[SoftTalker]

I think you could finesse it by saying that on HN, the users submit the content and the users also determine (by voting) what is popular. Ycombinator doesn't promote or bury any particular post with their own algorithms; they don't exercise any editorial review or control. (I don't think that's exactly true today, but it could be).

But to the larger point, I would actuall agree that sites should "review and take responsibility for every comment and every post." They are the ones amplifying and distributing this content, why should they have zero responsibility for it?

Yes that would dramatically change what gets published online, but I think that would be a good thing.

[pibaker]

And how do you think any other website decides what to recommend you, if not other users' actions? Remember the Netflix prize? The data set they gave you is how other people rated movies. You can absolutely build a recommendation system without manual input from the operator.

And HN absolutely does promote submissions at the moderators' discretion. The moderators sometimes give old but overlooked submissions a second chance, they also turn the flamewar detector on some stories that they think deserve more attention which effectively promotes them against users's will.

[AlecSchueler]

> users also determine (by voting) what is popular

The algorithm considers various other things such the ratio of votes to comments, age of the post etc.

Just compare how different the front page is to /active

> Ycombinator doesn't promote or bury any particular post with their own algorithms

Certain things do get put above the popular stuff if they're fresh enough and your account is deemed to be a taste setter.

> they don't exercise any editorial review or control.

They can decide things like overturning the flagging of a post or burying something even without the flag etc.

[fc417fc802]

Importantly all except one of those things is impartial to the user, and even that one is merely binning based on a single category. Algorithm here is a red herring IMO people are objecting to a couple fairly specific things. One being personalization carried out by the other party, the other designs that introduce partisanship or are detrimental to the end user (ie addiction and other dark patterns).

[voxic11]

So do you think the same logic applies to ISPs? Should they be reviewing all the content that they allow to transit their network and ban you if you try to evade their controls by using uncrackable encryption because if they mess up and allow you to distribute copyrighted or defamatory material they will be held liable? Remember that section 230 was originally enacted to protect them from liability.

[SoftTalker]

No I don't think it applies to ISPs. They aren't involved in selecting or soliciting the content, or providing the sofware and platform that creates or distributes the content. They are "just pipes." Their purpose is to move bits.

[voxic11]

This is not a correct understanding of ISPs though. They do already have certain obligations to restrict content on their networks. In particular they are required to remove subscribers when they become aware that those subscribers are participating in copyright infringement.

[singleshot_]

> They are the ones amplifying and distributing this content, why should they have zero responsibility for it?

If LinkedIn started allowing hardcore pornography, many of their advertisers would leave.

With that in mind, are you certain LinkedIn takes “no responsibility” for the content they distribute? It would seem they have a multimillion-dollar stake in the outcome of their efforts to shape their commercial product.

[charcircuit]

And on TikTok users vote what is popular by giving videos watch time. It is no different.

[fc417fc802]

Is TikTok really so straightforward? I don't believe your assertion is correct but I'm open to evidence.

[charcircuit]

The main difference is that HN uses time to segregate cohorts and TikTok uses interests to segregate cohorts. If enough people within these cohorts upvote / give watch time then the content is shown to more cohorts.

[fc417fc802]

I understand the basic principle. Clearly that's one of the inputs. What I'm questioning is your implied assertion that there's nothing else to it.

I don't for a second believe that tiktok (or facebook or any of the others) employs a primitive algorithm that impartially orders results based on a simple and straightforward metric without consideration for their own interests.

[nemothekid]

>I don't for a second believe that tiktok (or facebook or any of the others) employs a primitive algorithm

Is your contention that whatever future law have some mechanism to decide the complexity of the algorithm? How would you design a law such that the reddit ranking algorithm is primitive, but tiktok's algorithim is "advanced".

[fc417fc802]

You're changing the subject. I said nothing about the law, only objected to a claim about the internal mechanisms of tiktok.

If we're discussing hypothetical laws then my preference is for several. Banning various dark patterns (what the EU is doing here), banning opaque individualization outside the control of the individual in question, and banning motivated editorialization (such a intentionally promoting a particular political position). And yes, a straightforward application of what I wrote there would make the netflix recommendation algorithm as it currently stands illegal. I have no problem with that.

[dTal]

Reddit is as bad as the others, now.