4 ms·

What does that mean, practically? The person who installed linux on that particular device is liable? >no algorithmic feeds for minors by default Any choice o

What does that mean, practically? The person who installed linux on that particular device is liable? >no algorithmic feeds for minors by default Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm?

stevenalowe 2mo ago
"Illinois now requires operating system providers, open source projects included, to build age verification by 2028" however "nothing in the bill has teeth against someone with no business presence in Illinois"
- gh02t 2mo ago
  Companies like Red Hat/IBM operate in Illinois and for better or worse have controlling interests in Linux and across open source projects pretty broadly. Wouldn't they be forced to include the capability in their products, which then percolate out to everyone just by network effects?
  - FuckButtons 2mo ago
    finally the die hard systemd haters will have an actually valid point.
    - LPisGood 2mo ago
      I’m unfamiliar with systemd’s haters or why this would give them a valid point. Could you please elaborate?
      - genewitch 2mo ago
        systemd is a massive blob of code that infects every part of a system and all of its subsystems. It completely changed the way system administration was done, the way init scripts work, and added tons of things to init that some argue aren't necessary, like dhcp and DNS. Newer linux folks like it because they're used to it, people who don't like it use devuan, gentoo, or one of the others that still lets one use openRC or whatever else. upthread someone mentioned that systemd already has the ability to store the birthdate of a user. Why would an init system need that? It doesn't, but here we are.
        Melonai 2mo ago
        Maybe I'm about to be too pedantic, but I never quite got the argument of systemd being massively bloated based on examples of it including DNS and DHCP. Sure it's a mono-repository that includes all these services, but in the end you do run them separately? The actual "systemd, the init system" doesn't have DNS, DHCP or a user birthday database built-in, those are contained in their own services, namely systemd-resolved, systemd-networkd, and systemd-userdbd respectively, and, although systemd does genuinely lead you down the path of using them (which might be a real problem!), there isn't actually a definite requirement to do so. systemd will gladly run your BIND, ISC DHCP and NetworkManager for you if you tell it to, no? In fact we do so at my place of work. Just because they are under the same project as the init system doesn't mean they are one monolith, I think. To me that feels like saying "Why does the GNU C library include a bootloader!". Now it's not like there's not plenty to dislike about systemd, it is a wide-reaching project that has managed to get a huge mindshare of the lower-level services needed to run a basic Linux server or desktop, and that has caused many utilities and services to appear that have a hard dependency on it, which is obviously bad for anyone running services that aren't part of the systemd package set, just take a look at NixOS, it's practically built purely on systemd, with efforts to support alternative init systems essentially archived at this point. Plenty of people also quite dislike Lennart, or how involved corporations are in the systemd development, and other people have loads of other reasons. One of my own gripes is speed for quite a few basic procedures in networkd. There's enough stuff to hate about it! I think it's not really necessary to pretend that your init system runs a DNS server and stores birthdays.
        gh02t 2mo ago
        > Newer linux folks like it because they're used to it, people who don't like it use devuan, gentoo, or one of the others that still lets one use openRC or whatever else. This is a bad generalization. Counterpoint, I've been using Linux as a daily driver for like 25 years now (and have also used other Unixes/likes fairly extensively). I have my gripes with systemd, but I personally prefer to use it over OpenRC etc. I don't think I'm alone, either, as distros like Devuan are pretty far down on usage lists. There are plenty of Greybeards out there who dislike systemd enough to use something else, but I suspect there are at least as many out there who like it or don't care enough to use an alternative.
  - johnsmith1840 2mo ago
    I don't see how they enforce it though? Isn't this saying every linux instance needs basically a backdoor network access? How would verify the 30 pods on my node are from minors or adults without that? Or this is more about a user facing node? So my aws nodes need to verify my age before I ssh in? Remote desktop services? Sounds so complicated to actually do.
    - dd8601fn 2mo ago
      I suppose they only have to confirm that the OS supports age bucket reporting... not that you're using it.
    - MrJohz 2mo ago
      There's no verification necessary. Instead, you'd just set a flag on all of those pods that says "this is an adult". Or more likely, you wouldn't set anything, there would be no changes at all, because that would be the default. However, if I gave my child a laptop with Linux installed, the law would force the OS to provide some setting somewhere that I can toggle that switches the installation to child mode. (On Linux, I imagine it would make sense to have this be a per-user toggle, so my kid's account would be in child mode, and the root account would not.) The applications on that computer would then be required to check that setting if they want to show "adult content" (here defined as algorithmic feeds, notifications between certain hours, the ability to receive messages from identified adults). Similarly (this isn't clear but would presumably be technically required) browsers would pass this setting on to websites in some way. Another way of seeing it is this: you know the DNT/Do Not Track header that you can optionally set in your browser and (theoretically at least) websites will not track you? This is essentially that but for certain kinds of content. If you set the header, websites won't be allowed to show algorithmic feeds, etc. Basically all of this is in the article, which lays it out very clearly (if you ignore the Claude-isms).
      - johnsmith1840 2mo ago
        Oh, that's not that bad? Literally a flag at bios/admin layer defaulting to adult. I mean completely unenforcable but still not that crazy
monocasa 2mo ago
That part hasn't really been decided since it's a regulatory question. Basically the bill defines > "Operating system provider" means a commercial or non-profit entity that controls the Internet-enabled device's operating system, including the design, programming, or supply of operating systems for the Internet-enabled devices. Which is an extremely broad definition that could be interpreted in a whole bunch of ways.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
koutakun 2mo ago
Presumably this means no targeting the user's preferences and just showing everything by newest/most liked.
- genewitch 2mo ago
  "most liked" won't work. has to be chronological, and manually curated. the way fediverse works. when you make an account somewhere, you can choose to see the local people, or the entire network, but it's all chronological. There's things like hashtag searches and whatnot, but none of it is algorithms; in the sense we understand it to mean, here, these are not manipulative algorithms designed to keep people on a site and keep ads rolling by. on the fediverse, there are bots to curate content such as "most liked", one can subscribe to these bots to see such "views" of the feed. there's absolutely no reason for any of that crap to be built in, other than that's how reddit (and HN) do it.
  - Groxx 2mo ago
    There's a "trending" feed on nearly every implementation including the official Mastodon one (hashtags have their own "trending" too), and chronological definitely fits "an algorithm" imo - it has all the hallmark problems of one, such as encouraging bad behavior (frequent spamming is the most effective strategy to be seen). Lemmy is even further down this path, with "hot", "controversial", "active", etc, and defaults to "algorithmic" sorts for its front page and all comments. Fediverse absolutely has "algorithms". People generally want them. I agree that it's broadly less user-hostile (I'm very much a fan), but it's very much moving down the same paths as twitter (mastodon), reddit (lemmy), etc.
    - genewitch 2mo ago
      chronological feed nuisances can be blocked or not followed in the first place. It is absolutely not an algorithm by the definition we're all using here. It is an algorithm on a data structure, but it is not an algorithm to drive ad impressions. do you see the difference? this is why people say "Algo" when talking about the latter, and "Algorithm" when talking with other like-minded people about data structures and algorithms.
harvey9 2mo ago
They want an explanation of what an algorithm is. The world is full of people using words they don't understand and sometimes of them work in legislatures.
- queenkjuul 2mo ago
  Read the bill, it defines what it means, unlike this clickbait claudeslop article
duped 2mo ago
The text of the bill is here: https://ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&DocNum=5511&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=167486&SessionID=114 https://ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&Doc.... There's about 3.5 pages of text defining this. The relevant text doesn't call it an "algorithmic feed" for what it's worth. They define an "addictive" feed and it's essentially any kind of personalized recommendation. > "Addictive feed" means 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.
- kube-system 2mo ago
  It seems that it mostly bans behavior-based personalization that is opaque to the user. It seems to allow for several types of personalization where the user has agency.
kube-system 2mo ago
> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm? That's a paraphrasing of what law says. The law is more clearly defined: > "Addictive feed" means 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: (1) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on information that is not persistently associated with the user's device and does not concern the user's previous interactions with media generated or shared by other users; (2) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on data controlled by user-selected privacy or accessibility settings or technical information concerning the user's device; (3) 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 that is not permissible under this definition; (4) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media by a specific 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 as described by paragraph (3), be blocked, prioritized, or deprioritized for display, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not permissible under this definition; (5) the media is direct and private communication between users; (6) the media is recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user; (7) the media that is recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a preexisting sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source; or (8) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is necessary to comply with the provisions of this Act. "Addictive social media platform" means a covered platform that offers users or provides users with an addictive feed as a part of the service provided by that website, online service, online application, or mobile application.
Marsymars 2mo ago
> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. You could argue about the language and the meaning of "algorithm", but for practical purposes I'd consider a manually-curated feed to be non-algorithmic.
- akersten 2mo ago
  sure, if we can make words mean whatever we like, yeah
delecti 2mo ago
> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm? Phrases can have meanings beyond just a naive combination of the words in them. And indeed "algorithmic feed" in the bill means what what we all understand that term to mean when we aren't paralyzed by pedantry. > Under the law, [...] these users will only be shown content they request or search for or that is posted by a creator or friend they follow. You may disagree with the motivation behind the bill, but you do the discussion a disservice to assume the people writing it are incompetent enough to not define their terms.
- spullara 2mo ago
  Algorithmic feeds are just search algorithms based on what the user is asking to see with their behavior.
  - wtallis 2mo ago
    I think it's pretty obvious that your explanation cannot be complete or accurate. Algorithmic feeds usually have a strong influence of what they want to show you, commonly pushing stuff you aren't interested in, or anything that will keep you on their app/site longer so they have more opportunities to show you ads. There are strong conflicts of interest here.
    - spullara 2mo ago
      No one produces a feed that purposefully delivers content or ads that you aren't interested in. Those are bugs. Go look at the published X algorithm. You won't find anything in there that would attempt to show you things that don't match your interests.
      - queenkjuul 2mo ago
        I have no interest in anything Musk has to say, and yet, he's in everyone's feed
tzs 2mo ago
The article is slightly wrong. It is "addictive" feeds that are address, not "algorithmic" feeds. The definition is in in the bill, but the copies I have seen are formatted in ways that make copy/paste too much work, and a quick comparison looks like it is almost identical to New York's law targeting such feeds (except Illinois numbers there list 1-8 whereas NY letters it a-h), and I happen to have that in an easily pastable form, so here is the NY definition: > "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.

stevenalowe 2mo ago

"Illinois now requires operating system providers, open source projects included, to build age verification by 2028" however "nothing in the bill has teeth against someone with no business presence in Illinois"

gh02t 2mo ago
Companies like Red Hat/IBM operate in Illinois and for better or worse have controlling interests in Linux and across open source projects pretty broadly. Wouldn't they be forced to include the capability in their products, which then percolate out to everyone just by network effects?
- FuckButtons 2mo ago
  finally the die hard systemd haters will have an actually valid point.
  - LPisGood 2mo ago
    I’m unfamiliar with systemd’s haters or why this would give them a valid point. Could you please elaborate?
    - genewitch 2mo ago
      systemd is a massive blob of code that infects every part of a system and all of its subsystems. It completely changed the way system administration was done, the way init scripts work, and added tons of things to init that some argue aren't necessary, like dhcp and DNS. Newer linux folks like it because they're used to it, people who don't like it use devuan, gentoo, or one of the others that still lets one use openRC or whatever else. upthread someone mentioned that systemd already has the ability to store the birthdate of a user. Why would an init system need that? It doesn't, but here we are.
      - Melonai 2mo ago
        Maybe I'm about to be too pedantic, but I never quite got the argument of systemd being massively bloated based on examples of it including DNS and DHCP. Sure it's a mono-repository that includes all these services, but in the end you do run them separately? The actual "systemd, the init system" doesn't have DNS, DHCP or a user birthday database built-in, those are contained in their own services, namely systemd-resolved, systemd-networkd, and systemd-userdbd respectively, and, although systemd does genuinely lead you down the path of using them (which might be a real problem!), there isn't actually a definite requirement to do so. systemd will gladly run your BIND, ISC DHCP and NetworkManager for you if you tell it to, no? In fact we do so at my place of work. Just because they are under the same project as the init system doesn't mean they are one monolith, I think. To me that feels like saying "Why does the GNU C library include a bootloader!". Now it's not like there's not plenty to dislike about systemd, it is a wide-reaching project that has managed to get a huge mindshare of the lower-level services needed to run a basic Linux server or desktop, and that has caused many utilities and services to appear that have a hard dependency on it, which is obviously bad for anyone running services that aren't part of the systemd package set, just take a look at NixOS, it's practically built purely on systemd, with efforts to support alternative init systems essentially archived at this point. Plenty of people also quite dislike Lennart, or how involved corporations are in the systemd development, and other people have loads of other reasons. One of my own gripes is speed for quite a few basic procedures in networkd. There's enough stuff to hate about it! I think it's not really necessary to pretend that your init system runs a DNS server and stores birthdays.
      - gh02t 2mo ago
        > Newer linux folks like it because they're used to it, people who don't like it use devuan, gentoo, or one of the others that still lets one use openRC or whatever else. This is a bad generalization. Counterpoint, I've been using Linux as a daily driver for like 25 years now (and have also used other Unixes/likes fairly extensively). I have my gripes with systemd, but I personally prefer to use it over OpenRC etc. I don't think I'm alone, either, as distros like Devuan are pretty far down on usage lists. There are plenty of Greybeards out there who dislike systemd enough to use something else, but I suspect there are at least as many out there who like it or don't care enough to use an alternative.
- johnsmith1840 2mo ago
  I don't see how they enforce it though? Isn't this saying every linux instance needs basically a backdoor network access? How would verify the 30 pods on my node are from minors or adults without that? Or this is more about a user facing node? So my aws nodes need to verify my age before I ssh in? Remote desktop services? Sounds so complicated to actually do.
  - dd8601fn 2mo ago
    I suppose they only have to confirm that the OS supports age bucket reporting... not that you're using it.
  - MrJohz 2mo ago
    There's no verification necessary. Instead, you'd just set a flag on all of those pods that says "this is an adult". Or more likely, you wouldn't set anything, there would be no changes at all, because that would be the default. However, if I gave my child a laptop with Linux installed, the law would force the OS to provide some setting somewhere that I can toggle that switches the installation to child mode. (On Linux, I imagine it would make sense to have this be a per-user toggle, so my kid's account would be in child mode, and the root account would not.) The applications on that computer would then be required to check that setting if they want to show "adult content" (here defined as algorithmic feeds, notifications between certain hours, the ability to receive messages from identified adults). Similarly (this isn't clear but would presumably be technically required) browsers would pass this setting on to websites in some way. Another way of seeing it is this: you know the DNT/Do Not Track header that you can optionally set in your browser and (theoretically at least) websites will not track you? This is essentially that but for certain kinds of content. If you set the header, websites won't be allowed to show algorithmic feeds, etc. Basically all of this is in the article, which lays it out very clearly (if you ignore the Claude-isms).
    - johnsmith1840 2mo ago
      Oh, that's not that bad? Literally a flag at bios/admin layer defaulting to adult. I mean completely unenforcable but still not that crazy

monocasa 2mo ago

That part hasn't really been decided since it's a regulatory question. Basically the bill defines > "Operating system provider" means a commercial or non-profit entity that controls the Internet-enabled device's operating system, including the design, programming, or supply of operating systems for the Internet-enabled devices. Which is an extremely broad definition that could be interpreted in a whole bunch of ways.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

koutakun 2mo ago

Presumably this means no targeting the user's preferences and just showing everything by newest/most liked.

genewitch 2mo ago
"most liked" won't work. has to be chronological, and manually curated. the way fediverse works. when you make an account somewhere, you can choose to see the local people, or the entire network, but it's all chronological. There's things like hashtag searches and whatnot, but none of it is algorithms; in the sense we understand it to mean, here, these are not manipulative algorithms designed to keep people on a site and keep ads rolling by. on the fediverse, there are bots to curate content such as "most liked", one can subscribe to these bots to see such "views" of the feed. there's absolutely no reason for any of that crap to be built in, other than that's how reddit (and HN) do it.
- Groxx 2mo ago
  There's a "trending" feed on nearly every implementation including the official Mastodon one (hashtags have their own "trending" too), and chronological definitely fits "an algorithm" imo - it has all the hallmark problems of one, such as encouraging bad behavior (frequent spamming is the most effective strategy to be seen). Lemmy is even further down this path, with "hot", "controversial", "active", etc, and defaults to "algorithmic" sorts for its front page and all comments. Fediverse absolutely has "algorithms". People generally want them. I agree that it's broadly less user-hostile (I'm very much a fan), but it's very much moving down the same paths as twitter (mastodon), reddit (lemmy), etc.
  - genewitch 2mo ago
    chronological feed nuisances can be blocked or not followed in the first place. It is absolutely not an algorithm by the definition we're all using here. It is an algorithm on a data structure, but it is not an algorithm to drive ad impressions. do you see the difference? this is why people say "Algo" when talking about the latter, and "Algorithm" when talking with other like-minded people about data structures and algorithms.

harvey9 2mo ago

They want an explanation of what an algorithm is. The world is full of people using words they don't understand and sometimes of them work in legislatures.

queenkjuul 2mo ago
Read the bill, it defines what it means, unlike this clickbait claudeslop article

duped 2mo ago

The text of the bill is here: https://ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&DocNum=5511&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=167486&SessionID=114 https://ilga.gov/Legislation/BillStatus/FullText?GAID=18&Doc.... There's about 3.5 pages of text defining this. The relevant text doesn't call it an "algorithmic feed" for what it's worth. They define an "addictive" feed and it's essentially any kind of personalized recommendation. > "Addictive feed" means 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.

kube-system 2mo ago
It seems that it mostly bans behavior-based personalization that is opaque to the user. It seems to allow for several types of personalization where the user has agency.

kube-system 2mo ago

> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm? That's a paraphrasing of what law says. The law is more clearly defined: > "Addictive feed" means 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: (1) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on information that is not persistently associated with the user's device and does not concern the user's previous interactions with media generated or shared by other users; (2) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is based on data controlled by user-selected privacy or accessibility settings or technical information concerning the user's device; (3) 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 that is not permissible under this definition; (4) the user expressly and unambiguously requested the specific media by a specific 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 as described by paragraph (3), be blocked, prioritized, or deprioritized for display, provided that the media is not recommended, selected, or prioritized based, in whole or in part, on other information associated with the user or the user's device that is not permissible under this definition; (5) the media is direct and private communication between users; (6) the media is recommended, selected, or prioritized only in response to a specific search inquiry by the user; (7) the media that is recommended, selected, or prioritized for display is exclusively next in a preexisting sequence from the same author, creator, poster, or source; or (8) the recommendation, prioritization, or selection is necessary to comply with the provisions of this Act. "Addictive social media platform" means a covered platform that offers users or provides users with an addictive feed as a part of the service provided by that website, online service, online application, or mobile application.

Marsymars 2mo ago

> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. You could argue about the language and the meaning of "algorithm", but for practical purposes I'd consider a manually-curated feed to be non-algorithmic.

akersten 2mo ago
sure, if we can make words mean whatever we like, yeah

delecti 2mo ago

> Any choice of what content to display is an algorithm. Maybe they want a simple or easily explainable algorithm? Phrases can have meanings beyond just a naive combination of the words in them. And indeed "algorithmic feed" in the bill means what what we all understand that term to mean when we aren't paralyzed by pedantry. > Under the law, [...] these users will only be shown content they request or search for or that is posted by a creator or friend they follow. You may disagree with the motivation behind the bill, but you do the discussion a disservice to assume the people writing it are incompetent enough to not define their terms.

spullara 2mo ago
Algorithmic feeds are just search algorithms based on what the user is asking to see with their behavior.
- wtallis 2mo ago
  I think it's pretty obvious that your explanation cannot be complete or accurate. Algorithmic feeds usually have a strong influence of what they want to show you, commonly pushing stuff you aren't interested in, or anything that will keep you on their app/site longer so they have more opportunities to show you ads. There are strong conflicts of interest here.
  - spullara 2mo ago
    No one produces a feed that purposefully delivers content or ads that you aren't interested in. Those are bugs. Go look at the published X algorithm. You won't find anything in there that would attempt to show you things that don't match your interests.
    - queenkjuul 2mo ago
      I have no interest in anything Musk has to say, and yet, he's in everyone's feed

tzs 2mo ago

The article is slightly wrong. It is "addictive" feeds that are address, not "algorithmic" feeds. The definition is in in the bill, but the copies I have seen are formatted in ways that make copy/paste too much work, and a quick comparison looks like it is almost identical to New York's law targeting such feeds (except Illinois numbers there list 1-8 whereas NY letters it a-h), and I happen to have that in an easily pastable form, so here is the NY definition: > "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.