I'm surprised there isn't a politician who makes this their brand. I would vote for them even if they didn't want to do anything else.

The politicians only talk about regulating content, instead of regulating the algorithm. An error across all dimensions - politically, pragmatically, legally.

I would do these 2 things:

(1) ban all recommendation engines in social media, no boosting by likes, no retweets, no "for you", no "suggested". you get a chronological feed of people you follow, or you search for it directly.

(2) ban all likes/upvotes showing up on public posts, to reduce the incentive for people to engage in combat on politically charged topics

No impact on free speech, everyone still has a voice. No political favoritism. No privacy violations.

I would bet only these tweaks will significantly reduce extremism and unhappiness in society.

This is something I've personally explored and lightly researched. I think the general population generally prefers recommendation algorithms (they espouse how great _their_ for-you page is on tik-tok or how spotify suggests the best music).

You would also be combating against ad and social media companies with extremely deep pockets. You have to keep in mind that algorithmic sorting also would impact search engines like Google and a ton of shopping websites.

I personally think the way this has to be done is something more fundamental and "grassroots-like". Similar to how a significant chunk of the internet are against "AI content" I think that same group of people need to be shown that this algorithmic recommendation brainrot is impacting society considerably.

edit: To take this point further, as an American, I have been wondering why people would disagree on basic principals or what feels like facts. The problem is that their online experience is completely different than mine. No two people share an exact same home page for any service. How are you supposed to get on the same page as someone when they live in a practically different world than you?

Given the makeup of the courts is the US, I can't help but imagine these hypothetical laws would be thrown out on first amendment grounds. Viz. "Our algorithm is our free speech"

Both 1 and 2 will simply incentivize people to make fake accounts or pay existing account holders to post for them.

> (1) ban all recommendation engines in social media, no boosting by likes, no retweets, no "for you", no "suggested". you get a chronological feed of people you follow, or you search for it directly.

I always find these comments interesting on Hacker News. The Hacker News front page is a socially sourced recommendation engine which presents stories in an algorithmic feed, as boosted by likes (upvotes) from other users. The comment section where we're talking is also social at it's core, with comments boosted or driven down by upvotes and downvotes.

In your proposed regulation, are you really expecting that the Hacker News front page would go away, replaced only by the "new" feed? Or that we'd have to manually sign up to follow different posters?

If we have to sign up to follow specific posters, how do you propose we discover them to begin with?

Usually when I ask these questions the follow ups involve some definition of social media that excludes Hacker News and other forums that people enjoy.