Tech firms must tame toxic algorithms to protect children online • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by ricardo81 » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:43 PM UTC

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…

Agree in your vision of the ramifications, but I feel that it's their response to a basically unregulated big tech. Their powers are limited.

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

#82

Post by whimsicalism » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:45 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #77

whimsicalism wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone from the cell phone impacted generation, I wish our elders would spend less time trying to protect us from the internet and more time building homes.

We all wish for an ideal future and, heavens know, it is a good thing that I am not an emperor for a day as a lot would change. Personally, and I mean it in a nice way, I am not obligated to build you a home. I am not even obligated to do it for my kid. Frankly, neither is the society as a whole. You want your elders build you a home for you. No deal. Best I can do is help you along by pulling you away from your cell…

> Personally, and I mean it in a nice way, I am not obligated to build you a home. I am not even obligated to do it for my kid. Frankly, neither is the society as a whole.

I'll happily pay many multiples of what homes used to cost - just make it legal to build homes.

Let us do the things we want without having to cut through a thicket of laws intended to help and protect us. We don't want them.

Please, we've had more than enough of y'all's help.

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

#83

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:45 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #68

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I can tell you for sure is that self-regulation was not very beneficial to the society as a whole ( see current cell phone impact on youth ). As to whether government regulation is a bad idea, at this point I believe it is an interesting academic objection thrown in that happens to be true often enough to an extent, but then hijacked by corporations trying to avoid actual regulation.. ie. biased at best.

As someone from the cell phone impacted generation, I wish our elders would spend less time trying to protect us from the internet and more time building homes.

But who would buy them? Generation Y+ can't afford them.

I'm only half joking: The issue isn't the supply of new housing, it is the cost of building new housing. If we fix the cost issue, the new houses will follow.

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

#84

Post by whimsicalism » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:47 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #83

whimsicalism wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone from the cell phone impacted generation, I wish our elders would spend less time trying to protect us from the internet and more time building homes.

But who would buy them? Generation Y+ can't afford them. I'm only half joking: The issue isn't the supply of new housing, it is the cost of building new housing. If we fix the cost issue, the new houses will follow.

> The issue isn't the supply of new housing, it is the cost of building new housing.

I fail to see the distinction. The cost barriers (most of which are legal/zoning related) reduce quantity supplied.

I don't believe it costs 2 million in materials or labor to make a condo in California.

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

#85

Post by causal » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:48 PM UTC

jimbob45 wrote: post #40

causal wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exa…

I think you're saying that instead of regulating the experience for kids, parents should keep their kids away from that class of product entirely. In essence, treat all social media as adult-only products.

The biggest difficulty is coordinating this approach with other parents and institutions - it is punishing to be the only kid without a smartphone when peers (and increasingly, institutions) require you to have one to participate.

But that issue aside - it is still strange to allow for this class of products tailored to kids but parents are just supposed to universally agree should not be bought. There is clearly a society-wide issue here that we've left for individuals to solve. Predictably, it is not going well.

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

#86

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:48 PM UTC

rustcleaner wrote: post #78

mschuster91 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>far right this >far right that >*crickets* far left *crickets* Man I am glad years ago I watched Yuri Bezmenov's interview with G. Edward Griffin.

> Man I am glad years ago I watched Yuri Bezmenov's interview with G. Edward Griffin.

Do tell. Content? Main ideas? A link? Anything?

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

#87

Post by rustcleaner » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:48 PM UTC

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.

Eric Blair's Anti-Sex League is coming into full swing, innit?

With a century of public policy fuggery, the domestic stock has been induced into a situation where it refuses to effectively breed its next generations in comparable numbers to other competing stocks. It could be mistaken for accidental if the elite weren't then back-stopping tax and investment losses with importing supply from those other stocks.

If The West is purely cultural/ideal, then mere assimilation should be enough for its persistence. If The West is its people then this situation spells certain doom if not arrested.

The West's place at the top of the world is going to be toppled by a nation with less feminism and anti-natalism this century, unless The West can destroy all other effective competition.

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

#88

Post by whimsicalism » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:51 PM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #74

whimsicalism wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sometimes I feel like there's some kind of gaslighting operation going on to make people forget about how much western Europe was in favor of things like NordStream (2). Russia definitely wasn't always the Boogeyman people now seem to claim. A lot of people had to be ok with Russia for things like NordStream to happen.

We're also supposed to pretend that Russia was behind the NordStream sabotage.

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

#89

Post by causal » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:52 PM UTC

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #57

causal wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps a better example would be tobacco or alcohol. Also bad for adults, but we've at least agreed we should try to mitigate the harm that comes with early-development addiction.

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

#90

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, May 08, 2024, 5:54 PM UTC

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #79

s1artibartfast wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can write off self regulation so easily. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's a complete and perfect harm reduction. It usually takes time for social norms to develop, especially in the face of rapidly changing technology. However, the alternative is very grim. It is essentially conceding that the average human is not capable of directing their actions, and they should be controlled by a highe…

And this is the argument that I am willing to accept. We should be able to find some happy medium. I would hate to be told that from this point on I can only use quick sort by government decree, but you have to admit that current social media/tech has gotten out of hand in terms of power they wield.

I would argue that the governments have also gotten out of hand in terms of the power they wield. As a result, I think that we should be careful to ensure that any new developments are clearly empowering the individual, and not just claiming to benefit them.

Im for regulatory options that put more power in the hands of users so that they can solve their problems. I haven't decided what this means for age verification and algorithms, but there are some interesting options in this thread.