| ▲ | Aurornis 3 hours ago |
| > But what is actually being done about it? Serious question: What exactly do you want to see done? I mean real specifics, not just the angry mob pitchfork calls for corporate death penalty or throwing Mark Zuckerberg in jail. |
|
| ▲ | slg 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Amend Section 230 so that it does not apply to content that is served algorithmically. Social media companies can either allow us to select what content we want to see by giving us a chronological feed of the people/topics we follow or they can serve us content according to some algorithm designed to keep us on their platform longer. The former is neutral and deserves protection, but the latter is editorial. Once they take on that editorial role of deciding what content we see, they should become liable for the content they put in front of us. |
| |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | So Hacker News should lose section 230 protection? Because the content served here isn't served in chronological order. The front page takes votes into account and displays hotter posts higher in the feed. | | |
| ▲ | slg 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Technically sorting by timestamp is an "algorithm" too, so I was just speaking informally rather than drafting the exact language of a piece of legislation. I would define the categories as something like algorithms determined by direct proactive user decisions (following, upvoting, etc) versus algorithms that are determined by other factors (views, watch time, behavior by similar users, etc). Basically it should always be clear why you're being served what you're being served, either because the user chose to see it or because everyone is seeing it. No more nebulous black box algorithms that give every user an experience individually designed to keep them on the platform. This will still impact HN because of stuff like the flame war downranker they use here. However, that doesn't automatically mean HN loses Section 230 protection. HN could respond by simplifying its ranking algorithm to maintain 230 protections. | |
| ▲ | sleight42 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | And there's also moderator control? Yup. Accountable. | | |
| ▲ | Manuel_D 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | So to be clear, anything other than a 4chan-like unmoderated chronological feed results in loss of section 230 protection? Heck, even 4chan wouldn't qualify, because despite considerably looser content rules they still actually do perform moderation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ares623 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That’s the first reasonable take I’ve seen on this. Thanks for explaining it, I will use it for offline discussions on the subject. It’s been hard to explain. | |
| ▲ | parineum 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Chronological is an algorithm | |
| ▲ | FloorEgg 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This would be a huge step in the right direction. | |
| ▲ | worik 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | They could use transparent adjustable algorithms I would like to tweak my own feed |
|
|
| ▲ | flag_fagger 37 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Isn’t this what we have RICO for? > she was shocked to learn that the company had a “17x” strike policy for accounts that reportedly engaged in the “trafficking of humans for sex.” There’s no way in hell this isn’t just tacitly incentivized the facilitation of trafficking activities through the site. |
|
| ▲ | knuppar 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > angry mob pitchfork calls > corporate death penalty I don't know man these don't seem very specific. From your whole comment I do agree Mark should be in jail |
|
| ▲ | wyre 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Larger fines, more robust methods for Meta to keep children off their platforms, more robust methods to stop the spread of propaganda and spam on their platforms, for Meta to start prioritizing connection between others instead of attention. |
| |
| ▲ | loosescrews an hour ago | parent [-] | | If you want a company to do something, you do need to ensure that the fine is bigger than the amount of money they made or will make by doing the thing you are trying to discourage. You need there to be a real downside. I don't think any of the fines that have been discussed are anywhere close to the levels that I am talking about. |
|
|
| ▲ | __MatrixMan__ 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Other shareholders in jail also. If my dog bites somebody, I'm on the hook. It should be no different with companies. We have to create incentives to not invest in troublesome companies. Fines are inadequate, they incentivize buying shares in troublesome companies and then selling them before the harm comes to light. |
|
| ▲ | worik 26 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Serious question: What exactly do you want to see done? Confiscate their wealth |
|
| ▲ | dkdcio 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| ban digital advertisement at a federal level and 95% of the underlying problems are solved at the incentive level |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > ban digital advertisement at a federal level This is what I meant by angry mob pitchfork ideas. This isn’t a real idea, it’s just rage venting. It’s also wrong, as anyone familiar with the problems in pay-to-play social video games for kids, which are not ad supported, can tell you. These platforms have just as many problems if not more, yet advertising has nothing to do with it. I bet you could charge $10/month for Instagram and the same social problems would exist. It’s a silly suggestion. | | |
| ▲ | dkdcio 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | literally the opposite of a pitchfork idea; quite simple, relatively easy to implement, and immediately effective. incentives from advertising is the underlying issue with the addictive nature of these platforms (and much more) | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > literally the opposite of a pitchfork idea The mere fact that commenters think banning advertising is a simple and realistic idea, without any constitutional road blocks or practical objections, is what I mean when I say these comment sections are just angry bloviating with unrealistic expectations. If you think banning all advertising is “simple” then I don’t know what to say, but there isn’t a real conversation here. | | |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Just FYI. For a very long time, strong alcohol ads were banned on TV, and the same with tobacco. I don't watch regular TV, anymore, so I don't know if it still is in place. Mentioning "banning advertising" on HN is bound to draw downvotes. A significant number of HN members make money directly, or indirectly, from digital advertising. It's like walking into a mosque, and demanding they allow drinking. Won't end well. | | |
| ▲ | fn-mote an hour ago | parent [-] | | In this case, the suggestion of banning advertising is drawing downvotes from me because I see it as politically unrealistic. At least in my state, there isn’t even a ban on advertising online gambling!! It is quite a stretch to think we could move from there to banning any kind of advertising. It has nothing to do with the fact that a bunch of HN readers make money from ads. I don’t. |
| |
| ▲ | dkdcio 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | so is it a pitchfork idea? I want Mark’s head? or it’s impractical? you’ve changed your apprehension to my idea twice in two comments constitutional roadblock…to banning digital advertisement? please do explain! I didn’t claim it’s easy to get it done in the real world, but it’s not a reactive/vindictive pitchfork idea. it’s really not that hard, if people wanted it we’ve banned plenty of things at the federal level in this country over the years (the hard part is of course people realizing how detrimental digital advertising is) it’s a simple solution that’s very effective. obviously any large-scale change, to fix a large-scale problem, is not “simple” to implement, but it’s also not fucking rocket science on this one mate you’re clearly not having a conversation in good faith. you asked, I answered, I’m done with this | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’ve not changed anything, I was asking for realistic suggestions. You’re throwing out unrealistic suggestions. Why stop there? Why not just shut down the whole internet? Simple and effective. Ban cell phones. Simple and effective. These are just silly ways of thinking about the world. | | |
| ▲ | dkdcio 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | you’re just doing ad hominems and strawmans. I’m not suggesting banning anything other than digital advertisement. you’re not open to having a productive discussion about it, just misdirection and whataboutism please stop ascribing intent I do not have and words I did not say in your juvenile attempt to win an argument p.s. still would love to hear your constitutional argument against it! banning digital advertisement at the federal level is not unrealistic and if you've actually given it the thought you’re pretending to and still reach that conclusion, I do have an ad hominem to throw back at you | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > p.s. still would love to hear your constitutional argument against it! You don’t need to hear my argument against it. The fact that advertising your services is free speech is well established. It’s a major challenge for movements like those trying to tackle pharmaceutical advertising. Also, if you can’t see how I’ve been addressing your arguments and you think it’s all ad hominem then I don’t think there’s any real conversation to be had here. Between all the downvotes you’re collecting and the weird attempts to ignore everything I say and pretend it’s ad hominem as a defensive tactic, this is pure trolling at this point. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | flag_fagger an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The mere fact that commenters think banning advertising is a simple and realistic idea, without any constitutional road blocks Of course not, clearly you just need a captured congress and an EO. Can’t be too hard to find a reason to turn Trump against Zuckerberg. |
|
| |
| ▲ | squigz 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Banning advertisement seemed to work for smoking. https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/22/tc-2... Why do you think it would be ineffective here? I'm also curious on how you think we might tackle these issues. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms. They don’t want anyone to be able to advertise anything. Not even your local contractors trying to advertise their businesses that you want to find, because that’s advertising. The tobacco ad ban isn’t relevant to what was claimed. | | |
| ▲ | squigz 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > The parent comment called for banning all advertising, not for banning ads promoting social media platforms. This wasn't my reading of it, but it does appear that's what GP meant. I don't agree with that. Even so, if you were interested in having a good faith discussion about solutions here, you might have responded to both interpretations. You may consider this me putting forth the suggestion as an answer to your question, if you must. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | justapassenger 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We can also solve global warming problems by banning oil, coal and cows, and solve hunger by banning having kids. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | “Just ban everything I don’t like as long as it won’t impact anything I do like” is a frequent take on HN these days. Then when states start doing things like adding ID requirements for websites it’s shock and rage as the consequences of banning things (even for under 18s) encounter the realities of what happens when you “just ban” things. | | |
| ▲ | terminalshort 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It really has turned into a bitter losers bitch fest in here. | |
| ▲ | opan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think we can separate the banning of things which affect personal freedom from the rest. Like if oil were "banned", I'm imagining it's not illegal to possess oil, but rather oil companies wouldn't be able to drill it up and sell it anymore. A bit like fazing out asbestos. The ordinary people with asbestos tiles in their basement don't get into trouble, but new house builds can't/won't use that tile anymore. ID requirements seem like the main burden is being put on ordinary people instead of corporations, and by extension seems clearly bad. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Like if oil were "banned", I'm imagining it's not illegal to possess oil, but rather oil companies wouldn't be able to drill it up and sell it anymore. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn’t matter where you ban it, if you turn off oil overnight a lot of people are left stranded from their jobs, sectors of the economy collapse, unemployment becomes out of control. Banning things like this is just fantasy talk that only makes sense to people who can’t imagine consequences or think they don’t care. I guarantee you would change your mind very quickly about banning oil overnight as soon as the consequence became obvious. | | |
| ▲ | squigz 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Who suggested "turning oil off overnight"? What does that even mean? GP (and I) have given you several examples of stuff society learned was harmful and then phased out with regulations/legislation. No, it didn't and does not happen overnight. Why are you acting in such bad faith, trying to disregard people you don't agree with as "not being able to imagine consequences"? |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | opan 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I was on board until the end. If we don't have kids, we're wiping ourselves out even faster than with climate change. I also wonder with oil if we'd need it for some things still, though maybe it's fine if it's made from something else. Gasoline has some obvious alternatives in most areas, but oil seems to be more than fuel. It's also a lubricant. | |
| ▲ | dkdcio 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | vincnetas 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is a substantial opposing force to that "US$790 billion ad market for 2024" | | |
| ▲ | dkdcio 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | yep! it’d be hard, but we’re already at most people nodding their head when you say “social media is addictive, detrimental to individual mental health, and overall negative for society” you just got to get enough people to nod at “…and this is caused by the underlying incentives from digital advertisement” then to “and the most effective course of action is to ban digital advertisement” I truly don’t believe it’s a big leap, especially after a few more years of all this |
|
|
|
| ▲ | anthem2025 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | cindyllm an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
