8 ms·

This is pretty easy to solve. If you present data by algorithm, you are no longer an impartial common carrier and are liable for the content you present. If the

This is pretty easy to solve. If you present data by algorithm, you are no longer an impartial common carrier and are liable for the content you present. If the user decides you don’t, ala social media 1.0.

an0malous 5mo ago
It’s so elegant that there’s zero chance the EU will do it since this is all performative for them
shiandow 5mo ago
And when does the user decide? Must a platform do nothing to stimmy spam, or even illegal content to qualify as impartial? I suppose the answer could be that only platforms that do indeed allow spam or worse are impartial, but that is a tricky position to be in.
- leogiertz 5mo ago
  The mechanism would be that if the user has chosen to follow an account then posts from that account falls under common carrier. If the platform choses to show you other posts then it's under their responsibility.
stingraycharles 5mo ago
This is one of those things that don’t translate to legal reality very well, as then you have to define “what is an algorithm”. Is adding advertisements an algorithm? Is including likes an algorithm? Is automatically starting the next video after a previous one has finished an algorithm? Is infinite scroll an algorithm? Etc
- randunel 5mo ago
  Everything other than sorting the list of entities by a standard measurement unit (time, length, mass, temperature, amount) needs to be covered by this law. The moment you add other entities to the list (e.g. ads inbetween posts), then it's also subject to the same restrictions.
  - stingraycharles 5mo ago
    This effectively means “every online platform ever” and would also have included MySpace and the OG Yahoo etc, and as such would not really single out the truly bad actors. And then we’ll end up with with another cookie-banner style law which had good intentions but actually missed the point entirely.
    - randunel 5mo ago
      I stopped using facebook around 2015-ish, when they stopped allowing sorting by date. Prior to this, hi5 and the likes also allwoed sorting by date. So no, not every online platform ever.
    - progval 5mo ago
      It even includes email providers with a spam filter.
    - bee_rider 5mo ago
      Maybe MySpace should be covered. I mean, MySpace probably(?) had the technical capacity to act maliciously in the manner that modern social media sites do, then business model just hadn’t evolved to the modern toxic state yet. The cookie banner law is fine for the most part. Sites that do the malicious-compliance thing of over-prompting the user for permissions are providing a strong signal that they are bad actors. It’s about as much as we can expect without banning them entirely…
- andybak 5mo ago
  This kind of complex leglislation already exists in many areas of the law: revenue collection being the most obvious one. We could choose to treat "societal harm" the way we treat "tax collection". I'm not saying there aren't infinite edge cases and second-order effects - but we tolerate those already for many things. I'm not pretending this is simple or even desirable - I'm merely stating it's possible if we want to do it. My biggest fear is that (like the UK Online safety act) this acts to favour the huge corporations because they are the only ones that can afford a team of lawyers. Any legislation should aim to carve out exceptions to avoid indirectly helping monopolies.
  - stingraycharles 5mo ago
    Great example. These companies are already experts at circumventing taxes, what makes you think they can’t weasel their way around some arbitrary written law? Just look at the malicious compliance that Apple and Google have around the App Store stuff, they’ll find a way to comply with the law and implement different addictive dark patterns. I’m not saying that I disagree that these companies need to be regulated, I absolutely do. I just think it’s going to be a complicated process, and not “oh just ban everything that’s an algorithm”. And I have absolutely 0 faith in companies like Meta willfully complying.
    - AndrewKemendo 5mo ago
      Regulated by who? There’s no political organization (yes Mamdani actually out-raised cuomo so let that sink in) that isn’t being actively bribed
      - bee_rider 5mo ago
        Although it should be noted that Mamdani’s average donation size skewed much smaller than Cuomo’s, so it is possible that Mamdani was “bribed” by the general public.
    - soVeryTired 5mo ago
      I have a feeling taxes are possible to circumvent only because a government tends to have one arm that wants to collect taxes, and another that wants to reduce them to encourage certain outcomes (like having a business setting up shop within its borders). The US may have this dual incentive structure since it wants to build its tech giants while limiting their control, but the EU doesn't. The arrival of a foreign tech social media giant might make the legislation a bit more palatable to pass. It will undoubtedly be complex to regulate all dark patterns away. But there are a few obvious, easy wins. It'd be a shame to make perfect the enemy of good.
- 3form 5mo ago
  This doesn't differ much from the legal reality that I've seen. Terms need to be defined, yes. It will require work to do so. And that work should be done even if it's a bother.
- orbital-decay 5mo ago
  "Algorithm" is a method of selecting the content to display. You're listing presentation types, not selection types. Presentation has nothing to do with supervised selection. Selecting the next video in the infinite scroll would be the algorithm, not the infinite scrolling mechanism itself.
- kubb 5mo ago
  This is some kind of a meme where people believe things can’t be defined in legal terms and therefore can’t be regulated. These people are usually not lawyers. Does anyone know where it’s coming from? I can certainly believe that incompetent jurisdictions have a ton of issues with people misapplying the law and using loopholes.
  - owebmaster 5mo ago
    It probably comes from the same pockets that influences legislation
  - biophysboy 5mo ago
    Albert Hirschman wrote a great book about the rhetoric people use to stifle policy proposals 35 years ago. “It’s futile; it won’t ever work” is one common argument. It’s not a meme so much as a cynical reflexive intuition
    - AdamN 5mo ago
      One that's reinforced by those against whichever legislation or regulation is being proposed.
  - naravara 5mo ago
    > This is some kind of a meme where people believe things can’t be defined in legal terms and therefore can’t be regulated. These people are usually not lawyers. No they’re engineers who think rules have to function as rigidly in every field as they do in programming. They either can’t or don’t want to accept that the law is a social construct and what it actually means to you is determined by the weight of precedent, as applied by judges and regulatory bodies. Things are vaguely worded in the law all the time. If people want to dispute how the enforcement is done they sue and judge decides how the rule should be applied.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
    The point isn't that it can't be regulated. What the original comment said was > This is pretty easy to solve. If you present data by algorithm, you are no longer an impartial common carrier and are liable for the content you present. But this is not in fact easy. It's hard to define what "present data by algorithm" means in a coherent way, and it's hard to extend liability for the content you present to liability for the manner in which you present it. You could make it work, if for some reason you really wanted to, but it's easier to pursue the strategy described in the source article of regulating specific abusive patterns.
- throwawayffffas 5mo ago
  "By algorithm" can be easily defined. The easy benchmark to setup can easily be, that any feed that displays the data in a way other than the following is considered an editorial choice and thus the platform is liable as a publisher: 1. In a chronological order, and only filtered based on user selected options. 2. In any other order explicitly selected by the user. An exception can be made to allow filtering out content that violates the platforms terms and conditions. Alternatively there can be no exception, effectively making these platforms unworkable. This is also a choice. We do not need these platforms, including this one.
  - tmvphil 5mo ago
    If the user selects "sort by algorithm" then I don't see how you've changed anything other than the default. I think it's pretty obvious just changing the default won't work.
    - xigoi 5mo ago
      Changing the default makes a huge difference because 99% of people don’t change settings.
      - tmvphil 5mo ago
        That's because the default is 99% the way the app is designed to be used. If the default is regulated, then they will just say "sorry the default is boring, click here to bring back the feed" and everyone will just click.
        stingraycharles 5mo ago
        As a matter of fact, the social media companies will then have an incentive to make the default really bad, which is absolutely what they will do. This would be the malicious compliance I was referring to elsewhere. I think most people over here are oversimplifying this and underestimating the ability of these companies to get what they want.
    - 5mo ago
- pessimizer 5mo ago
  I don't see a single difficult example here. The answer is "NO." It's strange that you couldn't even find one. I mean "Is including likes an algorithm?" You might as well ask if having a dog in the video is an algorithm. Any question about "likes" would be if you're manipulating the video selection based on likes, or is the user given a control to manipulate the video selection based on likes. If it's you it's an algorithm. If it's the user, it's a control. If you lie about the likes, then it's an algorithm. If you're transparent about the likes, then it is a control. The other ones aren't even worth discussing. You might as well ask if having a blue logo is an algorithm, or if Comic Sans is an algorithm. "It's all so complicated!" ----- edit: that being said, the EU does not care about this issue at all, and has had plenty of mandate and plenty of time to have done something about it if it did. They are also going to say "it's all so complicated." Because their problem is the unpopularity of center-left neolib governments that are just barely holding on with extreme minority support through bureaucratic means because they wrote the regulations. They want to keep what's came for British Labour during the recent council elections from coming for them. So I guarantee that content will somehow become an "algorithm." The goal is to keep people who don't like them from speaking to each other.
- baggachipz 5mo ago
  Ok so then the "algorithm" must be made available to authorities (or even better, the public at large) and be approved or rejected based on a court or a law. Obviously an algorithm based on "engagement" or "narrative" should be rejected with prejudice every time.
- itissid 5mo ago
  Instead, a regulation could mandate the administration an anonymized unbiased mandatory eval test at the end of every week/bi-week/month just like instruments for psych evaluation (e.g. do you feel your <mental-health-metric> has become worst in the last <time-period> on <scale>. Did you have <mental-health-marker> after watching content on social media?). The said regulation can then mandate that after calibration and correction the feed pull back by training the algorithm to adjust it in a rapid A/B test. This is all doable by the companies themselves, but since they wont, the key is to mandate it and publish the aggregate results regularly — like make it part of the quarterly share holder's SEC reporting requirement or something.
  - itissid 5mo ago
    I would say its naive to regulate the algorithm than its effects. The effects are all that matter at the end.
- tzs 5mo ago
  New York did a pretty good job in their law that limits addictive feeds. Here's what their law says: > "Addictive feed" shall mean a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, either concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another: > (a) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on information that is not persistently associated with the user or user's device, and does not concern the user's previous interactions with media generated or shared by other users; > (b) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, or technical information concerning the user's device; > (c) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media, media by the author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not otherwise permissible under this subdivision; > (d) the user expressly and unambiguously requested that specific media, media by a specified author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subdivision, be blocked, prioritized or deprioritized for display, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not otherwise permissible under this subdivision; > (e) the media are direct and private communications; > (f) the media are recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user; (> g) the media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a pre-existing sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source; or > (h) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is necessary to comply with the provisions of this article and any regulations promulgated pursuant to this article.
schnitzelstoat 5mo ago
So the user opens the app - what is the first video you show them? How does 'the user decide' from the millions upon millions of videos there are? If the user can search like in Youtube then how do you rank the results? That's also an algorithm. It isn't pretty easy to solve at all.
- noprocrasted 5mo ago
  > what is the first video you show them Whatever is latest posted across their followings/subscriptions?
  - hug 5mo ago
    That’s also an algorithm. An unsophisticated one, but an algorithm nonetheless. You can (and should) argue that such a simple algorithm doesn’t “count”, but fundamentally the exact wording of the grandparent post never works, legislatively. Lawyers will lawyer.
    - NekkoDroid 5mo ago
      > That’s also an algorithm. An unsophisticated one, but an algorithm nonetheless. The problem always has been "(personalized) opaque algorithms". Time sorted by followers isn't really opaque, nor is "sorted by likes" or whatever. The problem is always pulling in parameters that a users either has no active control over or are so variable they effectively could be random.
    - xigoi 5mo ago
      It’s not about whether there is an algorithm, but whether it’s controlled by the user.
    - alkonaut 5mo ago
      Can everyone just please stop saying "well ackshually sorting is done with an algorithm" and just assume at least not-idiotic-intent here? No no one will ban "algorithms" or suggests anything of that kind. Yes it's a terrible name. Yes it will be hard to formulate what's allowed and what isn't. But a very simple litmus test is: what are the inputs to the algorithm? users coarse geographic location? Fine AI detected language of the content? Fine global popularity of the video clip? fine user's past behavior: number of videos with similar content they watched? Average number of seconds this particular user usually waits until scrolling further? The pattern is obvious. Personalized algorithms is what's targeted. Let's keep the discussion intelligent.
luke5441 5mo ago
This is a bit of systems difference. Under a french law system you would write laws to regulate the harms away. Under english common law liability court cases about the harm would lead to precedents and then to common law derived from it. Though not an expert on this.
rwmj 5mo ago
You'll need to solve the dark pattern where a new account opens on a blank page with a box saying "Would you like us to suggest what you watch here?"
- PokemonNoGo 5mo ago
  Why would anyone go to a new platform if they didn't know anyone to follow there? I don't see a problem there. I download TikTok and search for SexyDancingDinosaur I heard was on there and press follow.
bee_rider 5mo ago
The conversation has iterated a couple times and one point that people (on this site at least) are stuck on is “well however you rank things—latest, most popular—you’ll need to use some kind of algorithm, maybe quicksort.” This isn’t what the general public or politicians mean when they say “an algorithm” but it does make something of a point, what exactly the general public and politicians mean when they say that… it’s a bit ambiguous. I think the EU has fully digested this point, and is focusing on the “addictive design” phrase instead, for good reason. It makes it obvious that the problem is a bit fuzzy and related to the behaviors induced, not some cut-and-dry algorithmic thing.
Aurornis 5mo ago
> If you present data by algorithm, you are no longer an impartial common carrier and are liable for the content you present Hacker News is a site that presents data by algorithm. Under your definition, Hacker News goes away, too. A more accurate framing would be that they’re going after personalized recommendation algorithms. It’s not obvious that offering a recommendation algorithm would mean that the site is no longer an impartial common carrier.
- jackdoe 5mo ago
  > Hacker News goes away, too. so be it.
  - vasco 5mo ago
    This is a strange thing to comment on HN. If you truly believed it why would you be here?
    - buellerbueller 5mo ago
      The majority of terminally addicted people I have interacted with at length have both recognized the terminal nature of their addiction and been unable to do anything about it. That's the nature of addiction.
    - coffeefirst 5mo ago
      Honestly the damage done by TikTok et al is so severe that I’m okay with a little collateral damage. We will build new things. But I also see no reason you can’t separate out forums with upvoting from the personalized engagement optimized feed. They are fundamentally different designs. (In other words, Subreddits are safe, the Reddit homepage is regulated unless it changes.)
- another-dave 5mo ago
  Goes away, or is liable for the content promoted to the frontpage under the OP's take? But I'd agree, that it's personalisation rather than just curation that's the issue. I think even requiring sites to have a "bring your own algo" version (and where ads are targetted to the algorithm, rather than the person) would cure a lot of ills. As is, even with something like Spotify where you _are_ paying there's no easy way to "reset" your profile to neutral recommendations
akersten 5mo ago
How does this specific horrible take rank so highly on HN whenever something adjacent to big tech gets posted. "impartial common carrier" is not even an extent legal concept. It's been argued to death already, I just have to express shock that I'm still seeing this non-starter constantly here.
grumbel 5mo ago
Alternative suggestion: Force them to open up the service and allow third party clients. Take Art. 20 GDPR "Right to data portability" and extend it to public content.
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
walthamstow 5mo ago
Back in my day, they used to be called social networks
doctorpangloss 5mo ago
"this" - you mean, engagement optimization? i think it would be different content. i don't know how much liability matters, people spend all day watching netflix too, and it is "liable." ironically, i'm only reading this kind of low brow take because people upvote it, not because it makes any sense.
InsideOutSanta 5mo ago
This exactly. I find it perplexing that social media companies get to make decisions about what people see but then also get to pretend that they are just a neutral communication medium. They're clearly not.
- jmusall 5mo ago
  HN also decides what you see. Yes, it's (mostly) based on other users' upvotes, but on TikTok et al. its the same just with a different metric (watchtime, interaction, retention and probabily more). Where do you draw the line? Or do you have a different proposal how these generated feeds should work? I don't think just showing content by users you follow is going to cut it, because ideally the purpose is to show new and interesting stuff nobody in your circle was aware of.
adverbly 5mo ago
Do you really think a couple algorithm changes are all that's needed to make social media something into something that won't have a significant negative impact on the average child if they're exposed to it?
viktorcode 5mo ago
Define "algorithm" then. I would argue that "sort by date, excluding stuff the user already watched" is already an algorithm.
- cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
  This is just pedantic. "Algorithm" is obviously shorthand for: a recommendations system that shows me things I didn't explicitly opt into. Compare e.g. Mastodon vs Twitter or Bluesky. The former simply won't show you anything you didn't explicitly subscribe to, and there's no hidden ranking system. The law is not a computer program. It is up to human interpretation. The law merely needs to define the intent, which is actually fairly easy to explain: you're not a common carrier if you're mediating and promoting and ranking and pushing beyond what the user has subscribed to with their choices. You can get technical that "sorting" and "filtering" is a form of that, but you'd be applying the lens of a software engineer, not a lawyer.
  - viktorcode 5mo ago
    It is pedantic, and you have to be pedantic when talking about laws and regulations. The vaguely written laws have the tendency to be interpreted in the most restrictive way possible by the executive branch. > "Algorithm" is obviously shorthand for: a recommendations system that shows me things I didn't explicitly opt into. In that interpretation that is applicable to any form of broadcast, including TV and radio, driven by the user ratings of their previous programs.
    - cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
      You haven't seen any proposed law. Just someone's choice of word that got your back up.
    - wyre 5mo ago
      This is hacker news, not a law board. use good faith.
  - AlienRobot 5mo ago
2OEH8eoCRo0 5mo ago
So...repeal Section 230? I like it!
deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
giancarlostoro 5mo ago
People have argued that by censoring what users can say, these platforms made themselves editors, if its not flat out illegal, I don't see why anyone should waste any time trying to police the internet, its a fools errand. I've had Facebook's AI ding me for posting literal memes that out of context sound ridiculous.
vondur 5mo ago
This would be extremely hard to put into legislation that wouldn't affect just about every single site on the internet currently.
linkregister 5mo ago
Even easier solution: mandate that all harmful content be distributed with the evil bit set in all IP packets. Security: solved.
singleshot_ 5mo ago
Interactive computer services under CDA 230 are not the same as common carriers and your lack of sophistication on this point implies your suggestion this is “simple to solve” is not coming from a position of wisdom.
- conception 5mo ago
  Lol. It’s the EU so CDA 230 doesn’t apply either. But I appreciate your position of wisdom.
  - singleshot_ 5mo ago
    If you take a look at the top twenty five platforms by users I’m sure you will figure out why this is not relevant. Worth noting: in the EU, public carriers are not referred to as common carriers.
duxup 5mo ago
Sorting by date is an algorithm…
jurgenburgen 5mo ago
This thread is going pretty deep down the rabbit hole of debating what an algorithm is. Here’s the actual commission finding: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_312 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_... > For example, by constantly ‘rewarding' users with new content, certain design features of TikTok fuel the urge to keep scrolling and shift the brain of users into ‘autopilot mode'. Scientific research shows that this may lead to compulsive behaviour and reduce users' self-control. > Additionally, in its assessment, TikTok disregarded important indicators of compulsive use of the app, such as the time that minors spend on TikTok at night, the frequency with which users open the app, and other potential indicators. I think it’s pretty uncontroversial to say these features are a problem. Anyone who has used these apps knows the feeling of “one more video”. Obviously TikTok will claim otherwise with their business model threatened.
AlienRobot 5mo ago
>If you present data by algorithm Define algorithm.

an0malous 5mo ago

It’s so elegant that there’s zero chance the EU will do it since this is all performative for them

shiandow 5mo ago

And when does the user decide? Must a platform do nothing to stimmy spam, or even illegal content to qualify as impartial? I suppose the answer could be that only platforms that do indeed allow spam or worse are impartial, but that is a tricky position to be in.

leogiertz 5mo ago
The mechanism would be that if the user has chosen to follow an account then posts from that account falls under common carrier. If the platform choses to show you other posts then it's under their responsibility.

stingraycharles 5mo ago

This is one of those things that don’t translate to legal reality very well, as then you have to define “what is an algorithm”. Is adding advertisements an algorithm? Is including likes an algorithm? Is automatically starting the next video after a previous one has finished an algorithm? Is infinite scroll an algorithm? Etc

randunel 5mo ago
Everything other than sorting the list of entities by a standard measurement unit (time, length, mass, temperature, amount) needs to be covered by this law. The moment you add other entities to the list (e.g. ads inbetween posts), then it's also subject to the same restrictions.
- stingraycharles 5mo ago
  This effectively means “every online platform ever” and would also have included MySpace and the OG Yahoo etc, and as such would not really single out the truly bad actors. And then we’ll end up with with another cookie-banner style law which had good intentions but actually missed the point entirely.
  - randunel 5mo ago
    I stopped using facebook around 2015-ish, when they stopped allowing sorting by date. Prior to this, hi5 and the likes also allwoed sorting by date. So no, not every online platform ever.
  - progval 5mo ago
    It even includes email providers with a spam filter.
  - bee_rider 5mo ago
    Maybe MySpace should be covered. I mean, MySpace probably(?) had the technical capacity to act maliciously in the manner that modern social media sites do, then business model just hadn’t evolved to the modern toxic state yet. The cookie banner law is fine for the most part. Sites that do the malicious-compliance thing of over-prompting the user for permissions are providing a strong signal that they are bad actors. It’s about as much as we can expect without banning them entirely…
andybak 5mo ago
This kind of complex leglislation already exists in many areas of the law: revenue collection being the most obvious one. We could choose to treat "societal harm" the way we treat "tax collection". I'm not saying there aren't infinite edge cases and second-order effects - but we tolerate those already for many things. I'm not pretending this is simple or even desirable - I'm merely stating it's possible if we want to do it. My biggest fear is that (like the UK Online safety act) this acts to favour the huge corporations because they are the only ones that can afford a team of lawyers. Any legislation should aim to carve out exceptions to avoid indirectly helping monopolies.
- stingraycharles 5mo ago
  Great example. These companies are already experts at circumventing taxes, what makes you think they can’t weasel their way around some arbitrary written law? Just look at the malicious compliance that Apple and Google have around the App Store stuff, they’ll find a way to comply with the law and implement different addictive dark patterns. I’m not saying that I disagree that these companies need to be regulated, I absolutely do. I just think it’s going to be a complicated process, and not “oh just ban everything that’s an algorithm”. And I have absolutely 0 faith in companies like Meta willfully complying.
  - AndrewKemendo 5mo ago
    Regulated by who? There’s no political organization (yes Mamdani actually out-raised cuomo so let that sink in) that isn’t being actively bribed
    - bee_rider 5mo ago
      Although it should be noted that Mamdani’s average donation size skewed much smaller than Cuomo’s, so it is possible that Mamdani was “bribed” by the general public.
  - soVeryTired 5mo ago
    I have a feeling taxes are possible to circumvent only because a government tends to have one arm that wants to collect taxes, and another that wants to reduce them to encourage certain outcomes (like having a business setting up shop within its borders). The US may have this dual incentive structure since it wants to build its tech giants while limiting their control, but the EU doesn't. The arrival of a foreign tech social media giant might make the legislation a bit more palatable to pass. It will undoubtedly be complex to regulate all dark patterns away. But there are a few obvious, easy wins. It'd be a shame to make perfect the enemy of good.
3form 5mo ago
This doesn't differ much from the legal reality that I've seen. Terms need to be defined, yes. It will require work to do so. And that work should be done even if it's a bother.
orbital-decay 5mo ago
"Algorithm" is a method of selecting the content to display. You're listing presentation types, not selection types. Presentation has nothing to do with supervised selection. Selecting the next video in the infinite scroll would be the algorithm, not the infinite scrolling mechanism itself.
kubb 5mo ago
This is some kind of a meme where people believe things can’t be defined in legal terms and therefore can’t be regulated. These people are usually not lawyers. Does anyone know where it’s coming from? I can certainly believe that incompetent jurisdictions have a ton of issues with people misapplying the law and using loopholes.
- owebmaster 5mo ago
  It probably comes from the same pockets that influences legislation
- biophysboy 5mo ago
  Albert Hirschman wrote a great book about the rhetoric people use to stifle policy proposals 35 years ago. “It’s futile; it won’t ever work” is one common argument. It’s not a meme so much as a cynical reflexive intuition
  - AdamN 5mo ago
    One that's reinforced by those against whichever legislation or regulation is being proposed.
- naravara 5mo ago
  > This is some kind of a meme where people believe things can’t be defined in legal terms and therefore can’t be regulated. These people are usually not lawyers. No they’re engineers who think rules have to function as rigidly in every field as they do in programming. They either can’t or don’t want to accept that the law is a social construct and what it actually means to you is determined by the weight of precedent, as applied by judges and regulatory bodies. Things are vaguely worded in the law all the time. If people want to dispute how the enforcement is done they sue and judge decides how the rule should be applied.
- SpicyLemonZest 5mo ago
  The point isn't that it can't be regulated. What the original comment said was > This is pretty easy to solve. If you present data by algorithm, you are no longer an impartial common carrier and are liable for the content you present. But this is not in fact easy. It's hard to define what "present data by algorithm" means in a coherent way, and it's hard to extend liability for the content you present to liability for the manner in which you present it. You could make it work, if for some reason you really wanted to, but it's easier to pursue the strategy described in the source article of regulating specific abusive patterns.
throwawayffffas 5mo ago
"By algorithm" can be easily defined. The easy benchmark to setup can easily be, that any feed that displays the data in a way other than the following is considered an editorial choice and thus the platform is liable as a publisher: 1. In a chronological order, and only filtered based on user selected options. 2. In any other order explicitly selected by the user. An exception can be made to allow filtering out content that violates the platforms terms and conditions. Alternatively there can be no exception, effectively making these platforms unworkable. This is also a choice. We do not need these platforms, including this one.
- tmvphil 5mo ago
  If the user selects "sort by algorithm" then I don't see how you've changed anything other than the default. I think it's pretty obvious just changing the default won't work.
  - xigoi 5mo ago
    Changing the default makes a huge difference because 99% of people don’t change settings.
    - tmvphil 5mo ago
      That's because the default is 99% the way the app is designed to be used. If the default is regulated, then they will just say "sorry the default is boring, click here to bring back the feed" and everyone will just click.
      - stingraycharles 5mo ago
        As a matter of fact, the social media companies will then have an incentive to make the default really bad, which is absolutely what they will do. This would be the malicious compliance I was referring to elsewhere. I think most people over here are oversimplifying this and underestimating the ability of these companies to get what they want.
  - 5mo ago
pessimizer 5mo ago
I don't see a single difficult example here. The answer is "NO." It's strange that you couldn't even find one. I mean "Is including likes an algorithm?" You might as well ask if having a dog in the video is an algorithm. Any question about "likes" would be if you're manipulating the video selection based on likes, or is the user given a control to manipulate the video selection based on likes. If it's you it's an algorithm. If it's the user, it's a control. If you lie about the likes, then it's an algorithm. If you're transparent about the likes, then it is a control. The other ones aren't even worth discussing. You might as well ask if having a blue logo is an algorithm, or if Comic Sans is an algorithm. "It's all so complicated!" ----- edit: that being said, the EU does not care about this issue at all, and has had plenty of mandate and plenty of time to have done something about it if it did. They are also going to say "it's all so complicated." Because their problem is the unpopularity of center-left neolib governments that are just barely holding on with extreme minority support through bureaucratic means because they wrote the regulations. They want to keep what's came for British Labour during the recent council elections from coming for them. So I guarantee that content will somehow become an "algorithm." The goal is to keep people who don't like them from speaking to each other.
baggachipz 5mo ago
Ok so then the "algorithm" must be made available to authorities (or even better, the public at large) and be approved or rejected based on a court or a law. Obviously an algorithm based on "engagement" or "narrative" should be rejected with prejudice every time.
itissid 5mo ago
Instead, a regulation could mandate the administration an anonymized unbiased mandatory eval test at the end of every week/bi-week/month just like instruments for psych evaluation (e.g. do you feel your <mental-health-metric> has become worst in the last <time-period> on <scale>. Did you have <mental-health-marker> after watching content on social media?). The said regulation can then mandate that after calibration and correction the feed pull back by training the algorithm to adjust it in a rapid A/B test. This is all doable by the companies themselves, but since they wont, the key is to mandate it and publish the aggregate results regularly — like make it part of the quarterly share holder's SEC reporting requirement or something.
- itissid 5mo ago
  I would say its naive to regulate the algorithm than its effects. The effects are all that matter at the end.
tzs 5mo ago
New York did a pretty good job in their law that limits addictive feeds. Here's what their law says: > "Addictive feed" shall mean a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, or a portion thereof, in which multiple pieces of media generated or shared by users of a website, online service, online application, or mobile application, either concurrently or sequentially, are recommended, selected, or prioritized for display to a user based, in whole or in part, on information associated with the user or the user's device, unless any of the following conditions are met, alone or in combination with one another: > (a) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on information that is not persistently associated with the user or user's device, and does not concern the user's previous interactions with media generated or shared by other users; > (b) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on user-selected privacy or accessibility settings, or technical information concerning the user's device; > (c) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media, media by the author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not otherwise permissible under this subdivision; > (d) the user expressly and unambiguously requested that specific media, media by a specified author, creator, or poster of media the user has subscribed to, or media shared by users to a page or group the user has subscribed to pursuant to paragraph (c) of this subdivision, be blocked, prioritized or deprioritized for display, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized for display based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not otherwise permissible under this subdivision; > (e) the media are direct and private communications; > (f) the media are recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user; (> g) the media recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a pre-existing sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source; or > (h) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is necessary to comply with the provisions of this article and any regulations promulgated pursuant to this article.

schnitzelstoat 5mo ago

So the user opens the app - what is the first video you show them? How does 'the user decide' from the millions upon millions of videos there are? If the user can search like in Youtube then how do you rank the results? That's also an algorithm. It isn't pretty easy to solve at all.

noprocrasted 5mo ago
> what is the first video you show them Whatever is latest posted across their followings/subscriptions?
- hug 5mo ago
  That’s also an algorithm. An unsophisticated one, but an algorithm nonetheless. You can (and should) argue that such a simple algorithm doesn’t “count”, but fundamentally the exact wording of the grandparent post never works, legislatively. Lawyers will lawyer.
  - NekkoDroid 5mo ago
    > That’s also an algorithm. An unsophisticated one, but an algorithm nonetheless. The problem always has been "(personalized) opaque algorithms". Time sorted by followers isn't really opaque, nor is "sorted by likes" or whatever. The problem is always pulling in parameters that a users either has no active control over or are so variable they effectively could be random.
  - xigoi 5mo ago
    It’s not about whether there is an algorithm, but whether it’s controlled by the user.
  - alkonaut 5mo ago
    Can everyone just please stop saying "well ackshually sorting is done with an algorithm" and just assume at least not-idiotic-intent here? No no one will ban "algorithms" or suggests anything of that kind. Yes it's a terrible name. Yes it will be hard to formulate what's allowed and what isn't. But a very simple litmus test is: what are the inputs to the algorithm? users coarse geographic location? Fine AI detected language of the content? Fine global popularity of the video clip? fine user's past behavior: number of videos with similar content they watched? Average number of seconds this particular user usually waits until scrolling further? The pattern is obvious. Personalized algorithms is what's targeted. Let's keep the discussion intelligent.

luke5441 5mo ago

This is a bit of systems difference. Under a french law system you would write laws to regulate the harms away. Under english common law liability court cases about the harm would lead to precedents and then to common law derived from it. Though not an expert on this.

rwmj 5mo ago

You'll need to solve the dark pattern where a new account opens on a blank page with a box saying "Would you like us to suggest what you watch here?"

PokemonNoGo 5mo ago
Why would anyone go to a new platform if they didn't know anyone to follow there? I don't see a problem there. I download TikTok and search for SexyDancingDinosaur I heard was on there and press follow.

bee_rider 5mo ago

The conversation has iterated a couple times and one point that people (on this site at least) are stuck on is “well however you rank things—latest, most popular—you’ll need to use some kind of algorithm, maybe quicksort.” This isn’t what the general public or politicians mean when they say “an algorithm” but it does make something of a point, what exactly the general public and politicians mean when they say that… it’s a bit ambiguous. I think the EU has fully digested this point, and is focusing on the “addictive design” phrase instead, for good reason. It makes it obvious that the problem is a bit fuzzy and related to the behaviors induced, not some cut-and-dry algorithmic thing.

Aurornis 5mo ago

> If you present data by algorithm, you are no longer an impartial common carrier and are liable for the content you present Hacker News is a site that presents data by algorithm. Under your definition, Hacker News goes away, too. A more accurate framing would be that they’re going after personalized recommendation algorithms. It’s not obvious that offering a recommendation algorithm would mean that the site is no longer an impartial common carrier.

jackdoe 5mo ago
> Hacker News goes away, too. so be it.
- vasco 5mo ago
  This is a strange thing to comment on HN. If you truly believed it why would you be here?
  - buellerbueller 5mo ago
    The majority of terminally addicted people I have interacted with at length have both recognized the terminal nature of their addiction and been unable to do anything about it. That's the nature of addiction.
  - coffeefirst 5mo ago
    Honestly the damage done by TikTok et al is so severe that I’m okay with a little collateral damage. We will build new things. But I also see no reason you can’t separate out forums with upvoting from the personalized engagement optimized feed. They are fundamentally different designs. (In other words, Subreddits are safe, the Reddit homepage is regulated unless it changes.)
another-dave 5mo ago
Goes away, or is liable for the content promoted to the frontpage under the OP's take? But I'd agree, that it's personalisation rather than just curation that's the issue. I think even requiring sites to have a "bring your own algo" version (and where ads are targetted to the algorithm, rather than the person) would cure a lot of ills. As is, even with something like Spotify where you _are_ paying there's no easy way to "reset" your profile to neutral recommendations

akersten 5mo ago

How does this specific horrible take rank so highly on HN whenever something adjacent to big tech gets posted. "impartial common carrier" is not even an extent legal concept. It's been argued to death already, I just have to express shock that I'm still seeing this non-starter constantly here.

grumbel 5mo ago

Alternative suggestion: Force them to open up the service and allow third party clients. Take Art. 20 GDPR "Right to data portability" and extend it to public content.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

walthamstow 5mo ago

Back in my day, they used to be called social networks

doctorpangloss 5mo ago

"this" - you mean, engagement optimization? i think it would be different content. i don't know how much liability matters, people spend all day watching netflix too, and it is "liable." ironically, i'm only reading this kind of low brow take because people upvote it, not because it makes any sense.

InsideOutSanta 5mo ago

This exactly. I find it perplexing that social media companies get to make decisions about what people see but then also get to pretend that they are just a neutral communication medium. They're clearly not.

jmusall 5mo ago
HN also decides what you see. Yes, it's (mostly) based on other users' upvotes, but on TikTok et al. its the same just with a different metric (watchtime, interaction, retention and probabily more). Where do you draw the line? Or do you have a different proposal how these generated feeds should work? I don't think just showing content by users you follow is going to cut it, because ideally the purpose is to show new and interesting stuff nobody in your circle was aware of.

adverbly 5mo ago

Do you really think a couple algorithm changes are all that's needed to make social media something into something that won't have a significant negative impact on the average child if they're exposed to it?

viktorcode 5mo ago

Define "algorithm" then. I would argue that "sort by date, excluding stuff the user already watched" is already an algorithm.

cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
This is just pedantic. "Algorithm" is obviously shorthand for: a recommendations system that shows me things I didn't explicitly opt into. Compare e.g. Mastodon vs Twitter or Bluesky. The former simply won't show you anything you didn't explicitly subscribe to, and there's no hidden ranking system. The law is not a computer program. It is up to human interpretation. The law merely needs to define the intent, which is actually fairly easy to explain: you're not a common carrier if you're mediating and promoting and ranking and pushing beyond what the user has subscribed to with their choices. You can get technical that "sorting" and "filtering" is a form of that, but you'd be applying the lens of a software engineer, not a lawyer.
- viktorcode 5mo ago
  It is pedantic, and you have to be pedantic when talking about laws and regulations. The vaguely written laws have the tendency to be interpreted in the most restrictive way possible by the executive branch. > "Algorithm" is obviously shorthand for: a recommendations system that shows me things I didn't explicitly opt into. In that interpretation that is applicable to any form of broadcast, including TV and radio, driven by the user ratings of their previous programs.
  - cmrdporcupine 5mo ago
    You haven't seen any proposed law. Just someone's choice of word that got your back up.
  - wyre 5mo ago
    This is hacker news, not a law board. use good faith.
- AlienRobot 5mo ago

2OEH8eoCRo0 5mo ago

So...repeal Section 230? I like it!

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

giancarlostoro 5mo ago

People have argued that by censoring what users can say, these platforms made themselves editors, if its not flat out illegal, I don't see why anyone should waste any time trying to police the internet, its a fools errand. I've had Facebook's AI ding me for posting literal memes that out of context sound ridiculous.

vondur 5mo ago

This would be extremely hard to put into legislation that wouldn't affect just about every single site on the internet currently.

linkregister 5mo ago

Even easier solution: mandate that all harmful content be distributed with the evil bit set in all IP packets. Security: solved.

singleshot_ 5mo ago

Interactive computer services under CDA 230 are not the same as common carriers and your lack of sophistication on this point implies your suggestion this is “simple to solve” is not coming from a position of wisdom.

conception 5mo ago
Lol. It’s the EU so CDA 230 doesn’t apply either. But I appreciate your position of wisdom.
- singleshot_ 5mo ago
  If you take a look at the top twenty five platforms by users I’m sure you will figure out why this is not relevant. Worth noting: in the EU, public carriers are not referred to as common carriers.

duxup 5mo ago

Sorting by date is an algorithm…

jurgenburgen 5mo ago

This thread is going pretty deep down the rabbit hole of debating what an algorithm is. Here’s the actual commission finding: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_312 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_... > For example, by constantly ‘rewarding' users with new content, certain design features of TikTok fuel the urge to keep scrolling and shift the brain of users into ‘autopilot mode'. Scientific research shows that this may lead to compulsive behaviour and reduce users' self-control. > Additionally, in its assessment, TikTok disregarded important indicators of compulsive use of the app, such as the time that minors spend on TikTok at night, the frequency with which users open the app, and other potential indicators. I think it’s pretty uncontroversial to say these features are a problem. Anyone who has used these apps knows the feeling of “one more video”. Obviously TikTok will claim otherwise with their business model threatened.

AlienRobot 5mo ago

>If you present data by algorithm Define algorithm.