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

51–60 of 123 posts

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

#51

Post by infecto »

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…

Such a rule is impossible to write.

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

#52

Post by geor9e »

causal wrote: post #31

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,…

If, instead of a machine algorithm, we wired newborn human brain in a jar and "trained it" to choose the next thing to show in a feed, to get nothing but reward for when someone clicks/comments/lingers on something, and nothing but punishment when they leave, plus the basic human functions of walking and talking etc, then put that brain into an adult human body, what would we describe that person as? Probably a psychopath with no moral compass? A sicko willing to do indescribable horrors? Evil incanate? A calculating manipulator for sure. But somehow when we "train" a machine model with singular goal of profit alignment, people think that's just the free and efficient market. And the idea of aligning the models with human good instead is seen as overregulation.

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

#53

Post by throwup238 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #37
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”

I always figured it'd be implemented Stripe style where completing age verification just gives the site a token that they can use to validate the third party age check.

The problem is how to make the provider side anonymized so that they don't know what sites your visiting, but that could be probably solved with legislation. In California, at least. I wouldn't trust Congress with a bill like this.

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

#54

Post by Aurornis »

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).

> reddit doesnt seem to have all those dark patterns you see on say FB

Reddit is one of the worst offenders for rage bait, algorithmic feeds, content farming, and vacuous content.

> (forced refresh if you turn your screen off on mobile, minimum and deliberately bad moderating).

Reddit absolutely refreshes your feed under certain circumstances depending on the platform, such as hitting the back button.

Your claims about moderation are also completely backward. People complain about Facebook being too sensitive about moderation, but Reddit is basically the wild west. Nearly anything goes on Reddit and the mainstream subreddits are frequently full of highly upvoted misinformation.

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

#55

Post by polski-g »

frereubu wrote: post #18
cynicalsecurity wrote: post #14

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

The internet is a big place. How am I supposed to manage what Google / Facebook / YouTube etc. serves to my daughter?

Did someone do that to your internet experience in 1999? Why do you think it needs to be done now?

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

#56

Post by brevitea »

whimsicalism wrote: post #37
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”

Agree. The idea is to verify your age, not harvest all your PII data across every login and viewing session. Companies can easily implement this privacy-preserving step, they just won't until it is strictly enforced.

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

#57

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

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?…

Hmm, I don't think that they're allowed to put cocaine or lead into food marketed for adults, either.

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

#58

Post by Aurornis »

com2kid wrote: post #10
onemoresoop wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

When facing off against an army of ML engineers and psychologists? It is obvious that even adults are suffering negative consequences from social media, and if it isn't obvious, take a look at any of the studies showing the negative impact on adults of social media usage. Every single consumer is outmatched. The only winning choice is to not play at all.

> Every single consumer is outmatched. The only winning choice is to not play at all.

If someone can't handle their social media usage, you're right that they should stay away.

But this idea that "every single consumer" can't handle it is patently false. The vast majority of social media users aren't completely sucked in to their apps and phones. The time spent on platform graph for every platform has a long tail where the addicts reside, but most people just don't get in that deep.

It can seem that way when you're surrounded by addicts or, more commonly, when your social interaction comes primarily through social media (because addicts are over-represented, obviously). However, what you're missing is all of the people who aren't engaged in social media all day every day.

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

#60

Post by Aurornis »

whimsicalism wrote: post #37
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”

> California’s digital id has a way of verifying age without revealing anything else about your identity called “TruAge”

I'm not familiar with the system, but I assume it would necessarily have to reveal the sites you're verifying with to the State of California.

So it's less of a big deal, as long as you're okay with sending a record to the government about what site you're visiting every time you want to sign up somewhere or re-verify your age.

I'm sure someone in the comments will propose some cryptographic solution where neither party knows anything other than the fact that someone, somewhere, possesses a token associated with a person over the age of 18. If you think this is viable, you're not thinking like a kid trying to get around this system, nor a blackhat trying to take advantage of it: Many people would immediately set up a service that handed out age verification tokens in exchange for viewing some ads (the file sharing site model) if there were no limits and nobody could trace it back to the source. Any ID verification system must necessarily have some party able to verify the person to avoid abuse like this.

Post reply on HN