Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> "Large online platforms like Facebook will have to make the working of their recommender algorithms (e.g. used for sorting content on the News Feed or suggesting TV shows on Netflix) transparent to users. Users should also be offered a recommender system “not based on profiling.”" Both of those seem like good ideas and progress. The non-profiled recommender system option especially! It's also really bothered me th…
> It's also really bothered me that tech companies of sufficient size can discriminate against legally-protected classes because "algorithms are complicated" and government regulators haven't pushed. Care to elaborate? Discrimination in terms of what ads are displayed perhaps?
Google, Meta, others will have to explain algorithms under new EU legislation
201–210 of 222 posts
Re: Google, Meta, others will have to explain algorithms under new EU legislation
#202Six percent annual turnover for non-compliance seems too low. Should be six percent for first offense, 12% for second, 25% for third, etc. Until the company fixes it's compliance or becomes insolvent.
This opinion is terrifying to me. Why has our culture become so authoritarian?
Escalating punishment based on repeat offense until we find a level that is convincing enough to stop you from offending is not a particularly new idea.
Re: Google, Meta, others will have to explain algorithms under new EU legislation
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, best UX change from Google in sometime now.
Don't let the prose fool you. They're doing this because what they did before was in violation and the walls were closing in. This reminds me of supermarkets in Germany loudly announcing that they would abandon plastic bags to save the environment ... a few weeks before legislation came into effect banning them from selling plastic bags. Why wait until you're potentially facing fines if you can move slightly ahead an…
That's basically WAI though. Plastic bags were banned because of the environmental impact. For some particularly naive customers they might think it's a feel-good initiative from a brand they now love a little more, but at the policy level it's really not important how various implementers want to spin it. What's important is that the outcome is a reduction in plastic bag use.
Re: Google, Meta, others will have to explain algorithms under new EU legislation
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're doing credit scoring at the Danish bank i work at. One of our requirements is that the model and architecture has to be able to provide explanations for why yohr rating is whatever it is. Both to regulators, internal auditors, and customers. Personally, i thimk denying people a loan is a pretty impactful decision on peoples life. They deserve a reason.
There are three basic reasons people don't get a loan: - They already have too much debt - They don't earn enough to pay it off - They have a history of not paying off their debts. This should not be hard to explain to most people.
You'd think so, but banks aren't "all or nothing" businesses. It's not like you can either get a loan for any amount you want, or you can't borrow at all. There's a bunch of intricacies that make is much more interesting.
Say you lend $200 to a guy who also has a house worth $100, you're the only creditor. In the event of a default, you can take that $100 house. That means you only lose $100, not he $200 you're actually out. This is called the Loss Given Default, or LGD. That number encapsulates the you first point, and half of point two.
The other half of point two, and the entirety of point three is covered in what we call the Probability of Default, or PD. The chance that a given debtor is going to default.
I hope you can see how these two number interact, especially when you then also take into account the upside of giving the loan. Providing loans might entice a large counterparty to do more business with you, or it might provide you with access to a new network. It might make sense to make a risky loan if the downside is very small, or conversely it might not make sense to make a pretty safe loan, if the downside is huge. In practice you can multiply these two numbers together to get an "expected cost" of proving the loan.
Now when someone comes and asks you why you aren't going to lend him $300, you then have to be able to trace all that data back to the source.
Re: Google, Meta, others will have to explain algorithms under new EU legislation
#205Requiring an alternative to algorithmic sorting (chronological) is good even though most sites do it already. "Explaining the algorithms" sounds like an impossible-to-implement, feel-good clause. Requiring transparency for bans and censorship though will probably have a major effect if people start asking nosy questions and exposing corporate and government abuses of power. Many EU governments will regret that users…
To add to this, I wonder how "explaining the algorithm" will work with algorithms that are trained with ML. Essentially they are black boxes, right? So as a tech company, would I have to just say what my best guess is on how it works?
As a tech company you know what outcome you want your ML algorithm to produce and you presumably have some way of figuring out whether or not it’s producing that outcome. Presumably you also know what’s being fed to the ML algorithm as training material.
Re: Google, Meta, others will have to explain algorithms under new EU legislation
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It's rich for the EU to regulate dark patterns when their own laws is the reason they're so rampant on the web today. I guess it's good that they're finally waking up to this, but they're so far behind what's going on in adtech that their actions seem almost intentionally slow. The solutions to this aren't regulatory, but technical first. Monetary fines to tech giants are mere slaps on the wrist. We, and by…
"their own laws is the reason they're so rampant on the web today" Really? Which dark pattern would bever be created if eu didn't exist? "We, and by that I mean the web developer community, need to make technical solutions that make it impossible for companies to infringe users' rights. I guess we should first start by defining what those should be" So, in this process, most of the population will get told what their…
Your snark is annoying, but I'll play along.
> Which dark pattern
The cookie consent forms that were a direct response to EU laws.
> most of the population will get told what their rights are?
Internet users need to be a) educated about the value of the data they produce (and ideally compensated for it[1]), and b) be provided with tools that safeguard this data and give them absolute control over it. So, yes.
The web should be user friendly, not hostile and scammy at every turn. It should be impossible for companies to abuse user data, and regulations are clearly too slow and ineffective.
> any ETA when the technofix will be ready?
Some already exist, and others can be built. The incentives are just not there, as tech giants rule the web and law makers are both influenced by and playing catch up to their schemes.
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2020/10/30/sh...
Re: Google, Meta, others will have to explain algorithms under new EU legislation
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. It's rich for the EU to regulate dark patterns when their own laws is the reason they're so rampant on the web today. I guess it's good that they're finally waking up to this, but they're so far behind what's going on in adtech that their actions seem almost intentionally slow. The solutions to this aren't regulatory, but technical first. Monetary fines to tech giants are mere slaps on the wrist. We, and by…
> It's rich for the EU to regulate dark patterns when their own laws is the reason they're so rampant on the web today. No. The law is not the reason. Companies that knowingly and willingly break it are. Those annoying popups? The vast majority of them are illegal under GDPR, which parasites like IAB are very well aware of: https://www.iccl.ie/news/gdpr-enforcer-rules-that-iab-europe... Edit: changed article URL
Cookie consent forms were a response to the "cookie law" passed in 2009[1].
If they're now illegal, that's on the EU for making them vague or not strict enough.
But my point is that fighting this with laws is:
- too slow, since by the time governments catch up that something should be done, a lot of harm has already been inflicted upon users. And by the time laws do come to pass, tech companies have grown in power and already have alternatives to keep growing. Governments are constantly playing catch up, which was a problem even with Big Tobacco/Pharma, but the speed of innovation of Big Tech is unparalleled.
- too ineffective, as breaking these laws is too slow/difficult to prosecute, and even when companies are fined, it's mostly symbolic to even matter. I.e. to them it's just the cost of doing business.
Re: Google, Meta, others will have to explain algorithms under new EU legislation
#208Requiring an alternative to algorithmic sorting (chronological) is good even though most sites do it already. "Explaining the algorithms" sounds like an impossible-to-implement, feel-good clause. Requiring transparency for bans and censorship though will probably have a major effect if people start asking nosy questions and exposing corporate and government abuses of power. Many EU governments will regret that users…
To add to this, I wonder how "explaining the algorithm" will work with algorithms that are trained with ML. Essentially they are black boxes, right? So as a tech company, would I have to just say what my best guess is on how it works?
I guess you always have a set of weighs that the system tries to work towards to.
Re: Google, Meta, others will have to explain algorithms under new EU legislation
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's rich for the EU to regulate dark patterns when their own laws is the reason they're so rampant on the web today. No. The law is not the reason. Companies that knowingly and willingly break it are. Those annoying popups? The vast majority of them are illegal under GDPR, which parasites like IAB are very well aware of: https://www.iccl.ie/news/gdpr-enforcer-rules-that-iab-europe... Edit: changed article URL
Cookie consent forms were a response to the "cookie law" passed in 2009[1]. If they're now illegal, that's on the EU for making them vague or not strict enough. But my point is that fighting this with laws is: - too slow, since by the time governments catch up that something should be done, a lot of harm has already been inflicted upon users. And by the time laws do come to pass, tech companies have grown in power an…
> Cookie consent forms were a response to the "cookie law" passed in 2009
> were a response to the "cookie law" passed in 2009[1]
Your link clearly states: "Receive users’ consent before you use any cookies except strictly necessary cookies".
For everything else you need to ask for consent with "No"/"Reject" being clearly labeled and being the default option.
Yes, it's that easy.
> too slow, since by the time governments catch up that something should be done, a lot of harm has already been inflicted upon users.
So, what eactly is your proposal except "law is bad"? How do you propose law should work to minimize harm?
To be clear: I think that EU is too slow and too lenient when prosecuting things illegal under GDPR, and that they should pick up the pace. However, "omg this law makes the web bad" is in itself is a very bad take. Because it takes responsiility from those who are actually responsible for making the web bad. They are now exposed... but managed to persuade people that it's not their behaviour that is blatantly evil, but that "the law exposing them is bad".
Re: Google, Meta, others will have to explain algorithms under new EU legislation
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding regarding credit score is that it's one of the most regulated and explainable algorithms. It's not transparent to the public, but it is auditable due to anti discrimination regulations. Am I wrong on this?
We're doing credit scoring at the Danish bank i work at. One of our requirements is that the model and architecture has to be able to provide explanations for why yohr rating is whatever it is. Both to regulators, internal auditors, and customers. Personally, i thimk denying people a loan is a pretty impactful decision on peoples life. They deserve a reason.
Fellow dane here. I guess i shouldn’t be surprised, it’s just not something I’ve encountered personally yet (that I know of).
Do you know if a bank is obliged to give you your credit score if you ask for it?