Posted on 11/09/2021 11:50:50 AM PST by ShadowAce
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers has introduced a companion to a Senate bill that would let people use algorithm-free versions of tech platforms, according to a copy of the text shared exclusively with Axios.
Driving the news: Recent revelations about Facebook's internal research findings have renewed lawmaker interest in bills that seek to give people more of a say in how algorithms shape their online experiences.
Why it matters: The bill shows that anger over how platforms use their algorithms to target users with specialized content is a bipartisan issue with momentum on Capitol Hill.
What's happening: The Filter Bubble Transparency Act would require internet platforms to let people use a version of their services where content selections are not driven by algorithms. It's sponsored by Reps. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) and Burgess Owens (R-Utah).
What they're saying: "Consumers should have the option to engage with internet platforms without being manipulated by secret algorithms driven by user-specific data," said Buck.
Flashback: Last month, Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce committee introduced a bill that would remove online platforms' protection from content liability if they used algorithmic ranking to deliver content that caused harm.
Details: The bill would exempt smaller companies with fewer than 500 employees, those with annual gross receipts lower than $50,000,000 in the last three-year-period, and those that gather data on fewer than one million users annually.
Yes, but: Legislative days in 2021 are running out as Democratic lawmakers scramble to pass President Biden's spending bill.
Is it the media or the lawmakers (or both) who have no idea of what they are talking about? If I create a new search website which ignores your entry and just picks 50 random web pages as the "search" result, even that method of picking is an algorithm.
Besides Apple, what is the alternative to Google for tablets and phones?
algorithms
Heh.
I constantly read that as al-gor-isms on first pass.
They don’t know what an algorithm is. An algorithm is the statement, in logical terms, of the steps required to solve a problem. It is independent of any specific programming language.
It is not a program. A program is executable code that can run on a computer. The program is the realization, in a specific programming language, of the concepts found in the algorithm.
“even that method”
In the link to the bill itself, in the definitions section, they are calling the search you describe as an “input-transparent algorithm”, which they have no problem with.
The problem “algorithm” is that what takes your search requests and couples it with user data to decide what you see and in what order.
I love the youtube “algorythm”, If I put any kind of video on that is political in anyway, eventually the “algorythm” will lock on to 12 continuous hours of either Jordan Peterson or Trump impeachment hearings even though I never ever play or search for either. I marvel at how absolutely nothing I ever intentionally search for or watch ever shows up in “autoplay”. Back in the day before they started censoring videos, I used to enjoy just letting autoplay go, and it would play an endless array of interesting points of view about a variety of subject matter, now autoplay is freakin’ useless.
For phones the alternative is pay as you go SIM card that you charge every month.
For tablets look into “De-Googling” your device. Even google owned YouTube has good videos on it.
Seems like a worthy goal but something that could never be enforced.
Open Source software is the way to go for anything that the public deals with. I can understand business software being proprietary but most of the web should be open source. A lot of it already and is fairly secure. Over 25% of websites are made with WordPress including many ecommerce websites, city/county/state/federal websites. Anyone can look at the source code.
EVERYTHING in public schools should be Open as well. Curriculum, software that students use, book lists, teacher’s criminal records.
Yeah, like...
The Filter Bubble Transparency Act would require internet platforms to let people use a version of their services where content selections are not driven by algorithms.
—
Good luck with that. Google already pre-filters items it doesn’t want *anyone* to see from its search results or it twists results to fit its leftist politics. Think of how the Hunter Biden laptop story was effectively purged by the media in 2020.
Probably both. They heard "rithms" and thought about "rythyms" so they decided that everyone should be able to make up their own tunes and dance moves. /s
Discriminatory algorithms that keep people from seeing content that big tech wants hidden is bad but censorship by banning users who create content is the bigger problem.
Here is an idea to mitigate censorship.
Take an open-source browser and modify it in such a way that if the URL of a banned user on one of the big social media sites is entered it will take you to a similar page for that user but on another site.
i.e. If a users URL were https://twitter.com/somebanneduser and that user were to be banned on twitter then whenever that URL was entered into the browser it would take you to https://SomeAlternateSite.com/somebanneduser
This would really piss off the major social media sites.
Instead of existing links to the banned user taking people to the original site where they would see the obligatory THIS USER HAS BEEN BANNED FOR VIOLATING TERMS OF SERVICE message they would be sent to the users page on another site...this way the banned user would not lose contact with their followers. The banned users link could be pointed at any URL including a server under the users direct control.
This is a pretty simple idea but the utility of it could be huge... as things stand now a banned user just loses contact with most of his followers.
You can’t copyright a users URL and there is no way for the original social media site that banned the user to directly interfere with this scheme.... it no longer would depend in any way on cooperation from the site that enacted the ban.
If a new social media site such as gettr.com created such a modified browser they could funnel all banned users to their site. The modified browser could redirect any URL that pointed to a banned user to a page instructing them how to verify their identity and create their new site on the new platform. The modified browser could easily use simple text parsing to determine if a URL pointed to a banned page.
News of such a browser would spread quickly and when someone tried a link to a user they followed and discovered they had been banned they would know to get the modified browser and try to view the content that way.
It’s just a workaround until the media sites are hopefully brought under control..and it might make it less appealing for big tech to ban users since they would know that would funnel followers to a different social media site where they might just be inclined to stay.. some banned users have had millions of followers and a big chunk of them would have switched to whatever new site continued to carry the banned content. i.e. RealDonaldTrump 100+ million followers.
Just an idea...
Me too! LOL! Well, after inventing the interwebs, he deserves to have something named for him.
Might even keep track of how many times the browser user hits banned posters on a given site. So after like the 10th time you try to go to www.twitter.com\donaldtrump and www.twitter.com\maga and www.twitter.com\rondesantis, the browser would begin to assume that the politics of the site in question didn’t align with those of the user, and would begin to default to alternate sites, or maybe give a popup giving the user the explicit choice. Then the cancelling sites lose more hits/opportunities to brainwash than just directly related to the specific banned posters. That’d put a pair of Vise-grips on their balls!
Yes, that is a clever thought.
This modified browser is an extremely simple idea that could have enormous impact...it could be implemented as a browser plugin but that might temp those who control updates to that browser to disable the plugin...but they cannot disable a modified open-source browser.
What about vote counting without algorithms?
"The algorithms that personalize content on social networks and other apps can make services addictive, violate users' privacy and promote extremism, critics and many lawmakers argue. Conservatives have also claimed that services deliberately censor their speech." ~
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.