[Phithagoras]

I like the concept. What happens if a company claims to have removed their recommendations yet has not? Would this even be enough to cause a scandal with real consequences?

In the western world the vast majority of people I know already have zero issues being tracked, advertised to, recommended to, and generally manipulated for "engagement" and profit. A weak law, passed too early and without widespread cultural significance would serve only to give a tighter, more insidious grip on a typical used's view of media, music, and reality in general.

[lin83]

> In the western world the vast majority of people I know already have zero issues being tracked, advertised to, recommended to, and generally manipulated for "engagement" and profit.

The vast majority of people have no thought out opinion on the matter. They have no idea how much data is gathered about them, how it's sold and how it's used. Ignorance is not the same as affirmation.

[lazyier]

In sincerely doubt that goal of this legislation is to "curb information gathering".

This is kinda the entire point of their social credit system.

[HarryHirsch]

As if the West didn't have social credit system. Not too long ago, there was a discussion here about algorithmic tenant scoring, and there were users here defending the practice. In China there's at least some legislation to curb abuses. In the US, not so much.

[JaimeThompson]

While the laws being selectively enforced in the West is a major issue it is a much larger issue in China. Laws like these are tools to get others to do what the government wants under implied threat.

[throwaway0a5e]

The vast majority of people are well aware that anything they put on a digital device gets vacuumed up. Whether make witty quips about corperate overlords or their FBI agent is immaterial.

I know HN has a lot of people who subscribe to beliefs in the same ballpark as "people are stupid and need to be helped" but rest assured, people are well aware that they're getting bent over when it comes to their data.

[lazyier]

In practice it will be a arbitrary weapon used by politicians in the Chinese regime to club companies that don't play ball over the head with.

It's all value-based judgements. Entirely subjective laws. What is "disinformation", "manipulate user accounts", or "convenient option"?

The answer to all those things "Whatever the hell the regime feels like".

Meaning that if you want to avoid being accused of not providing a "convenient-enough option to turn off the algorithmic recommendation service" then you have to keep the Chinese politicians happy with you and your company. Essentially whether or not you are breaking the law depends on their perception/how pleased they are of what you are doing.

Keep in mind that we are dealing with a totalitarian regime. Their idea of things like "false news" is going to be any history that does not align with their communist agenda. Such as covid probably originated from a research facility in Wuhan, that Mao's rise to power involved slaughtering peasants, or that something untoward happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

This isn't to "protect users" it's to provide yet another legislative club they can use to force western corporations to give the government ever increasing concessions.

[helen___keller]

I half agree. The CCP already has a lot of tools to wield power over any company that doesn’t play ball. This law will become part of that tool kit, but not much different from the status quo in that regard.

The real change here is making it easier to enact soft censorship. If you want less people talking about a topic, right now the primary tool is outright censorship by the state. I think what the CCP wants is to let people post on a subject, but nobody sees your post, with a net effect that the subject falls out of public discourse without being outright censored.

[makotech221]

Most major companies have communist party officials embedded into the corporate structure, so if a party member is found to be negligent, they would be arrested/removed from power.