Live data from Hacker News

Response to Google open letter

accc.gov.au

221–230 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#221

For the health of society, all recommender algorithms have to be daylighted. For a start. Yes, the gamification will be terrible. So what? Is maximal advertising revenue for monopolies societally important? Every other efficient open market is heavily regulated. Accountability, transparency, fair play, information symmetry, prohibit self-dealing & conflicts of interest, tort, etc. Right now we can't even imagine appl…

2 reasons.

1. the quality of the recommendations is the real competitive advantage. It's like saying that all the sports scouting agencies need to fully reveal their algorithm to finding top talent to ensure fairness, when that exact algorithm is the thing that makes them a top scouting agency.

2. The company itself doesn't really know how the recommender works.(source: I built explainable ML models for a living).

The inherent black box nature of any non-linear function approximator makes it near impossible to enable Explain-ability and gauge fairness for any system. In fact, I'd go as far to say that a sufficiently complex system of any kind quickly goes beyond human understanding. There are some decent proxies for it (SHAP, attention maps, gradient maps), but many recent papers raise questions on whether they really capture what we think they capture.

I think regulation of some form is certainly a good idea for tech ethics. However, it does appear that laws are being drafted by politicians, lawyers and social scientists. There is a glaring lack of qualified ML/CS researchers and practitioners on the implications of vaguely worded policy to their current processes and pipelines.

I was at ACM FAccT (ACM's fairness,accountability and transparency conference) this year and too many of the attendees seemed to be more concerned with the 'what needs to be achieved' rather than the 'how we can go about achieving it'. Terms such as fairness and accountability do not have widely accepted or principled meanings, which makes it near impossible to make a structured discussion around how anyone would go about implementing these in practice.

In conclusion, what you state is necessary, but we are very far from coming up with actually useful laws to implement it. Moving too quickly risks haphazard rules that do more damage than help.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#222
I’m just curious if anyone knows... does this specifically call out Google or does this also potentially have implications for other news aggregators that work in a similar way? Could this also target reddit or even hacker news?

I couldn’t find where they define the platform that is Google.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone brought that up the last time this came up on HN. In the explanatory materials, they clarified that (ii) is indeed meant to restrict this to posts on their own Facebook page: > 1.89 In the case of a social media service such as Facebook, this rule deals with the situation where the news business has posted its covered news content on the news business’ own social media page. Comments on the news business’ art…

That still carves them out a protected niche in what otherwise was an independent service, that in no other case provides that level of autonomy. If I were in FAANG's place, I'd tell the AU government to get stuffed by turning every response page into a "Tell your government that this bill is ridiculous and we'll be back when it's repealed. So long and thanks for all the fish."

I'm glad you're not FAANG then. When there's a dispute, you work through it rather than take your bat and ball home.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#224
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you but not all reccomenders are causing the political issues we see now. As an example, what Netflix movies are being recommended to you is, in my opinion, immaterial. I think there needs to be nuanced law here maybe just targeting and regulating recommendations on what we would consider news or communications platforms.

IDK. I feel pretty siloed on Netflix today. And I wander how 3rd party content producers feel about Netflix's recommenders.

I think that's a product issue though and not something that requires regulation. I feel the exact opposite, I barely look at them and get my recs from friends or other sites I frequent.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#225
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone brought that up the last time this came up on HN. In the explanatory materials, they clarified that (ii) is indeed meant to restrict this to posts on their own Facebook page: > 1.89 In the case of a social media service such as Facebook, this rule deals with the situation where the news business has posted its covered news content on the news business’ own social media page. Comments on the news business’ art…

Wow legislating “your” Facebook page as though it’s property sounds like a slippery slope.

As opposed the the slippery slope that democracies are sliding down all over the world?

I agree that it is challenging, but frankly, given how much evidence there is of bad actors and misinformation on social media sites it has become clear that these corporations will only make choices that drive revenue or revenue related metrics.

I don't know what the right solution is, but it's not twiddling thumbs while foreign owned corporations continue to accumulate control over communications and media.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could do like the UK does with the BBC and fund it via ordinary taxes. It seems like a relatively simple solution.

The ABC is government funded: https://www.abc.net.au/ And SBS is partially government funded: https://www.sbs.com.au But it's not enough to have just two news organisations.

If the number of organizations is the concern, the government could fund a larger number of organizations. This doesn't seem fatal to the option I proposed.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That still carves them out a protected niche in what otherwise was an independent service, that in no other case provides that level of autonomy. If I were in FAANG's place, I'd tell the AU government to get stuffed by turning every response page into a "Tell your government that this bill is ridiculous and we'll be back when it's repealed. So long and thanks for all the fish."

> that in no other case provides that level of autonomy. I, like all FB users, can delete comments to my own FB posts.

So can media organizations. They just can't pre-moderate the comments.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#228
post #6

> Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free services such as Google Search and YouTube, unless it chooses to do so. > Google will not be required to share any additional user data with Australian news businesses unless it chooses to do so. I don't think Google actually made either of these claims in their letter. They didn't mention charging for services at all. They said "the free ser…

Somehow everyone misses this little gem in the draft bill [0]: > 52S.(1).(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided with flexible content moderation tools that allow the registered news business corporation to remove or filter comments on the registered news business covered news content that: > . . (i) are made using the digital platform service;and > . . (ii) are made on a part of the digi…

This is a long read from New York Times, but it's essential to understand how (a) "news media" and (b) Australian government are strongly influenced by (c) Rupert Murdoch: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/03/magazine/rupe...

If the proxy vote here is between Larry & Sergey v. Murdochs, guess who I'm voting for.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That still carves them out a protected niche in what otherwise was an independent service, that in no other case provides that level of autonomy. If I were in FAANG's place, I'd tell the AU government to get stuffed by turning every response page into a "Tell your government that this bill is ridiculous and we'll be back when it's repealed. So long and thanks for all the fish."

I'm glad you're not FAANG then. When there's a dispute, you work through it rather than take your bat and ball home.

I hate to use the argument but how well did appeasement work out historically... that’s right it didn’t. When something is stupid and only happening because they have the power to force it. Sometimes the only way to fight it is to fuck off and say “sorry but no, I don’t wish to participate in this farce”

Re: Response to Google open letter

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone brought that up the last time this came up on HN. In the explanatory materials, they clarified that (ii) is indeed meant to restrict this to posts on their own Facebook page: > 1.89 In the case of a social media service such as Facebook, this rule deals with the situation where the news business has posted its covered news content on the news business’ own social media page. Comments on the news business’ art…

That still carves them out a protected niche in what otherwise was an independent service, that in no other case provides that level of autonomy. If I were in FAANG's place, I'd tell the AU government to get stuffed by turning every response page into a "Tell your government that this bill is ridiculous and we'll be back when it's repealed. So long and thanks for all the fish."

Given how badly Facebook and Twitter screwed up dealing with misinformation and hate speech, I would not in any way be unhappy if they did so.
Post reply on HN