Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tech firms must tame toxic algorithms to protect children online

ofcom.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 123 posts

Re: Tech firms must tame toxic algorithms to protect children online

#31

Post by causal »

Something important to keep in mind: most people never experience just how twisted these recommendation algorithms can get, because each of us gets an experience tailored to our developed tastes.

But these algorithms will totally curate wildly disturbing playlists of content because it has learned that this can be incredibly addicting to minds unprepared for it.

And what's most sinister is how opaque the process is, to the degree that a parent can't track what is happening without basically watching their kids activity full-time.

Idk if OFCOM is implementing this right or not, but I think there would be a much greater outcry if more people saw the breadth of these algorithms' toxicity.

Re: Tech firms must tame toxic algorithms to protect children online

#32

Post by devmor »

frereubu wrote: post #24
devmor wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a reason you can't supervise your child's time online and/or use appropriate parental control software?

I suppose I would flip the question around - why should I have to do that, when content platforms could do it? It's just another administrative burden that gets foisted onto the plebs because large tech companies want to scale, but won't moderate content properly at that scale.

The content you do not want your child to interact with is your personal decision, and of course, varies from parent to parent. There is no permutation of acceptable administrative oversight to this issue I can imagine that would satisfy everyone reasonably, nor is there one that would not have chilling effects on free speech.

When it comes to content that is illegal specifically - that of course, should fall on tech companies to moderate. But that is the exception, in my view.

In short, your child's oversight is not one-size-fits-all - it is strictly your business, and perhaps your school's and childcare professionals'.

Re: Tech firms must tame toxic algorithms to protect children online

#34

Post by emayljames »

avgDev wrote: post #15
onemoresoop wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adults could potentially protect themselves, children absolutely can't.

I'm an adult, history of ADHD. Youtube, facebook, reddit is a disease for me. I am a moderator of some niche subreddits but if I stray away I will find myself stuck reading comments and engaging in conversations for hours. I take steps by not using my phone during work or after a certain time but it is extremely difficult and I still fall into the trap and watch some shorts for 2-3 hours at a time. I'm not stupid eit…

For now at least, reddit doesnt seem to have all those dark patterns you see on say FB (forced refresh if you turn your screen off on mobile, minimum and deliberately bad moderating).

Re: Tech firms must tame toxic algorithms to protect children online

#36

Post by marcosdumay »

mschuster91 wrote: post #30
kwhitefoot wrote: post #13

The thing that always strikes me in all the reporting and discussion of the problems that Ofcom is trying to solve is that no one seems to ask if the problems are equally bad in other countries, especially in non-English speaking countries. And if it isn't then can, and should, whatever helps there be implemented in the UK? I live in Norway and it doesn't seem that the problem is so severe here. Or is it simply that…

> no one seems to ask if the problems are equally bad in other countries, especially in non-English speaking countries. Oh hell yes it is. Everywhere that Russia has interest in has been fraught with serious issues. Germany, Poland, France come to my mind - there have been reports concerning especially the spread of far-right and/or pro-Russian content for years now. > I live in Norway and it doesn't seem that the pr…

On most countries, the stuff this article is proposing to fight against "for the children" is already illegal to push to anybody.

So, on most countries this proposal would be completely useless.

Re: Tech firms must tame toxic algorithms to protect children online

#37

Post by whimsicalism »

Aurornis wrote: post #26

People love these proposals until they read the details and think of the consequences. Anything that requires "robust age-checks" means that everyone using the site must go through an ID check and validation process. No more viewing anything without first logging in via your ID-checked account > 1. Carry out robust age-checks to stop children accessing harmful content > Our draft Codes expect much greater use of high…

This might only be marginally relevant, but California’s digital id has a way of verifying age without revealing anything else about your identity called “TruAge”

Re: Tech firms must tame toxic algorithms to protect children online

#38

Post by whimsicalism »

mschuster91 wrote: post #30
kwhitefoot wrote: post #13

The thing that always strikes me in all the reporting and discussion of the problems that Ofcom is trying to solve is that no one seems to ask if the problems are equally bad in other countries, especially in non-English speaking countries. And if it isn't then can, and should, whatever helps there be implemented in the UK? I live in Norway and it doesn't seem that the problem is so severe here. Or is it simply that…

> no one seems to ask if the problems are equally bad in other countries, especially in non-English speaking countries. Oh hell yes it is. Everywhere that Russia has interest in has been fraught with serious issues. Germany, Poland, France come to my mind - there have been reports concerning especially the spread of far-right and/or pro-Russian content for years now. > I live in Norway and it doesn't seem that the pr…

Is it possible that perhaps people just have differing views on Russia and great power competition than you do? I find the Russia influence story overstated

Re: Tech firms must tame toxic algorithms to protect children online

#39

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

Aurornis wrote: post #26

People love these proposals until they read the details and think of the consequences. Anything that requires "robust age-checks" means that everyone using the site must go through an ID check and validation process. No more viewing anything without first logging in via your ID-checked account > 1. Carry out robust age-checks to stop children accessing harmful content > Our draft Codes expect much greater use of high…

Oddly, I think I agree with you. What we really need, and that is the reason why it does not even enter the conversation, is standard default that we can agree upon.

By this I mean, no more fucking around with timeline. We agree that any corporation introducing a feed based on anything other than date from newest to oldest is subject to penalties and sanctions.

Will it stop 'innovation'? God I hope so. I am tired of innovation that farms up rage.

edit: From here we can start working on what algos CAN be included in customer facing crapola.

Re: Tech firms must tame toxic algorithms to protect children online

#40

Post by jimbob45 »

causal wrote: post #21
cynicalsecurity wrote: post #14

Isn't it the parents' job? Why introduce authoritarianism under the disguise of caring for children?

This is a pretty weak argument IMO. Try applying this argument to any other regulated context: - Should McDonalds be allowed to put crack in their happy meals or is it the parents responsibility to keep those meals away from their children? - Should kids clothing be free of asbestos or is it the parents job to avoid buying that? - Should baby formula be free of lead or is that the parents responsibility to check for?…

If your problem is with the class of product, then you should know to stay away/keep your kid away. If the product has broken with the class (say, adding asbestos to kids' clothes), then we would want to regulate that. Really, as long as the product is staying within the general confines of the definition of the class, then it's up to the consumer to educate themselves and know better.

For a fun and controversial example, one could look at the RNA vaccines for COVID. Those had some properties that separated them from traditional vaccines such that people relying on the class of "vaccine" might have felt misled. As such, you would have expected government regulation to inform the consumer on the difference to expect in that scenario (which the government did).

Post reply on HN