@conception (root): "If you present data by algorithm, you are no longer an impartial common carrier and are liable for the content you present"

@Aurornis: "Hacker News is a site that presents data by algorithm. Under your definition, Hacker News goes away, too."

@Aurornis (cont'd): "When every site with “an algorithm” is liable for content posted, nobody is going to allow you to post something. It’s back to only reading content produced and curated by companies for us. Total own-goal for the individual internet user."

@Aurornis (cont'd): "If a site becomes liable for content posted, you cannot allow users to post content without having the site review and take responsibility for every comment and every post."

@tencentshill: "The algorithm is not personalized. It's the same for every user. No issue there..."

Me: "But still an algorithm".

@tencentshill: "Yes it's still an algorithm. Cable TV programming is another example."

Me: "...how do broadcasters select/schedule their programming?"

***

If the "broader statement" that you're referring to is @conception's, then I agree with @Auronis that this would have negative effects on how websites like Hacker News operate. Failing to distinguish personalized recommendation systems from depersonalized ones and proposing regulation that affects them the same is an impartial approach.

The speculated consequence is that platforms (e.g., Hacker News) will not want to assume liability for the content that users share. [0] If this were to happen only a few platforms would exist, at least on the clear/open web. The general online experience would become something like a pastiche of 60s cable television with three or four providers authorized to broadcast media.

With the direction that democracy is trending across the world that would mean state-run or state-approved media. Or all online communities will have to organize and operate like more traditional institutions like this biking community in London is doing: https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/401988/.

[0]: Some parts of this community already suspect that moderation conveniently buries controversial or subversive submissions. See this one from today! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48110927

▲

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent [-]

Legislation needs to be clear and unambiguous, sure. Nonetheless no one had chronological sort or raw vote count or whatever else in mind when they used the term "algorithm" here so pretending they did is obtuse and pedantic. Misinterpreting the position of the other party does not typically make for enlightening or insightful conversation.

Cable TV is an example of something that no one is objecting to. The EU is targeting specific practices (particularly addictive UX patterns). Some people (myself included) would also like to see algorithms that provide personalized (on the individual or small cohort level) output banned. HN is clearly not that.

I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about where exactly the line is between a general class and a small cohort. Certainly applying more than a few general classes simultaneously can quickly land you back in near-individual territory.

▲

tolerance 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Nonetheless no one had chronological sort or raw vote count or whatever else in mind when they used the term "algorithm" here so pretending they did is obtuse and pedantic.

No one until you it seems.

> Cable TV is an example of something that no one is objecting to.

@tencentshill's reference to cable TV originates from the question of whether Hacker News operates via algorithm and would be subject to the sweeping regulation proposed by @conception. The answer is yes.

If I wanted to be pedantic I'd try to argue that cable TV operates according to its own kind of algorithm. And I almost did, so you got me there at least. But there's enough factors that contribute to television programming that it's debatable how far it is from using one (or a recommender system, rather) and whether under different circumstances the EU's issue with "endless scroll" and "autoplay" would be aimed at TV.

Of course the main difference is that television in Europe is probably regulated different than the internet.

I'm not objecting to the internet being regulated like television. For the record, I don't hold one to the same standard of utility as the other. I'm speculating on what would happen if the internet were to be regulated like television according to the combined scenarios advanced by @conception and @tencentshill. Do you follow?

▲

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent [-]

I believe you are obtusely misinterpreting the other two commenters. The pedantry is your insistence on an overly zealous interpretation of the use of the word "algorithm" by @conception (well really it was @aurornis with the pedantry but you followed on). It's clear enough that the original wording was sloppy; forcing analysis of an unintended scenario isn't fruitful.

> I'm speculating on what would happen if the internet were to be regulated like television ...

You've lost me. Previously you were arguing that all platforms with user generated content would disappear. Now you appear to acknowledge that the scenario as described permits platforms that operate analogously to cable TV, which is to say they don't present individualized content.

I'm no longer clear what your current position is nor what you might be attempting to communicate to others or advocate for here.

	▲	tolerance a day ago \| parent [-]
		Great, it's settled! Everything I have to say is an affront to your intelligence. Let's avoid each other.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]