Proposed law in Minnesota would ban algorithms to protect the children:
Minnesota state lawmakers are trying to prohibit social media platforms from using algorithms to recommend content to anyone under age 18. The bill was approved Tuesday by the House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee in a 15-1 vote. The potential state law goes next to the House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee, which has put it on the docket for a hearing on March 22.
The algorithm ban applies to platforms with at least 1 million account holders and says those companies would be "prohibited from using a social media algorithm to target user-created content at an account holder under the age of 18." There are exemptions for content created by federal, state, or local governments and by public or private schools.
"This bill prohibits a social media platform like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp, TikTok, and others, from using algorithms to target children with specific types of content," the bill summary says. "The bill would require anyone operating a social media platform with more than one million users to require that algorithm functions be turned off for accounts owned by anyone under the age of 18." Social media companies would be "liable for damages and a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation."
Tech-industry lobbyists say the bill would violate the First Amendment, prevent companies from recommending useful content, and require them to collect more data on the ages and locations of users.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 21 2022, @03:28AM (3 children)
I'm so excited, maybe I'll get a new bike!
Seriously, if such a law can be passed and upheld, I will most definitely start a new online personna.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2022, @05:43AM (2 children)
In addition to your 1024 sockpuppet accounts on SN?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 21 2022, @06:39AM (1 child)
Are you keeping count? I assure you, you don't know half of the story.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2022, @08:32PM
Pedo Runaway, Josh Dugger's neighbor, posing as a minor on the internets? No wonder he's on the Registry. So embarrassing for his family, and his employer, and the poor Feds who have to wade through all his sickness. Is Pedo in the water in Arkansas?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2022, @03:54AM (7 children)
It's interesting when a technical term takes on a life of its own and becomes a political term.
I guess it'll be up to the lawyers to decide what constitutes an "algorithm."
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2022, @04:07AM (1 child)
Flowers for algorithm?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2022, @03:38PM
Does Al Gore know about this?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2022, @12:16PM (1 child)
>> I guess it'll be up to the lawyers to decide what constitutes an "algorithm."
Actually, it'll be up to the legislators. When Democrats are in power, an algorithm will be defined as anything that benefits Republicans and must be banned. When Republicans are in power, an algorithm will be defined as anything that benefits Democrats and must be banned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2022, @01:23PM
declare self
{
when are_in_power(Y) then self.ban
when are_in_power(X) then self.ban
else self.ban
return.ohshit
}
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday March 21 2022, @04:52PM
Seems like if we're going to criticize people for being ignorant of computer stuff we would at least take the effort to read the first line of the story so as to no be ignorant of the law.
But nah, it's only other people's ignorance that matters.
(Score: 2) by OrugTor on Monday March 21 2022, @04:53PM
If the platform recommends content, whatever method it uses can be considered an algorithm. Select 5 most-viewed? Algorithm. Select randomly? Algorithm. The only non-algorithm is don't recommend anything (technically, it is an algorithm, the null algorithm).
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday March 22 2022, @04:24PM
It's the swaying of the trees along the internet superhighway, the Al Gore Rhythm.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 5, Funny) by Mykl on Monday March 21 2022, @04:13AM
Presumably this law would also ban "algorithms" that prevent adult content from being shown to children? Because why wouldn't you want to advertise Alcohol, online gambling, cannabis products and pick-up artist seminars to elementary schoolchildren?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2022, @04:26AM (9 children)
If they pass a law banning algorithms, nobody will be allowed to perform the simplest arithmetic, tie their shoelaces, or cook anything following a recipe. (It counts even if it's memorized; you're still following a recipe even if you know it by heart.)
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Monday March 21 2022, @07:59AM (2 children)
So essentially that would make everyone as useless as congress.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2022, @03:35PM
Unpossible!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday March 22 2022, @04:31PM
I see you won't be needing those roads, bridges, or other broken infrastructure congress just passed last year and will be built this year?
The one Ronald Reagan line that convinced me to vote against him even though Carter was a shitty president was "The scariest sentence is 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'." Nobody who thinks government is always the problem and never the solution should ever hold office or work for any government.
That line would be useful in Russia, not a nation with a democratically elected legislature. BTW, please tell your president to stop bombing Ukraine, comrade.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Monday March 21 2022, @02:48PM (5 children)
They're not banning algorithms, they're banning the use of algorithms by social media companies, to recommend content to minors
Which means doing your math homework is fine. Search engines are fine. SN is (probably) fine. And visiting Facebook, etc. *could* be fine if they just, e.g. delivered content from all your listed friends in the order it was posted, rather than listing first (recommending) the posts they think you're most likely to engage with.
Honestly I'm in favor of such a law for *all* social media , not just for minors. Social media as it currently exists amounts to the worlds largest, fastest "gossip party", and just like normal gossip it spreads juicy misinformation far faster and further than the usually much drier facts, to devastating social effect.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday March 21 2022, @03:04PM (1 child)
> by social media companies, to recommend content to minors
Google, which runs social media content (e.g. google hangouts, gmail, google+ or whatever they call it now, etc etc), uses an algorithm in its search engine backend. If a minor searches for something using google (or ddg) this certainly an example of a social media company recommending content to minors?
I don't use friendface or Twitbrains but they presumably have a search function on their front page also. Which becomes illegal.
An algorithm is *any computer program*. Social media is *any web page that enables logged in users to communicate with each other*. Or do you have a definition elsewise?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday March 21 2022, @03:41PM
Yes, and Google might have to spin off their search engine to a separate company to avoid having it caught in the Social Media net - but that's hardly anything new. I can't even keep track of what's owned by Google versus Alphabet anymore.
There's also lots of room to argue what exactly constitutes a "social media" platform - I don't think many people consider email, chat rooms, and other "old school" online communication channels to qualify as social media. Media generally implies publication to third parties, and publication generally implies curation.
In traditional media there is already a clear legal distinction between publishers and providers of communication channels. Namely, publishers like newspapers and TV stations choose what to publish, and are legally responsible for its content - even the content of letters to the editor, or "nipple slips" (as confirmed by numerous court cases across the country). A communication channel like telephone in contrast can't exert any control over the content, and in exchange they carry no liability for that content (which is why telephone and mail companies can get away with distributing rampant fraudulent advertising)
Online though there's Section 230, which was enacted to allow forums like this to exist. Operators are allowed to censor content at will (removing spam, trolling, off-topic, etc. content) but do NOT take on legal responsibility for the rest of the content as a result, beyond being required to remove illegal content. But traditionally the audience for any given post is relatively small - as the number of users increase so does the amount of content, and so each user consumes only a small fraction of the total, guided entirely by which conversations they choose to read. Even when an element of curation via moderation is added, it's typically oriented towards filtering out the "junk", and does not dramatically increase the readership of any given post.
Social media exists in the boundary between the two - they offer the explicit promotion and wide distribution of traditional publishing for the most engaging content, while continuing to hide behind the protections of Section 230 to avoid any legal responsibility for that distribution. And we only need to look around to see how the resulting wave of disinformation is damaging society.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday March 21 2022, @03:07PM (1 child)
I should perhaps clarify that the devastating social effect is specifically due to social media's massive reach and ubiquity, which now positions it as a dominant information source for a huge number of people.
When a big percentage of society gets their information primarily from a completely unsupervised lie-spreading machine... bad things will inevitably happen.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday March 22 2022, @12:12AM
Might not be such a problem, if mainstream news was more of an impartial news source. As opposed to highly partisan and about as prone to spew idiocy as your average youtuber.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2022, @08:09PM
you're a stupid slave piece of shit.
(Score: 2) by HammeredGlass on Monday March 21 2022, @05:11PM
Sounds nice for the kiddos, though they'll simply be tracked("anonymously")more till they get to their already known 18th birthday.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 21 2022, @08:11PM (1 child)
i will not comply with the demands of parasitic retards. If you register a company with the government, you are a cowardly slave, and deserve to be controlled by these scum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 22 2022, @12:06AM
ok, good luck