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

41–50 of 123 posts

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

#41

Post by s1artibartfast »

mantas wrote: post #16
Dig1t wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an adult, I do not want to be "protected". I can decide for myself if I like the algorithm or product/service and choose not to use it if I don't like it.

The problem is in modern societies the society is footing the bill for those who choose, let's say, unwisely. Why should my mandatory social and medical insurance taxes go fix issues created by such wrong choices? Should the society not cover them? E.g. smokers with lung cancer should pay out of pocket? Or should society try to minimize wrongdoing instead?

Indeed, there are different interpretations of the social contract.

You have essentially two polar options.

First option is that social services come with strings attached that entitle the providers to control the lives of the recipients.

Second is that social services are freely given, and the recipients have not given up their autonomy. the givers can choose to stop giving, or place conditions on gifts, but they dont get direct control over the recipients.

Either are fine in theory, but the problem is with ex-post recontracting. for example, when a gift or service is freely given, and then someone demands payment later.

There are some interesting works of fiction that explore alternatives. For example, allowing adults to choose how much of their autonomy they want to abdicate for differing levels of entitlements and guarantees.

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

#42

Post by whimsicalism »

cynicalsecurity wrote: post #17
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…

US/UK really like spying on their citizens. Privacy is not their thing. Their culture regards anything sexual as Taliban regards women not covering their head. As an extreme taboo. As a fellow European, yes, I know, it's crazy.

If you are european, this is basically glass houses and stones

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

#43

Post by surfingdino »

Interesting... if you sob and moan to YT or Instagram about not having enough followers or views they'll tell you to replace the word "algorithm" with "audience", so people. It makes sense, if your content is not popular with people no algorithm will surface it (recent tweaking of Instagram algo notwithstanding). But if we follow that interpretation we have to admit that it's not the algorithms that are toxic, but people. So what Ofcom is asking tech companies is to "tame" toxic people. Good luck with that. Parents have to realize that computers, phones, or tablets help sometimes unsavoury characters get in touch with their children. We do not allow strangers into daycare centres, schools, or children's hospitals, so why do we allow strangers unrestricted access to our children via the devices we give them? Parents need to be told to take responsibility for who has access to their children.

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

#44

Post by 8note »

onemoresoop wrote: post #8
johnea wrote: post #4

No intention of protecting adults?

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

Children have legal guardians, who are responsible for their safety.

If the adult an protect themselves, they can protect the children they're responsible for too

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

#45

Post by whimsicalism »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #39
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…

maybe we shouldn’t use government intervention and force as the default in all of these things.

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

#46

Post by Jerrrry »

emayljames wrote: post #34
avgDev wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

this is so blatantly false I have assume you made an impossibly improbably amount of typographic errors.

reddit is 95% bots echoing the sentiments of a few liberal elites and the 5% of real users are childless aged women. No sexism, this is facts.

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

#47

Post by jorvi »

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…

Already happening in the EU. Give your phone number, credit card number, or government ID number if you want to watch age-gated YouTube.

The best solution would be a government or banking API that emits a one-time token. No logging, and it self-destructs upon verification.

But aside from the user, no other party has detriment from the current situation.

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

#48

Post by hooverd »

whimsicalism wrote: post #42
cynicalsecurity wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US/UK really like spying on their citizens. Privacy is not their thing. Their culture regards anything sexual as Taliban regards women not covering their head. As an extreme taboo. As a fellow European, yes, I know, it's crazy.

If you are european, this is basically glass houses and stones

It's true, Europeans emit crazy Hitler particles when they see a Roma person.

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

#49

Post by Aurornis »

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…

> Youtube, facebook, reddit is a disease for me. I am a moderator of some niche subreddits

I had a friend who developed a problem with alcoholism. He went through a period of time where he'd stop by the bar several nights a week to have a single beer because he thought it was important to his social circle.

To no one's surprise, that one drink often turned into two drinks. Two became four, then six, then eight, then he was blacked out on a Wednesday again.

It took some time, but he finally admitted that his habit of visiting the bar was a trigger for the exact behavior he was trying to avoid.

When I see someone talk about how they have a severe social media addiction that they're trying to overcome, but then go on to talk about how they're a moderator on the platform they're trying to avoid, I see the exact same thing.

I don't know what else to say, other than that my friend is doing fantastic now that he's stopped visiting bars at all. He discovered that once he removed the bar as an option for his free time, he realized how many healthier alternatives there were in the real world. He wasn't constantly playing the game of moderating his alcohol intake because he wasn't in environments where he had to. He's much happier now.

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

#50

Post by whimsicalism »

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…

The anglosphere media is much more anti-tech than most other countries, so they focus on this stuff - and it’s also a double US/UK election year
Post reply on HN