6 ms·

How exactly would you do this without, you know, violating the first amendment? Algorithmic feeds are nothing without the content. People get toxic sludge becau

by ethin 5mo ago

How exactly would you do this without, you know, violating the first amendment? Algorithmic feeds are nothing without the content. People get toxic sludge because they signal to the algorithm that they like that.

fc417fc802 5mo ago
Presumably by outlawing the types of algorithms used with the legislation carefully limited to a particular context rather than anything being authored by an individual. Right to express oneself preserved, government regulates a harmful product, business as usual. As far as this specific Colorado legislation goes (which is concerned with the ability to comply with their previously passed data privacy law) I think it's not entirely bad but I have two issues with it. First, it reverses the problem. Services should be sending an age-appropriateness (or even just general content classification) signal to the device for local processing, not the other way around. If you're going to mandate that OS creators do anything it should be to implement a certain baseline level of (interoperable!) functionality as far as parental controls are concerned. Second, the entire thing should be predicated on some metric such as MAU or revenue or combination thereof not on the exceedingly vague idea of a "free, publicly available code repository".
- ethin 5mo ago
  I definitely agree with those. Age verification laws in general I have lots of beef with because they're so nonsensical.
- tzs 5mo ago
  > First, it reverses the problem. Services should be sending an age-appropriateness (or even just general content classification) signal to the device for local processing, not the other way around. OK, so say the device receives a signal that say that an app is not appropriate for children under 13. How would the device find out if the user trying to run the app is under 13?
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    The question itself (ie if the user is under 13) doesn't matter. Already for the current legislation there's nothing stopping the device owner from intentionally lying about the age. So really this entire exercise is about providing a standardized means of control over filtering, thus my observation that the proposed measure is both backwards and overly limited in scope. The software on the device can do whatever it would like with the signal it receives, including consulting the user account metadata for declared age if the device owner so desires.
    - tzs 5mo ago
      Having the app ask the OS for the age range is more flexible. If the app tells the OS the age range it is appropriate for the filtering will only be able to either block or allow the app to run. If the systems tells the app the age range of the user the app can operate in a mode appropriate for that age range. For example a multiplayer game app can put kids in games that only have other kids playing. I think it being limited is a feature. This was modeled after the California law, and I think the intent is the same although the changes made after the initial draft make it less clear. The California law is clearly aimed at being a parental control on the child's device, with minimal privacy implications. Hence relying entirely on the age information provided by the parent.
MBCook 5mo ago
It’s just the algorithms promoting things I want banned. You may choose to sign up to see all the toxic sludge you wish, as is our constitutional rights as Americans. You say “they signal to the algorithm”, but how? How did they see it in the first place to be able to provide that signal? It was suggested to them. Often because that kind of content is really sticky for the site. Whether because you like it or it outrages you or scares you it’s manipulative in a way that is symbiotic with the platform’s goals. It provides perverse incentives for creators and companies.
- ethin 5mo ago
  > It’s just the algorithms promoting things I want banned. And again: the only reason the algorithm promotes things is because that person signaled that they were interested in it. They might've gotten it recommended by a friend, acquaintance, whatever, but the point is that if nobody had recommended anything to them the algorithm would have no data. And again: how do you propose to get this to survive the first amendment? Algorithms are a form of speech under law.
  - fc417fc802 5mo ago
    By that logic no product regulation could ever exist because it restricts in some way the free expression of any corporation subject to it. Obviously that's nonsense. Government bodies in the US are permitted to regulate the products traded on the market, at least within reason. > the only reason the algorithm promotes things is because that person signaled that they were interested in it. What point do you believe yourself to be making here? The only reason anyone shoots up heroin is because they want to. Or alternatively, someone can want a particular product without appreciating the toxic chemicals it happens to expose him to.
    - ethin 5mo ago
      > By that logic no product regulation could ever exist because it restricts in some way the free expression of any corporation subject to it. Except that this is case law, not something I'm pulling out of my ass. See Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), in which the court ruled that compiling and curating user-generated content into "a distinctive expressive offering" is protected editorial discretion, and that "the First Amendment offers protection when an entity engaging in expressive activity, including compiling and curating others' speech, is directed to accommodate messages it would prefer to exclude." The court did not rule on whether the same First Amendment protection extends to personalized curation decisions made algorithmically solely based on user behavior online without any reference to a site's own standards or guidelines. However, we cannot definitively say that the algorithms Facebook and co. use are not making decisions based on standards or guidelines of some kind, whether those be the community guidelines FB publishes or something else, because we don't know how they work internally, and they very well could be AI-driven with community guidelines in the prompt or something. Or they could be generic off-the-shelf recommender algorithms. Or something totally different. This bit TikTok in Anderson v. TikTok, where the third circuit court ruled that TikTok's "for you" feed was first-party expression and therefore not shielded by section 230, which is itself a massively misunderstood law of it's own. Literally the only thing I am trying to illustrate is that "ban all the algorithmic feeds" is not as easy as you suggest, and the definitive research proving that they are harmful has yet to actually be found when meta-analysis is conducted[0][1]. The (far more) harmful thing is these platforms extremely lax moderation. Granted, moderation is impossible to truly do competently at scale, but still. [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-study-says-theres-no-evidence-that-social-media-is-inherently-harmful-to-teens https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-stud... (this one links to 6 other studies) [1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/two-major-studies-125000-kids-the-social-media-panic-doesnt-hold-up https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/two-major-studies-125000...

by ethin 5mo ago

fc417fc802 5mo ago

Presumably by outlawing the types of algorithms used with the legislation carefully limited to a particular context rather than anything being authored by an individual. Right to express oneself preserved, government regulates a harmful product, business as usual. As far as this specific Colorado legislation goes (which is concerned with the ability to comply with their previously passed data privacy law) I think it's not entirely bad but I have two issues with it. First, it reverses the problem. Services should be sending an age-appropriateness (or even just general content classification) signal to the device for local processing, not the other way around. If you're going to mandate that OS creators do anything it should be to implement a certain baseline level of (interoperable!) functionality as far as parental controls are concerned. Second, the entire thing should be predicated on some metric such as MAU or revenue or combination thereof not on the exceedingly vague idea of a "free, publicly available code repository".

ethin 5mo ago
I definitely agree with those. Age verification laws in general I have lots of beef with because they're so nonsensical.
tzs 5mo ago
> First, it reverses the problem. Services should be sending an age-appropriateness (or even just general content classification) signal to the device for local processing, not the other way around. OK, so say the device receives a signal that say that an app is not appropriate for children under 13. How would the device find out if the user trying to run the app is under 13?
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  The question itself (ie if the user is under 13) doesn't matter. Already for the current legislation there's nothing stopping the device owner from intentionally lying about the age. So really this entire exercise is about providing a standardized means of control over filtering, thus my observation that the proposed measure is both backwards and overly limited in scope. The software on the device can do whatever it would like with the signal it receives, including consulting the user account metadata for declared age if the device owner so desires.
  - tzs 5mo ago
    Having the app ask the OS for the age range is more flexible. If the app tells the OS the age range it is appropriate for the filtering will only be able to either block or allow the app to run. If the systems tells the app the age range of the user the app can operate in a mode appropriate for that age range. For example a multiplayer game app can put kids in games that only have other kids playing. I think it being limited is a feature. This was modeled after the California law, and I think the intent is the same although the changes made after the initial draft make it less clear. The California law is clearly aimed at being a parental control on the child's device, with minimal privacy implications. Hence relying entirely on the age information provided by the parent.

MBCook 5mo ago

It’s just the algorithms promoting things I want banned. You may choose to sign up to see all the toxic sludge you wish, as is our constitutional rights as Americans. You say “they signal to the algorithm”, but how? How did they see it in the first place to be able to provide that signal? It was suggested to them. Often because that kind of content is really sticky for the site. Whether because you like it or it outrages you or scares you it’s manipulative in a way that is symbiotic with the platform’s goals. It provides perverse incentives for creators and companies.

ethin 5mo ago
> It’s just the algorithms promoting things I want banned. And again: the only reason the algorithm promotes things is because that person signaled that they were interested in it. They might've gotten it recommended by a friend, acquaintance, whatever, but the point is that if nobody had recommended anything to them the algorithm would have no data. And again: how do you propose to get this to survive the first amendment? Algorithms are a form of speech under law.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  By that logic no product regulation could ever exist because it restricts in some way the free expression of any corporation subject to it. Obviously that's nonsense. Government bodies in the US are permitted to regulate the products traded on the market, at least within reason. > the only reason the algorithm promotes things is because that person signaled that they were interested in it. What point do you believe yourself to be making here? The only reason anyone shoots up heroin is because they want to. Or alternatively, someone can want a particular product without appreciating the toxic chemicals it happens to expose him to.
  - ethin 5mo ago
    > By that logic no product regulation could ever exist because it restricts in some way the free expression of any corporation subject to it. Except that this is case law, not something I'm pulling out of my ass. See Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. ___ (2024), in which the court ruled that compiling and curating user-generated content into "a distinctive expressive offering" is protected editorial discretion, and that "the First Amendment offers protection when an entity engaging in expressive activity, including compiling and curating others' speech, is directed to accommodate messages it would prefer to exclude." The court did not rule on whether the same First Amendment protection extends to personalized curation decisions made algorithmically solely based on user behavior online without any reference to a site's own standards or guidelines. However, we cannot definitively say that the algorithms Facebook and co. use are not making decisions based on standards or guidelines of some kind, whether those be the community guidelines FB publishes or something else, because we don't know how they work internally, and they very well could be AI-driven with community guidelines in the prompt or something. Or they could be generic off-the-shelf recommender algorithms. Or something totally different. This bit TikTok in Anderson v. TikTok, where the third circuit court ruled that TikTok's "for you" feed was first-party expression and therefore not shielded by section 230, which is itself a massively misunderstood law of it's own. Literally the only thing I am trying to illustrate is that "ban all the algorithmic feeds" is not as easy as you suggest, and the definitive research proving that they are harmful has yet to actually be found when meta-analysis is conducted[0][1]. The (far more) harmful thing is these platforms extremely lax moderation. Granted, moderation is impossible to truly do competently at scale, but still. [0]: https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-study-says-theres-no-evidence-that-social-media-is-inherently-harmful-to-teens https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/18/yet-another-massive-stud... (this one links to 6 other studies) [1]: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/two-major-studies-125000-kids-the-social-media-panic-doesnt-hold-up https://www.techdirt.com/2026/01/21/two-major-studies-125000...