Comment by ramon156

1 month ago

They'd find another method. Why are we allowing this in the first place?

I don't have an answer to fix this whole mess, but it starts with our attitude towards addiction. We've built a system that rewards addiction in all sorts of places. Granted, every addiction is different, and I'm of the opinion that it's not (drug = bad), it's how you use it and react to it. We can control the latter, but we choose to ignore it because we're too busy with anything else. This is a tale as old as time...

15 comments

ramon156

Reply
ToucanLoucan  1 month ago

> Why are we allowing this in the first place?

Exactly what I keep coming back to.

For me, it feels like you could cut this problem down substantially by eliminating section 230 protection on any algorithmically elevated content. Everywhere. Full stop.

If you write or have an algorithm created that pushes content to users, in ANY fashion, that is endorsement. You want that content to be seen, for whatever odd reason, and if it's harmful to your users, you should be held responsible for it. It's one thing if some random asshole messages me on Telegram trying to scam me; there's little Telegram can do (though a fucking "do not permit messages from people not in my contacts" setting would be nice) but there is nothing at all that "makes" Facebook shovel AI bullshit at people, apart from it juices engagement, either by genuine engagement or ironic/ragebaiting.

And AI bullshit is just annoying, I've seen "Facebook help" groups that are clearly just trawling to get people's account info, I've seen scam pages and products, all kinds of shit, and either it pisses people off so Facebook passes it around, or they give Facebook money and Facebook shoves it into the feeds of everyone they can.

It's fucking disgusting and there's no reason to permit it.

  • Terr_  1 month ago

    > algorithmically elevated

    I don't see a good way to make a definite legal distinction between the icky stuff versus normal an unobjectionable things which are, technically, also forms of elevation-by-algorithm:

        rank_by_age(items) // Good
    rank_by_age_and_poster_reputation(items) // Probably   
    rank_by_on_topic_ness(items, forum_subject)
    rank_by_likes(items)
    rank_by_engagement_likelihood(items) // Bad?
    rank_by_positive_sentiment_toward_clients(items) // Bad

    • ToucanLoucan  1 month ago

      Really, I see one right here:

          rank_by_age(items) // Good
    rank_by_age_and_poster_reputation(items) // Probably   
    rank_by_on_topic_ness(items, forum_subject)
    rank_by_likes(items)
    <-- here -->
    rank_by_engagement_likelihood(items) // Bad?
    rank_by_positive_sentiment_toward_clients(items) // Bad

      Age is deterministic. When was the thing posted?

      Poster reputation is deterministic. How many times has this poster received positive feedback based on their content?

      On-topic-ness is deterministic, if a bit fuzzy. That said I think the likes will reflect this, if you post a thread about cooking potatoes in the gopro subreddit, your post will be downvoted and probably removed via other means in which case it's presence in the feed is already null.

      Likes are again, deterministic. How many people upvoted it?

      In contrast:

      Engagement likelihood is clearly a subjective, theoretical measure. An algorithm is going to parse a database for other posts like this, see how much attention it got, and say "is this likely to drive engagement." That's what I'm talking about.

      And positive sentiment towards clients I can't quite read? I'm guessing you're referring to like, community sponsors but I'm not 100% certain. But that almost certainly is a subjective one too, and even if not, it's giving people with money the ability to put their thumb on the scale.

      1 reply →

  • SpicyLemonZest  1 month ago

    Eliminating section 230 protections would heavily disfavor any kind of intellectually stimulating content, because it's hard for a platform to scalably verify that nobody's making defamatory claims. But pointless clickbait, heavily filtered Instagram models, etc. don't really have liability concerns on a video-by-video level. To me it seems like this makes the problem worse.

    • roughly  1 month ago

      It’s not eliminating section 230 entirely, it’s eliminating it for algorithmically promoted content. If you have a site that has user content and you present that content in a neutral fashion, section 230 applies. If you pick and choose what content to present to users (manually or by algorithm), you’re no longer a neutral platform, and shouldn’t be getting the benefit of 230.

      4 replies →

  • pjc50  1 month ago

    > If you write or have an algorithm created that pushes content to users, in ANY fashion, that is endorsement

    Yes. People make free speech arguments about this, but the list and order of stuff returned by algorithmic non-directed (+) lists is clearly a form of endorsement. Even more so is advertising, which undergoes a bidding process. Pages which show ads should be liable if those ads are fraudulent, especially if they're so obviously fraudulent that casual readers suspect them immediately.

    (+) Returning a list of stuff in a user-specified query, on the other hand, is not endorsement. Chronological or alphabetical order or distance-based or even random is fine.

    Note that section 230 is, of course, US specific and other countries manage without it.

aaomidi  1 month ago

In the span of how long it takes for law to catch up to what’s going on, YouTube and Facebook has been around for a tiny amount of time.

greenhearth  1 month ago

"Free market" and "entrepreneur spirit" fetishism and fear of collective social action against individual drives.