal would force HN to make a choice on whether to change or lose 230 protections. I'm fine with that.
  - Manuel_D 11mo ago
    It's still unclear what choice Hacker News and other sites will have to make to retain section 230 protection in your proposed solution. Again, something like counting the number of views in a video is, in your framing, not an active choice on the part of user. So simply counting views and and floating popular content to the top of a page sounds like it'd trigger loss section 230 protections.
    - slg 11mo ago
      You're making me repeat myself multiple times now. I don't know what else I can say. HN would need to rank posts by a combination of upvotes and chronology. That is how they "float popular content to the top". You don't need passive metrics like views to do that.

Yes, you said it better than me. Fundamentally if you know a user's choices, you should be able to reproduce what that user sees.

by slg 11mo ago

Yes, you said it better than me. Fundamentally if you know a user's choices, you should be able to reproduce what that user sees.

Manuel_D 11mo ago

But Meta's content ranking would conform to this too: in theory a user that had the exact same friends, is a member of the exact same groups, had the exact same watch history, etc. would be served the same content. Although I'm pretty sure there's at least some degree of randomization, but putting that aside it remains unclear how you're constructing a set of criteria that does Hacker News, and plenty of other sites but not Meta.

rafabulsing 11mo ago
Even that, I don't think is entirely true. I'm pretty sure they use signals as implicit as how long you took to scroll past an autoplaying video, or if you even hovered your mouse pointer over the video but ultimately didn't click on it. Same with friends, even if you have the exact same friends, if you message friend A more than friend B, and this otherwise identical account does the opposite, than the recommendation engine will give you different friend-related suggestions. Then there's geolocation data, connection type/speeds, OS and browser type, account name (which, if they are real names such as on Facebook, can be used to infer age, race, etc), and many others, which can also be taken into account for further tailoring suggestions. You can say that, oh, but some automated system that sent the exact same signals on all these fronts would end up with the same recommendations, which I guess is probably true, but it's definitely not reasonable. No two (human) users would ever be able to achieve such state for any extended period of time. That's why we are arguing that only explicit individual actions should be allowed into these systems. You can maybe argue what would count as an explicit action. You mention adding friends, I don't think that should count as an explicit action for changing your content feed, but I can see that being debated. Maybe the ultimate solution could be legislation requiring that any action that influences recommendation engines to be explicitly labeled as such (similar to how advertising needs to be labeled), and maybe require at least a confirmation prompt, instead of working with a single click. Then platforms would be incentivized to ask as little as possible, as otherwise confirming every single action would become a bit vexing.
- Manuel_D 11mo ago
  > Even that, I don't think is entirely true. I'm pretty sure they use signals as implicit as how long you took to scroll past an autoplaying video, And? These are still user's choices. They choose how long to view videos or scroll past them.
  - rafabulsing 11mo ago
    People also slow down to look at the flipped car on the side of the road. Doesn't mean you want to see more flipped cars down the road. Either way. Do you have any points other than that you think any and every action, no matter how small, is explicit, and therefore it's ok that for it to be fed into the recommendation engine? Cause that's an ok position to have, even if one I disagree with. But if that's all, I think that's as long as this conversation needs to go. But if there's any nuance I'm failing to get, or you have comments on other points I raised such as labeling of recommendation altering actions, I'm happy to hear it.
    - Manuel_D 11mo ago
      I'm mostly interested in getting concrete answers as to what people are referring to when they talk about "algorithmically served" content. This kind of phrasing is thrown around a lot, and I'm still unsure by what people are referring to by this phrase and I've rarely found people proposing fleshed out ideas as to how to define "algorithmically served content". Some people take the stance that even using view counts as part of ranking should result in a company listing section 230 protections, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46027529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46027529 You proposed an interesting framing around reproducibility of content ranking, as in two users who have the exact same watch history, liked posts, group memberships, etc. should have the same content served to them. But in subsequent responses it sounds like reproducibility isn't enough, certain actions shouldn't be used for recommendation even if it is entirely reproducible. My reading is that in your model, there are "small" actions that user take that shouldn't be used for recommendations, and presumably there are also "big" actions that are okay to use for recommendation. If that's the case, then what user actions would you permit to be used for recommendations and which ones would not be permitted to use? What are the delineation between "small" and "big" actions? Labeling is another idea but Meta does, in fact, disclaim which user actions are used for content recommendations: https://transparency.meta.com/features/ranking-and-content/ https://transparency.meta.com/features/ranking-and-content/ Basically, I still don't have a clear picture of what does and doesn't qualify as "algorithmically served" content in your model.
slg 11mo ago
>had the exact same watch history Watching the content that is being served to you is a passive decision. It's totally different from clicking a button that says you want to see specific content in the future. You show me something that enrages me, I might watch it, but I'll never click a button saying "show me more stuff that enrages me". It's the platform taking advantage of human psychology and that is a huge part of what I want to stop. >it remains unclear how you're constructing a set of criteria that does Hacker News, and plenty of other sites but not Meta. I already said "This will still impact HN because of stuff like the flame war downranker...". I don't know this and your reply to my other comment seem to be implying that I think HN is perfect and untouchable. My proposal would force HN to make a choice on whether to change or lose 230 protections. I'm fine with that.
- Manuel_D 11mo ago
  It's still unclear what choice Hacker News and other sites will have to make to retain section 230 protection in your proposed solution. Again, something like counting the number of views in a video is, in your framing, not an active choice on the part of user. So simply counting views and and floating popular content to the top of a page sounds like it'd trigger loss section 230 protections.
  - slg 11mo ago
    You're making me repeat myself multiple times now. I don't know what else I can say. HN would need to rank posts by a combination of upvotes and chronology. That is how they "float popular content to the top". You don't need passive metrics like views to do that.