[hug]

That’s also an algorithm. An unsophisticated one, but an algorithm nonetheless.

You can (and should) argue that such a simple algorithm doesn’t “count”, but fundamentally the exact wording of the grandparent post never works, legislatively.

Lawyers will lawyer.

[NekkoDroid]

> That’s also an algorithm. An unsophisticated one, but an algorithm nonetheless.

The problem always has been "(personalized) opaque algorithms". Time sorted by followers isn't really opaque, nor is "sorted by likes" or whatever. The problem is always pulling in parameters that a users either has no active control over or are so variable they effectively could be random.

[alkonaut]

Can everyone just please stop saying "well ackshually sorting is done with an algorithm" and just assume at least not-idiotic-intent here? No no one will ban "algorithms" or suggests anything of that kind. Yes it's a terrible name. Yes it will be hard to formulate what's allowed and what isn't. But a very simple litmus test is: what are the inputs to the algorithm?

users coarse geographic location? Fine

AI detected language of the content? Fine

global popularity of the video clip? fine

user's past behavior: number of videos with similar content they watched? Average number of seconds this particular user usually waits until scrolling further?

The pattern is obvious. Personalized algorithms is what's targeted. Let's keep the discussion intelligent.

[anjc]

Your litmus test isn't correct and your assumption of personalisation isn't correct either. All of the criteria that you see as fine are controlled under the relevant legislation and are considered personalisation, requiring transparency etc.

Furthermore, bills have been brought to EU parliaments that have erroneously attempted to ban all forms of ranking, which would include even the most basic information retrieval algorithms. So it isn't obvious at all what is meant by 'algorithm'.

[xigoi]

It’s not about whether there is an algorithm, but whether it’s controlled by the user.