3 ms·

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.

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 8mo ago
I'm paying for Netflix to do that as a feature. Instagram uses that to drive engagement to sell ads. Disabling personalized content on Netflix is a revenue-neutral choice. On Instagram, that would mean their ad revenue takes a huge dive. Apples aren't oranges.
- krapp 8mo ago
  Netflix does it to drive engagement as well.
skydhash 8mo ago
That is not comparable because of the little you have over the algorithm for the other cases. On bandcamp, you can select the genre and a sorting criteria and have very good control over the list. But on Spotify, it’s very obscure, with things you’ve never asked for being in front even before your own library.
slg 8mo ago
>People like their recommendation engines. People liked cigarettes too. >They want Netflix to show them more similar shows. Perhaps that example was a little too revealing on your end. Netflix doesn't have/need Section 230 protections and they're doing fine. I'm not suggesting these algorithms should be illegal, just that Section 230 protections were defined too broadly because they predated the feasibility of these type of algorithms. These platforms would be free to continue algorithmic promotion, but I believe these algorithms would be less harmful if the platforms had to worry about potential legal liability. Think YouTube and copyright for comparison. The DMCA is far from perfect, but we have YouTube as an example of a platform that survived and even thrived in the transition from a world that didn't care about copyrighted internet video to one in which they that needed to moderate with copyright in mind.
- Aurornis 8mo ago
  > People liked cigarattes too. Cigarettes weren’t made illegal. Cigarette companies are not liable for their user’s choice to consume them. What’s your point? > Perhaps that example was a little too revealing on your end. Netflix doesn't have/need Section 230 protections and they're doing fine. Perhaps it was a little too revealing on your end that you conveniently ignored my other example of Reddit. If you need to cherry pick to make your point it doesn’t look very strong. I still don’t see consistency in your argument that Section 230 should still apply to Hacker News but not, for example, Reddit, simply because one of them allows users to personalize the content they see.
  - slg 8mo ago
    This is the type of comment that suggests you aren't engaging with what I'm saying beyond a superficial level. My argument is consistent. I'm not cherry-picking examples. The differentiator I'm criticizing is the personalized nature of the algorithms. But rather than engaging with the merit of that distinction, you're acting as if there is no distinction at all. I'm not sure if there is much point in contuning the conversation from there.
    - fluoridation 8mo ago
      I think the other person's issue with your position is that the distinction is entirely arbitrary. You're not giving any reasons why the demarcation line for which feed algorithms are OK and which are not is there instead of anywhere else. It seems to be just "Facebook and TikTok are bad; Their feeds are personalized recommendation engines; Therefore personalized recommendation engines are bad, and other feed algorithms are OK".
      - slg 8mo ago
        >I think the other person's issue with your position is that the distinction is entirely arbitrary. Basically all laws related to speech are abitrary. Can you define a clear and self-evident line between pornography and art as an example? Or do you agree with the Supreme Court that we just "know it when [we] see it"? >You're not giving any reasons why the demarcation line for which feed algorithms are OK and which are not is there instead of anywhere else. Let me just copy and paste what I said before: "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." I can understand if one of you want to challenge that line of thought, but you both acting like I didn't give any reasoning at all is bizarre and gives me the impression that you aren't actually reading what I'm writing.
intended 8mo ago
I can get on board with it for sure. Theres a paper that studied the spread of misinformation online, back before COVID - they found that messages cascaded through more science and research oriented networks differently than they cascaded through conspiracy communities. Popularity is not a sign of Signal. It’s a sign of being able to scratch the limbic system and zeitgeist at the same time. For a site like HN, popularity isn’t a good predictive signal.
watwut 8mo ago
1.) I do not know anyone who would particularly like netflix recommendation algorithm. 2.) Netflix algorithm is not relevant to "Section 230 protections", because it does not contain any data from third parties. All of that is Netflix content.
sethammons 8mo ago
for me, the distinction is control. If I'm filtering out things I don't like, I'm in control. If the system is filtering out items or promoting items, I think it fair it take on more responsibility. A system doesn't want your feed empty because they want your eyes, but because money. When they choose what goes into the feed, they should gain increased liability for what comes out. The risk they take on for more money. If that money is not worth it, don't recommend. I enjoyed the internet in the beforetimes. Recommendations were limited to "this is objectively related, this is new, this is upvoted, this is by someone you follow or someone they follow, or this is randomly chosen." I still feel there is some liability there, but it is less than when it changes to "this is something we have determined we should show you based on your personal past behavior." That feels different than liking a category when the meta-categories are picked for you. Especially when those meta-categories allow for things you would not want to opt in to, like doomscroll material. I like some of the stuff I get algorithmically. I never would have searched for a soul cover of Slim Shady, but I'm glad I found it. And I'm glad I found knot tying videos. I think there is space for fancy feeds. But I think it should come closer to being a publisher. This _will_ depress throughput creation if things all have to be monitored which will change the economies and maybe that means some businesses can't exist as they do today. I'd likely pay a subscription to a LearnTok that had curated, quality material.

levkk 8mo ago

I'm paying for Netflix to do that as a feature. Instagram uses that to drive engagement to sell ads. Disabling personalized content on Netflix is a revenue-neutral choice. On Instagram, that would mean their ad revenue takes a huge dive. Apples aren't oranges.

krapp 8mo ago
Netflix does it to drive engagement as well.

skydhash 8mo ago

That is not comparable because of the little you have over the algorithm for the other cases. On bandcamp, you can select the genre and a sorting criteria and have very good control over the list. But on Spotify, it’s very obscure, with things you’ve never asked for being in front even before your own library.

slg 8mo ago

>People like their recommendation engines. People liked cigarettes too. >They want Netflix to show them more similar shows. Perhaps that example was a little too revealing on your end. Netflix doesn't have/need Section 230 protections and they're doing fine. I'm not suggesting these algorithms should be illegal, just that Section 230 protections were defined too broadly because they predated the feasibility of these type of algorithms. These platforms would be free to continue algorithmic promotion, but I believe these algorithms would be less harmful if the platforms had to worry about potential legal liability. Think YouTube and copyright for comparison. The DMCA is far from perfect, but we have YouTube as an example of a platform that survived and even thrived in the transition from a world that didn't care about copyrighted internet video to one in which they that needed to moderate with copyright in mind.

Aurornis 8mo ago
> People liked cigarattes too. Cigarettes weren’t made illegal. Cigarette companies are not liable for their user’s choice to consume them. What’s your point? > Perhaps that example was a little too revealing on your end. Netflix doesn't have/need Section 230 protections and they're doing fine. Perhaps it was a little too revealing on your end that you conveniently ignored my other example of Reddit. If you need to cherry pick to make your point it doesn’t look very strong. I still don’t see consistency in your argument that Section 230 should still apply to Hacker News but not, for example, Reddit, simply because one of them allows users to personalize the content they see.
- slg 8mo ago
  This is the type of comment that suggests you aren't engaging with what I'm saying beyond a superficial level. My argument is consistent. I'm not cherry-picking examples. The differentiator I'm criticizing is the personalized nature of the algorithms. But rather than engaging with the merit of that distinction, you're acting as if there is no distinction at all. I'm not sure if there is much point in contuning the conversation from there.
  - fluoridation 8mo ago
    I think the other person's issue with your position is that the distinction is entirely arbitrary. You're not giving any reasons why the demarcation line for which feed algorithms are OK and which are not is there instead of anywhere else. It seems to be just "Facebook and TikTok are bad; Their feeds are personalized recommendation engines; Therefore personalized recommendation engines are bad, and other feed algorithms are OK".
    - slg 8mo ago
      >I think the other person's issue with your position is that the distinction is entirely arbitrary. Basically all laws related to speech are abitrary. Can you define a clear and self-evident line between pornography and art as an example? Or do you agree with the Supreme Court that we just "know it when [we] see it"? >You're not giving any reasons why the demarcation line for which feed algorithms are OK and which are not is there instead of anywhere else. Let me just copy and paste what I said before: "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." I can understand if one of you want to challenge that line of thought, but you both acting like I didn't give any reasoning at all is bizarre and gives me the impression that you aren't actually reading what I'm writing.

intended 8mo ago

I can get on board with it for sure. Theres a paper that studied the spread of misinformation online, back before COVID - they found that messages cascaded through more science and research oriented networks differently than they cascaded through conspiracy communities. Popularity is not a sign of Signal. It’s a sign of being able to scratch the limbic system and zeitgeist at the same time. For a site like HN, popularity isn’t a good predictive signal.

watwut 8mo ago

1.) I do not know anyone who would particularly like netflix recommendation algorithm. 2.) Netflix algorithm is not relevant to "Section 230 protections", because it does not contain any data from third parties. All of that is Netflix content.

sethammons 8mo ago

for me, the distinction is control. If I'm filtering out things I don't like, I'm in control. If the system is filtering out items or promoting items, I think it fair it take on more responsibility. A system doesn't want your feed empty because they want your eyes, but because money. When they choose what goes into the feed, they should gain increased liability for what comes out. The risk they take on for more money. If that money is not worth it, don't recommend. I enjoyed the internet in the beforetimes. Recommendations were limited to "this is objectively related, this is new, this is upvoted, this is by someone you follow or someone they follow, or this is randomly chosen." I still feel there is some liability there, but it is less than when it changes to "this is something we have determined we should show you based on your personal past behavior." That feels different than liking a category when the meta-categories are picked for you. Especially when those meta-categories allow for things you would not want to opt in to, like doomscroll material. I like some of the stuff I get algorithmically. I never would have searched for a soul cover of Slim Shady, but I'm glad I found it. And I'm glad I found knot tying videos. I think there is space for fancy feeds. But I think it should come closer to being a publisher. This _will_ depress throughput creation if things all have to be monitored which will change the economies and maybe that means some businesses can't exist as they do today. I'd likely pay a subscription to a LearnTok that had curated, quality material.