4 ms·

"What do we do about it?" Shut down the behavior with regulations or shut down the companies. Meta and TikTok have no natural right to exist if they are a net

by munk-a 7mo ago

"What do we do about it?" Shut down the behavior with regulations or shut down the companies. Meta and TikTok have no natural right to exist if they are a net negative to society.

bdangubic 7mo ago
regulation will never happen because these are instruments to control the masses
- autoexec 7mo ago
  All the more reason for regulation. If people catch on to the fact that they are being manipulated and abused by the platforms to "drive engagement" they might abandon them or spend less time on them. If the government regulates these platforms so that they are safer or at least less harmful people will feel better about using them giving the government a larger platform to use to control the masses.
  - bdangubic 7mo ago
    > If people catch on to the fact that they are being manipulated and abused by the platforms I am not trying to be funny or anything but this sounds like "if only fat kid realized that eating 10 apple pies before bedtime might be the reason s/he is fat" We already know what social media platforms are doing, not to just young people but to all people. > If the government regulates these platforms This is like saying "congressman care about our debt so they will vote to reduce their own salaries by 90%" - the government is not going to regulate tools they are using to control the narrative/masses etc...
diacritical 7mo ago
Regulating content that makes people enraged seems like a slippery slide towards regulating any kind of "unwanted" speech. I get regulating CSAM, calls for violence or really obvious bullying (serious ones like "kill yourself" to a kid), but regulating algorithms that show rage bait leaves a lot of judgement to the regulators. Obviously I don't trust TikTok or Meta at all, but I don't trust the current or the future governments with this much power. For example, some teen got radicalized with racist and sexist content. That's bad in my opinion, as I'm not a racist or a sexist. But should racist or sexist speech be censored or regulated? On what grounds? How do we know other unpopular (now or in the future) speech won't be censored or regulated in the future? Again, as much as I'm not a racist or sexist, I don't think the government should have a say in whether a company should be able to promote speech like "whites/blacks are X" or "men/women are Y". What's next? Should we regulate speech about religion (Christians/Muslims/atheists are Z) or ethics (anti-war people or vegans are Q) or politics or drugs or sex? The current situation is shitty, but giving too much power to regulators will likely make it way shittier. If not now, in the future, since passed regulations are rarely removed.
- fc417fc802 7mo ago
  At least in the US the government can't regulate speech (for the most part). But what we could do is regulate recommendation algorithms or other aspects of the overall design in a way that's generalized enough to be neutral in regards to any particular speech. And such regulations don't need to apply to any entity below some MAU or other metric. Even just mandating interoperability would likely do since that would open up the floor to competitors. Many users are well aware of the issues but don't feel they have a viable alternative that satisfies their goals.
  - diacritical 7mo ago
    In theory I'm OK (kinda) with regulating the "overall design" somehow, but I don't see how it's going to work. Forced interoperability is a (very?) good idea, as it's really general, but it also doesn't address directly what the article and most comments talk about - the rage bait. I just can't imagine regulations (or "laws" or whatever the correct term is) that deal specifically with the algos that push rage bait that can't be later abused, if passed, to deal with other unpopular speech. And it seems like people want some laws to directly deal with that - the bad types of speech or algos themselves. To clarify, I use "rage bait" as an example phrase, but it includes algos that only promote engagement at any cost and other things that aren't outright dangerous, but we think are dangerous. Not, like I said, CSAM or yelling FIRE or telling people to kill themselves.
    - fc417fc802 7mo ago
      Interoperability sidesteps the issue by giving users the choice of which algorithm (or algorithm provider) to use. The majority might or might not agree with that approach - for example obviously tobacco has not been left purely to the individual's judgment in the west. Agreed, you can't regulate speech in a targeted manner while also not doing so. You're forced to find some common aspect much more general than "rage bait". Perhaps prohibiting the targeting of certain metrics? Or even prohibiting their collection in the first place.
      - 7mo ago
zzzeek 7mo ago
oddly enough the TikTok referred to here was to be shut down in the US. But then the executive branch ignored the law while it could organize handing the company over to Larry Ellison instead. But these allegations date to when the company was fully under the control of ByteDance, and not US-regulated entities at all.
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  > oddly enough the TikTok referred to here was to be shut down in the US. But then the executive branch ignored the law while it could organize handing the company over to Larry Ellison instead Which should make people think twice when they call for government regulation on speech as a solution to content they don't want other people to see. The more you give the government power to control speech, the more they'll use those laws to further their own interests.
slg 7mo ago
Specifically, I believe Section 230 protections shouldn't apply to algorithmicly promoted content. TikTok hosting my video isn't inherently an endorsement of what I'm saying, but proactively pushing that video to people is functionally equivalent even if you want to quible over dictionary definitions. These algorithms take these platforms from dumb content-agnostic pipes that deserve protections to editorial enterprises that should bear responsibility for what they promote.
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  How would you square that with a site like Hacker News, which has algorithms for showing user-submitted links and user-generated comments?
  - slg 7mo ago
    Listing content alphabetically or chronologically is technically an "algorithm" too. What I'm specifically challenging here is the personalized algorithm designed to keep individual users on the platform based off a user profile influenced by countless active and passive choices the user has made over time. The type of HN algorithm that serves the same content to every user based off global behavior is fine in my book because it is both less exploitative of the user base and a reflection of that user base's proactive decisions in upvoting/downvoting content.
    - Aurornis 7mo ago
      So if HN added anything personalized, like allowing you to show fewer stories on topics you dislike, it would lose protection? I can't get on board with that. I also think it would be extremely unpopular. People like their recommendation engines. They want Netflix to show them more similar shows. They want Reddit to help them find more similar subreddits. I know there are HN users who don't want any of these recommendation engines, but on the whole people actually want them.
      - levkk 7mo ago
cryptoegorophy 7mo ago
Wouldn’t we need to shut down all news outlets, all the twitters and all the newspapers then? They might not be on the toxic spectrum as meta/tiktok, but are very close
- Aurornis 7mo ago
  There are people in this thread directly calling for us to strip protections from search engines and force them to shut down. I think a lot of this discussion has become detached from reality and we’re just entertaining some people’s impossible fantasies about shutting down the internet and returning to the past.
  - dmix 7mo ago
    Human instinct is always to ban and fight everything as soon as any change happens in society. The same biological motivation to doomscroll fuels our instincts to panic and doompost about how society is ruined unless we do [brash action].
sandworm101 7mo ago
>> Meta and TikTok have no natural right to exist if they are a net negative to society. Exactly. And when we are done with them we will shut down Molson and Anheuser-Busch. Then we can go after the people who make selfy sticks. Then the company that owns that truck that cut me off last week. Basically, organization who i dislike should not be allowed to exist.
aaron695 7mo ago
[dead]
ronnier 7mo ago
Then we'll just use the Chinese apps. Or do you plan on shutting down our access to Chinese apps too?
- anonymars 7mo ago
  Like TikTok?
rkagerer 7mo ago
"What do we do about it" Account --> Delete

by munk-a 7mo ago

"What do we do about it?" Shut down the behavior with regulations or shut down the companies. Meta and TikTok have no natural right to exist if they are a net negative to society.

bdangubic 7mo ago

regulation will never happen because these are instruments to control the masses

autoexec 7mo ago
All the more reason for regulation. If people catch on to the fact that they are being manipulated and abused by the platforms to "drive engagement" they might abandon them or spend less time on them. If the government regulates these platforms so that they are safer or at least less harmful people will feel better about using them giving the government a larger platform to use to control the masses.
- bdangubic 7mo ago
  > If people catch on to the fact that they are being manipulated and abused by the platforms I am not trying to be funny or anything but this sounds like "if only fat kid realized that eating 10 apple pies before bedtime might be the reason s/he is fat" We already know what social media platforms are doing, not to just young people but to all people. > If the government regulates these platforms This is like saying "congressman care about our debt so they will vote to reduce their own salaries by 90%" - the government is not going to regulate tools they are using to control the narrative/masses etc...

diacritical 7mo ago

Regulating content that makes people enraged seems like a slippery slide towards regulating any kind of "unwanted" speech. I get regulating CSAM, calls for violence or really obvious bullying (serious ones like "kill yourself" to a kid), but regulating algorithms that show rage bait leaves a lot of judgement to the regulators. Obviously I don't trust TikTok or Meta at all, but I don't trust the current or the future governments with this much power. For example, some teen got radicalized with racist and sexist content. That's bad in my opinion, as I'm not a racist or a sexist. But should racist or sexist speech be censored or regulated? On what grounds? How do we know other unpopular (now or in the future) speech won't be censored or regulated in the future? Again, as much as I'm not a racist or sexist, I don't think the government should have a say in whether a company should be able to promote speech like "whites/blacks are X" or "men/women are Y". What's next? Should we regulate speech about religion (Christians/Muslims/atheists are Z) or ethics (anti-war people or vegans are Q) or politics or drugs or sex? The current situation is shitty, but giving too much power to regulators will likely make it way shittier. If not now, in the future, since passed regulations are rarely removed.

fc417fc802 7mo ago
At least in the US the government can't regulate speech (for the most part). But what we could do is regulate recommendation algorithms or other aspects of the overall design in a way that's generalized enough to be neutral in regards to any particular speech. And such regulations don't need to apply to any entity below some MAU or other metric. Even just mandating interoperability would likely do since that would open up the floor to competitors. Many users are well aware of the issues but don't feel they have a viable alternative that satisfies their goals.
- diacritical 7mo ago
  In theory I'm OK (kinda) with regulating the "overall design" somehow, but I don't see how it's going to work. Forced interoperability is a (very?) good idea, as it's really general, but it also doesn't address directly what the article and most comments talk about - the rage bait. I just can't imagine regulations (or "laws" or whatever the correct term is) that deal specifically with the algos that push rage bait that can't be later abused, if passed, to deal with other unpopular speech. And it seems like people want some laws to directly deal with that - the bad types of speech or algos themselves. To clarify, I use "rage bait" as an example phrase, but it includes algos that only promote engagement at any cost and other things that aren't outright dangerous, but we think are dangerous. Not, like I said, CSAM or yelling FIRE or telling people to kill themselves.
  - fc417fc802 7mo ago
    Interoperability sidesteps the issue by giving users the choice of which algorithm (or algorithm provider) to use. The majority might or might not agree with that approach - for example obviously tobacco has not been left purely to the individual's judgment in the west. Agreed, you can't regulate speech in a targeted manner while also not doing so. You're forced to find some common aspect much more general than "rage bait". Perhaps prohibiting the targeting of certain metrics? Or even prohibiting their collection in the first place.
    - 7mo ago

zzzeek 7mo ago

oddly enough the TikTok referred to here was to be shut down in the US. But then the executive branch ignored the law while it could organize handing the company over to Larry Ellison instead. But these allegations date to when the company was fully under the control of ByteDance, and not US-regulated entities at all.

Aurornis 7mo ago
> oddly enough the TikTok referred to here was to be shut down in the US. But then the executive branch ignored the law while it could organize handing the company over to Larry Ellison instead Which should make people think twice when they call for government regulation on speech as a solution to content they don't want other people to see. The more you give the government power to control speech, the more they'll use those laws to further their own interests.

slg 7mo ago

Specifically, I believe Section 230 protections shouldn't apply to algorithmicly promoted content. TikTok hosting my video isn't inherently an endorsement of what I'm saying, but proactively pushing that video to people is functionally equivalent even if you want to quible over dictionary definitions. These algorithms take these platforms from dumb content-agnostic pipes that deserve protections to editorial enterprises that should bear responsibility for what they promote.

Aurornis 7mo ago
How would you square that with a site like Hacker News, which has algorithms for showing user-submitted links and user-generated comments?
- slg 7mo ago
  Listing content alphabetically or chronologically is technically an "algorithm" too. What I'm specifically challenging here is the personalized algorithm designed to keep individual users on the platform based off a user profile influenced by countless active and passive choices the user has made over time. The type of HN algorithm that serves the same content to every user based off global behavior is fine in my book because it is both less exploitative of the user base and a reflection of that user base's proactive decisions in upvoting/downvoting content.
  - Aurornis 7mo ago
    So if HN added anything personalized, like allowing you to show fewer stories on topics you dislike, it would lose protection? I can't get on board with that. I also think it would be extremely unpopular. People like their recommendation engines. They want Netflix to show them more similar shows. They want Reddit to help them find more similar subreddits. I know there are HN users who don't want any of these recommendation engines, but on the whole people actually want them.
    - levkk 7mo ago

cryptoegorophy 7mo ago

Wouldn’t we need to shut down all news outlets, all the twitters and all the newspapers then? They might not be on the toxic spectrum as meta/tiktok, but are very close

Aurornis 7mo ago
There are people in this thread directly calling for us to strip protections from search engines and force them to shut down. I think a lot of this discussion has become detached from reality and we’re just entertaining some people’s impossible fantasies about shutting down the internet and returning to the past.
- dmix 7mo ago
  Human instinct is always to ban and fight everything as soon as any change happens in society. The same biological motivation to doomscroll fuels our instincts to panic and doompost about how society is ruined unless we do [brash action].

sandworm101 7mo ago

>> Meta and TikTok have no natural right to exist if they are a net negative to society. Exactly. And when we are done with them we will shut down Molson and Anheuser-Busch. Then we can go after the people who make selfy sticks. Then the company that owns that truck that cut me off last week. Basically, organization who i dislike should not be allowed to exist.

aaron695 7mo ago

[dead]

ronnier 7mo ago

Then we'll just use the Chinese apps. Or do you plan on shutting down our access to Chinese apps too?

anonymars 7mo ago
Like TikTok?

rkagerer 7mo ago

"What do we do about it" Account --> Delete