3 ms·

The algorithm is not personalized. It's the same for every user. No issue there.

tolerance 6mo ago
But still an algorithm. The difference is that we (at least some of us) place a greater trust in the integrity behind how information surfaces on HN. I think that some parts of it are open source, and the moderators are transparent enough about what isn't public + there is a mix of folk knowledge that explains how HN works under the hood. Depersonalized algorithms or recommender systems aren't inherently better than personalized ones. HN is an exceptional example of the former but I think at scale people would come up with a different crop of complaints for them.
- tencentshill 6mo ago
  Yes it's still an algorithm. Cable TV programming is another example. Everyone sees the same content. The ads are changed at the local broadcaster level but are not tailored to the individual, and are not harmful in the ways the EU is regulating. If anything, everyone watching the same thing is good for social cohesion. Everyone discusses the latest TV episode the next day at the office.
  - tolerance 6mo ago
    Right. Withholding the fact that cable television doesn't appear to be the typical distribution method anymore, how do broadcasters select/schedule their programming?
    - fc417fc802 6mo ago
      What's your point? It seems like you're pedantically focusing on a single word without regard for the actual meaning of the broader statement. No one is proposing to regulate things done in the traditional manner of cable tv, nor other uniform and impartial approaches.
      - tolerance 6mo ago
        @conception (root): "If you present data by algorithm, you are no longer an impartial common carrier and are liable for the content you present" @Aurornis: "Hacker News is a site that presents data by algorithm. Under your definition, Hacker News goes away, too." @Aurornis (cont'd): "When every site with “an algorithm” is liable for content posted, nobody is going to allow you to post something. It’s back to only reading content produced and curated by companies for us. Total own-goal for the individual internet user." @Aurornis (cont'd): "If a site becomes liable for content posted, you cannot allow users to post content without having the site review and take responsibility for every comment and every post." @tencentshill: "The algorithm is not personalized. It's the same for every user. No issue there..." Me: "But still an algorithm". @tencentshill: "Yes it's still an algorithm. Cable TV programming is another example." Me: "...how do broadcasters select/schedule their programming?" *** If the "broader statement" that you're referring to is @conception's, then I agree with @Auronis that this would have negative effects on how websites like Hacker News operate. Failing to distinguish personalized recommendation systems from depersonalized ones and proposing regulation that affects them the same is an impartial approach. The speculated consequence is that platforms (e.g., Hacker News) will not want to assume liability for the content that users share. [0] If this were to happen only a few platforms would exist, at least on the clear/open web. The general online experience would become something like a pastiche of 60s cable television with three or four providers authorized to broadcast media. With the direction that democracy is trending across the world that would mean state-run or state-approved media. Or all online communities will have to organize and operate like more traditional institutions like this biking community in London is doing: https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/401988/ https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/401988/. [0]: Some parts of this community already suspect that moderation conveniently buries controversial or subversive submissions. See this one from today! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48110927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48110927
        fc417fc802 6mo ago
        Legislation needs to be clear and unambiguous, sure. Nonetheless no one had chronological sort or raw vote count or whatever else in mind when they used the term "algorithm" here so pretending they did is obtuse and pedantic. Misinterpreting the position of the other party does not typically make for enlightening or insightful conversation. Cable TV is an example of something that no one is objecting to. The EU is targeting specific practices (particularly addictive UX patterns). Some people (myself included) would also like to see algorithms that provide personalized (on the individual or small cohort level) output banned. HN is clearly not that. I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about where exactly the line is between a general class and a small cohort. Certainly applying more than a few general classes simultaneously can quickly land you back in near-individual territory.
achenet 6mo ago
The facebook/meta algo might be same for all users, but it had different inputs for each user. HN, on the other hand, everyone has the same front page. If I like a post I can favorite it to 'bookmark' it, but HN won't modify my front page based on what I favorite, whereas facebook will. I think the GP's argument is, when it comes to social media, "one size fits all" might be less addictive than "custom made" :)
- tencentshill 6mo ago
  Thats what I was saying. Referring to HN, not facebook.
jimbob45 6mo ago
And also the algorithm here is title-blind. The content of the story bears no sway over its place in the rankings. I do not believe dang cherry-picks either except for the very rare sticky?
- AlecSchueler 6mo ago
  > the algorithm here is title-blind It's that true? I thought I had seen it said that there were keyword penalties to discourage things like political posts that could be turned off and on
AlecSchueler 6mo ago
> It's the same for every user It isn't. Users who vote and flag more often are more likely to have things from /new surfaced on their main page for example.

But still an algorithm. The difference is that we (at least some of us) place a greater trust in the integrity behind how information surfaces on HN. I think that some parts of it are open source, and the moderators are transparent enough about what isn't public + there is a mix of folk knowledge that explains how HN works under the hood. Depersonalized algorithms or recommender systems aren't inherently better than personalized ones. HN is an exceptional example of the former but I think at scale people would come up with a different crop of complaints for them.

tencentshill 6mo ago
Yes it's still an algorithm. Cable TV programming is another example. Everyone sees the same content. The ads are changed at the local broadcaster level but are not tailored to the individual, and are not harmful in the ways the EU is regulating. If anything, everyone watching the same thing is good for social cohesion. Everyone discusses the latest TV episode the next day at the office.
- tolerance 6mo ago
  Right. Withholding the fact that cable television doesn't appear to be the typical distribution method anymore, how do broadcasters select/schedule their programming?
  - fc417fc802 6mo ago
    What's your point? It seems like you're pedantically focusing on a single word without regard for the actual meaning of the broader statement. No one is proposing to regulate things done in the traditional manner of cable tv, nor other uniform and impartial approaches.
    - tolerance 6mo ago
      @conception (root): "If you present data by algorithm, you are no longer an impartial common carrier and are liable for the content you present" @Aurornis: "Hacker News is a site that presents data by algorithm. Under your definition, Hacker News goes away, too." @Aurornis (cont'd): "When every site with “an algorithm” is liable for content posted, nobody is going to allow you to post something. It’s back to only reading content produced and curated by companies for us. Total own-goal for the individual internet user." @Aurornis (cont'd): "If a site becomes liable for content posted, you cannot allow users to post content without having the site review and take responsibility for every comment and every post." @tencentshill: "The algorithm is not personalized. It's the same for every user. No issue there..." Me: "But still an algorithm". @tencentshill: "Yes it's still an algorithm. Cable TV programming is another example." Me: "...how do broadcasters select/schedule their programming?" *** If the "broader statement" that you're referring to is @conception's, then I agree with @Auronis that this would have negative effects on how websites like Hacker News operate. Failing to distinguish personalized recommendation systems from depersonalized ones and proposing regulation that affects them the same is an impartial approach. The speculated consequence is that platforms (e.g., Hacker News) will not want to assume liability for the content that users share. [0] If this were to happen only a few platforms would exist, at least on the clear/open web. The general online experience would become something like a pastiche of 60s cable television with three or four providers authorized to broadcast media. With the direction that democracy is trending across the world that would mean state-run or state-approved media. Or all online communities will have to organize and operate like more traditional institutions like this biking community in London is doing: https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/401988/ https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/401988/. [0]: Some parts of this community already suspect that moderation conveniently buries controversial or subversive submissions. See this one from today! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48110927 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48110927
      - fc417fc802 6mo ago
        Legislation needs to be clear and unambiguous, sure. Nonetheless no one had chronological sort or raw vote count or whatever else in mind when they used the term "algorithm" here so pretending they did is obtuse and pedantic. Misinterpreting the position of the other party does not typically make for enlightening or insightful conversation. Cable TV is an example of something that no one is objecting to. The EU is targeting specific practices (particularly addictive UX patterns). Some people (myself included) would also like to see algorithms that provide personalized (on the individual or small cohort level) output banned. HN is clearly not that. I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about where exactly the line is between a general class and a small cohort. Certainly applying more than a few general classes simultaneously can quickly land you back in near-individual territory.

achenet 6mo ago

The facebook/meta algo might be same for all users, but it had different inputs for each user. HN, on the other hand, everyone has the same front page. If I like a post I can favorite it to 'bookmark' it, but HN won't modify my front page based on what I favorite, whereas facebook will. I think the GP's argument is, when it comes to social media, "one size fits all" might be less addictive than "custom made" :)

tencentshill 6mo ago
Thats what I was saying. Referring to HN, not facebook.

jimbob45 6mo ago

And also the algorithm here is title-blind. The content of the story bears no sway over its place in the rankings. I do not believe dang cherry-picks either except for the very rare sticky?

AlecSchueler 6mo ago
> the algorithm here is title-blind It's that true? I thought I had seen it said that there were keyword penalties to discourage things like political posts that could be turned off and on

AlecSchueler 6mo ago

> It's the same for every user It isn't. Users who vote and flag more often are more likely to have things from /new surfaced on their main page for example.