Why not just ban the engagement algorithm completely. Adults are just as susceptible to addiction.

jimmyjazz14 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why not just ban all non government approved speech, less we hear something that might hurt our feelings or make us engage in wrongthink.

▲

left-struck 2 days ago | parent [-]

It’s interesting that you bring up wrongthink. Banning free speech would be something like out of 1984, but what we have is far more subtle and insidious. A system that shows you only what it wants you to see, while tricking you into thinking you’re seeing what you want to see.

Anyway, you can support free speech while hating this algorithm crap at the same time.

▲

jimmyjazz14 2 days ago | parent [-]

The system isn't tricking anyone, if an individual is not aware of how social media algorithms work that is due to willful ignorance (in the case of children that falls on the parents willful ignorance).

I do personally believe banning the algorithms begins to fall into the realm of free speech regulation. I can hate the algorithm crap without thinking the government should regulate the internet.

	▲	tencentshill a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Correct, the government can't ban mathematical algorithms. Just like they can't ban certain plants from being grown.
	▲	left-struck a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I actually don’t think banning “the algorithm” is the right solution either, nor are the identity verification disguised as age gates. But I would like to see the US government do something. I actually think Lina Khan was doing some good things.
	▲	intended a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Except that is an ideological position that has zip to do with the realities of how speech and ideas actuall move in online spaces. In the starkest of terms: Americans have to somehow reconcile faith in the power of an invidual's freedom of speech and the manipulation of the collective marketplace of ideas.
	▲	fivetenpen 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲

testaccount28 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

what is "the engagement algorithm"?

	▲	zbentley a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Not GP, but I'd define it as anything which presents or orders/prioritizes user-generated content based on preferences not explicitly specified by the consuming user. That'd be something like "default to chronological friends-and-follows-only, with an option for friends-of-friends and an option for 'most liked within a time window', and (if Facebook is feeling magnanimous to a very few power users) a preference pane which allows controlling overrides to the chronological-ness like 'show posts up to X hours out of order if they have more than Y likes'". No recommendation/you-might-also-like system, but you can make the "accounts friended/followed by" button for a user's existing friends/follows as big as you like--so long as the list presented is only sortable only by name/follower count/date-added. My hot take is that the courts should find that doing anything beyond that is a first-party editorial behavior and thus not immune to liability under section 230. You can operate social media, but if your content and recommendation sort algorithms aren't explicitly controllable by and legible to (that means no "you might like"; no direct payouts for content creators to be engaging on your platform; recommendations based on dumb sorts from people you already know or dumb sorts over keyword searches only) your users, you're liable.
	▲	eviks 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Anything that engages users?
	▲	fivetenpen 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲

Der_Einzige 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Only when all those who call for bans also delete their HN and Reddit accounts.

	▲	xxs a day ago \| parent [-]
		reddit is trivial, but why hackner news as well?