[jdrc]

Requiring an alternative to algorithmic sorting (chronological) is good even though most sites do it already. "Explaining the algorithms" sounds like an impossible-to-implement, feel-good clause.

Requiring transparency for bans and censorship though will probably have a major effect if people start asking nosy questions and exposing corporate and government abuses of power. Many EU governments will regret that users can expose them , that will be fun to watch. It will also make it very hard for companies like reddit to function: could reddit be legally liable for actions of its moderators?

the other clauses are the typical wishful thinking by EU legislators who think that you can legislate the solution to unsolved or unsolvable tech problems

[3a2d29]

To add to this, I wonder how "explaining the algorithm" will work with algorithms that are trained with ML. Essentially they are black boxes, right? So as a tech company, would I have to just say what my best guess is on how it works?

[deadlocked]

As a tech company you know what outcome you want your ML algorithm to produce and you presumably have some way of figuring out whether or not it’s producing that outcome. Presumably you also know what’s being fed to the ML algorithm as training material.

[poisonborz]

I guess you always have a set of weighs that the system tries to work towards to.

[jdrc]

"gradient descent" should be enough