[jasfi]

If you read the article they're asking for more than explaining algorithms. Overall they want the the tech providers to be responsible.

Explaining algorithms could, in theory, give away a competitive advantage. However fairness to users seems to be a priority in this decision.

[ethbr0]

>> "Large online platforms like Facebook will have to make the working of their recommender algorithms (e.g. used for sorting content on the News Feed or suggesting TV shows on Netflix) transparent to users. Users should also be offered a recommender system “not based on profiling.”"

Both of those seem like good ideas and progress. The non-profiled recommender system option especially!

It's also really bothered me that tech companies of sufficient size can discriminate against legally-protected classes because "algorithms are complicated" and government regulators haven't pushed.

I'm not a fan of regulating design or use, but I'm a huge proponent of requiring transparency and detail on demand.

We'll see how willing the EU is to levy fines for breaches.

It's no doubt a consequence of most huge tech companies being American, but it's been refreshing to see the repeated "We have a law; You clearly broke it; Here's your fine" follow-through thus far from EU enforcement.

[judge2020]

> It's also really bothered me that tech companies of sufficient size can discriminate against legally-protected classes because "algorithms are complicated" and government regulators haven't pushed.

Care to elaborate? Discrimination in terms of what ads are displayed perhaps?

[hiptobecubic]

For example: https://archive.curbed.com/2019/12/17/21026311/mortgage-apar...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5520558/artificial-int...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/d3m7jq/dozens-of-cities-have...

[dmitriid]

> We'll see how willing the EU is to levy fines for breaches.

It has been very slow with GDPR, I expect it to be even slower here.

[ohgodplsno]

Google is rolling out one-click cookie rejection as a result of gigantic fines threatened by the French CNIL. Having already been slapped with 90M and 60M, seems like there's not much of a need for fines. They know Europe isn't playing around.

[hakre]

> They know Europe isn't playing around.

Haha, look how long it took. That's Billions gathered and I wonder/never heard anyone is asking the money back from these A-Z companies that make their money on the grey web.

[ethbr0]

https://www.privacyaffairs.com/gdpr-fines/

[otherotherchris]

Things like "fairness" aren't defined in the legislation and will be determined in smoke filled rooms by shadowy moneyed interests.

Ordinary users will get censored. By the courts, by unelected regulators, and by Big Tech AI zealously nuking content to avoid arbitrary fines. It's content ID on steroids.

[jasfi]

I agree that it could get out of hand. We'll have to wait and see how it turns out. Since this is an EU law I wonder if it applies to content hosted on EU servers only, or any content that shows up in their users' results.

[otherotherchris]

Platforms are responsible for everything shown to a user inside the EU.

I suspect that Google and Facebook will not offer country specific blocklists like they do for Nazi content in Germany. If Hungary bans LGBTQIA content, it'll disappear in France. Europe can then have an argument about how they "really really not really" believe in free speech.

[jasfi]

I am worried about the term "disinformation" since that can be really subjective. On the other hand anti-vax content is harmful, to me, so there's no easy answer.

[anothernewdude]

If they do business in the EU. Otherwise this is without teeth entirely.

[barrucadu]

I mean, yes? That seems obvious?

EU law applies to companies which operate in the EU.

[omegalulw]

I would love to first see a technical definition of fairness from EU that can be used to evaluate algorithms. That is a non-trivial detail often overlooked from these discussions.

[bzxcvbn]

This is 2022, you have this information at your fingertips. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=COM%3A20...

> Article 29 Recommender systems

> 1. Very large online platforms that use recommender systems shall set out in their terms and conditions, in a clear, accessible and easily comprehensible manner, the main parameters used in their recommender systems, as well as any options for the recipients of the service to modify or influence those main parameters that they may have made available, including at least one option which is not based on profiling, within the meaning of Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679.

> 2. Where several options are available pursuant to paragraph 1, very large online platforms shall provide an easily accessible functionality on their online interface allowing the recipient of the service to select and to modify at any time their preferred option for each of the recommender systems that determines the relative order of information presented to them.

[rtsil]

Not technical, but fairness is the opposite of "our algorithm is so complicated that we can't prevent it from penalizing you even if you are not at fault. Unless you reach the top of HN, in which case we will manually intervene to fix things."

[vmception]

Nevada Gaming Control Board requires source code of all the casino games

Easy to see this concept expanding

[leksak]

This deserves more attention as it does set a good precedent

[pmoriarty]

"Explaining algorithms could, in theory, give away a competitive advantage."

Why should anyone care if they have a competitive advantage?

If anything I want them to have a disadvantage, lose money, and go out of business.

[pwdisswordfish9]

> Explaining algorithms could, in theory, give away a competitive advantage.

Which is good. We could use some more competition on the market.