Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Government United States Technology

New Bipartisan Bill Takes Aim at Algorithms (axios.com) 173

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
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. From the report: 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. 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. 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.

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). The Senate version of the bill, also bipartisan, is sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), an influential member of Republican leadership. Buck and Cicilline are the bipartisan duo responsible for passing six antitrust bills out of the House Judiciary committee in June. Buck and Thune plan to work together on tech and antitrust issues going forward, a Republican aide told Axios. That could boost the chances of such bills passing muster with Senate Republicans in the future.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Bipartisan Bill Takes Aim at Algorithms More

New Bipartisan Bill Takes Aim at Algorithms

Comments Filter:

  • I've entered an alternate world (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @12:46PM (#61971529) Journal

    And it's populated by morons. There is no way a computer can show content without using an algorithm.

    • What does an unfiltered Facebook feed look like? A few million posts a minute? These Congresscritters have no clue what they are asking for.

      • Re:I've entered an alternate world (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Drethon ( 1445051 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @12:59PM (#61971559)

        What does an unfiltered Facebook feed look like? A few million posts a minute? These Congresscritters have no clue what they are asking for.

        Is it the politicians or lousy reporting? This line seems to suggest they might understand this is about algorithms using personal info, not algorithms in general: "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."

        • If it's the reporting, then that reporter should not be allowed to write about computers.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 )

          This is similar to the shitty Rolling Stone reporter who didn't understand what Al Gore was talking about, so wrote a story saying Gore said he invented the internet. The truth is that Gore told him about the internet and the world wide web, and said he was one of the key people who worked to change legislation to allow public commercial sites and communication on the internet; to create the www. The reporter was either too stupid, stoned, just didn't care, or all three. So he said, "Al Gore said he invente

          • >They are too lazy to dig a little (which is their job oddly enough)

            Ah, a fellow traditionalist. Sadly the world has moved on, news outlets have devolved into thinly-veiled ad-distribution outlets, and reporters are now valued primarily by the effectiveness of their clickbait rather than the quality of their reporting.

      • As of about 5 years ago, the average Facebook user would see 1500 posts a day from their connections. There's no way people are going to scroll through that. Imagine Slashdot if every single item submitted was on the front page. Tech platforms use algorithms because they show people what they want to see. You want to see things that interest you, and not all the stuff that doesn't. They use these functions because it makes people more engaged with their site, rather than driving them away by showing them a

        • Ahhh, but 1500 posts from people I know and have connected with is easily manageable. I can simply block specific people or unfriend them. The insidious thing is that while FB started developing feed algos to limit what you see, they also made it harder to see stuff from people you actually know. And there's no longer any way to block content because it's been turned into a content pushing model rather than the old content feed model.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by kqs ( 1038910 )

            So your definition of "no algorithm" is "from people I know and have connected with", which is a personalized algorithm.

            Turtles all the way down.

            • Not really. If you simply see the posts from everyone you've subscribed to in a predetermined order (oldest first, or most recent, or most popular), there is no personalized algorithm involved. *You* do the personalization ("give me posts from these people, in this order"), while the distributor simply provides what you've requested.

              With a non-personalized algorithm any two people with the same settings (friends, order, etc.) will see the same feed.

              When you get into personalized algorithms those two peopl

          • You can currently block content you don't want to see. Select the options for not interested and you see less of it. The feed it what you make it and what you engage with. The problem is that most people will never take the time to teach it. So instead Facebook and others like Twitter have to look at what you engage with most and what you don't and then shape your feed based on that. Keep in mind engagement isn't just liking, commenting and sharing. They also look at dwell time, how long you pause on someth

        • Re:I've entered an alternate world (Score:4)

          by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @02:16PM (#61971861)

          Tech platforms use algorithms because they show people what they want to see.

          My interpretation: Tech platforms use algorithms because they (the algorithms) show people what they (the Tech platforms) want them (the users) to see.

          They use these functions because it makes people more engaged with their site

          Obviously I'm only a sample size of one, but the first thing I do when I check my FB feed is select the "most recent" option. I don't care what FB thinks I want to see, and they can put their algorithm where the sun doesn't shine.

          • Facebooks own data shows the changes they made to the feed caused people to engage with the platform more (more time on site, more comments, more Likes, etc). The way you engage with the site isn't representative of the general user.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Pascoea ( 968200 )
              Trust me, I understand that they know exactly what they are doing, and you are right on with your assessment. My issue is that most of their user base isn't smart enough (or just not aware enough) to understand that they are being manipulated. Their algorithms aren't designed to show you what you want to see, they are designed to "force" you to interact more. Someone in another thread summed it up pretty well, and I'm paraphrasing, "angry users are active users". Get people riled up and they are more li
              • Certainly works for slashdot. The most active threads here are the ones with people upset. They love to complain about Apple. Everyone here is the greatest IT worker on the planet, an expert in everything and happy to let others know how smart they are. No different than Facebook, just a different set of topics the site is focused on.

                • Re: (Score:3)

                  by Pascoea ( 968200 )
                  True that. But at least, for the most part, Slashdot is honest and upfront about what's going on. And, aside from the obvious trolls, there's content here worth interacting with. You can achieve similar on FB by blocking the trolls, sorting by most recent, and getting back to what FB was good at: Looking at funny cat videos, family vacation pics, and rantings by the nutccase uncle we all have but haven't blocked yet.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LKM ( 227954 )

        What does an unfiltered Facebook feed look like?

        It looks like the posts from the people you're actually friends with, and the groups you've actually joined. Unless you have millions of friends and are in millions of groups, you're not going to have a few million posts a minute.

        I think this bill goes in the right direction, because that's exactly what I want to see. I want to see the things I've intentionally added to my feed, not random stuff some algorithm wants to feed me based on what it thinks my intere

        • But what does an unfiltered news feed look like? That is likely very high volume.

          • There shouldn't be a news feed on Facebook.

          • Re:I've entered an alternate world (Score:5, Insightful)

            by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @01:52PM (#61971739) Journal

            Well it looks a lot like a straw man. Nobody is suggesting or asking for a completely unfiltered Facebook firehose. What we do want, is a feed of shit that we opt-in on; statuses of friends and family, and groups we actively join. Not clickbait troll bullshit, not force-fed agenda-driven nonsense, not performative outrage, and not conspiracy loony bullshit that Facebook wants you to see because an angry user is a frequent user.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by suutar ( 1860506 )

          Sorry, "find posts from people this user has friended" is an algorithm.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by LKM ( 227954 )
            Please click on the link and read the actual bill. It doesn't say anything at all about "algorithms" in general.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by suutar ( 1860506 )

            Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying about what you want to see. I'm just pointing out that this is going to have to be _incredibly_ precisely worded to (a) make a difference and yet (b) not effectively forbid all forms of filtering.

            • And when it is precisely worded, that's when opponents will rail on about "the bill is 800 pages! Nobody knows what's in it! We didn't have time to read it while helping the fucking Brinks truck driver back up the driveway with the bribes^H^H^H^H^H^H political donations for my rejection of this ANTI-FREEDOM bill!"

      • No posts except what your friends post.

      • I mean, back in the day Facebook was a list of your friends posts in descending chronological order, not the algorithm trying to figure out which ones you should and shouldn't see.

        I'd have no problem going back to that. If I want to see someone's posts I will follow/friend/subscribe to them. If they post too much I can ignore them and/or retract by follow/subscribe.

      • What it used to look like. A stream of posts from your friends in chronological order.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spitzak ( 4019 )

        Even if you got every facebook post made, they would still arrive at your computer in some order. That order would have to be decided by an algorithm. So even that won't work.

    • What are Algorithms? (Score:3, Informative)

      by LKM ( 227954 )

      There is no way a computer can show content without using an algorithm

      I feel like you're intentionally misunderstanding this post's title, which uses the word "algorithm" colloquially to mean a recommendation algorithm, not any algorithm. This is a pretty common usage of the term in the wider media, even if it is technically wrong. As a descriptivist, I'm completely fine with that :-)

      Also, the bill defines the words it uses exactly and correctly, so the problem you point out - that the word "algorithm" actu

      • As a descriptivist, I'm completely fine with that :-)

        Why did you have to make it political?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mark-t ( 151149 )

        This is a pretty common usage of the term in the wider media, even if it is technically wrong.

        But the fact that it *is* technically wrong is invariably going to cause a lot of entirely unnecessary miscommunication for technically minded people.

        Sure, this can all be clarified by closer examination of the details where the terms are more strictly defined, but when they use a word in a *HEADLINE* that by your own admission is technically incorrect, it should come as no surprise that many technically minded

    • Oh look a proposed bill, it hasn't been fully written yet, nor did we actually read the details of the bill. But lets find all the flaws of the idea from a headline story.

      Yes a computer will need algorithms for it to function and produce some output. But that what they are talking about are the algorithms that social media uses to provide us custom content based on our preferences, and calculated beliefs. I for one, just want the content from my friends post, posted with newest on top, that is an algori

      • nor did we actually read the details of the bill.

        I did.
        Clearly you didn't.

        • Re:I've entered an alternate world (Score:5, Informative)

          by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @02:12PM (#61971847)

          Page 2 Line 1 under Section 2 Definitions:
          "(1) ALGORITHMIC RANKING SYSTEM.—The term ‘‘algorithmic ranking system’’ means a computational process, including one derived from algorithmic decision making, machine learning, statistical analysis, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, used to determine the order or manner that a set of information is provided to a user on a covered internet platform, including the ranking of search results, the provision of content recommendations, the display of social media posts, or any other method of automated content selection."

          It is clearly not talking about normal Algorithms that will be needed for the software to function, but for the actual algorithms that are considered to be the issue at hand.

          • Is it clear? Because by my reading "sort by date" is an algorithm that fits that definition.

            • A sort by date is not derived by algorithmic decision making, machine learning, statistical analysis, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques.

              I guess a Sort could be considered "other data processing" however that is kinda stretching it. But if you feel that can be abused, I would still contact your member of the house, and let them know the definition of ALGORITHMIC RANKING SYSTEM is too broad, and propose some additional verbiage to prevent legal abuse of the letter of the law to

              • A sort by date is not derived by algorithmic decision making, machine learning, statistical analysis, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques.

                Now you're being disingenuous. The section you quoted doesn't say those are necessary.

                • You are completely correct. "or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques" includes literally any way the content could be displayed.

                  • The phrase from the law (which jellomizer quoted) is this:

                    "... a computational process, including one derived ..."

                    The phrase "including one" has actual meaning in the sentence, and it doesn't mean "limited to".

    • There is no way a computer can show content without using an algorithm.

      I can see the 2022 elections now:

      "If elected, I promise to make all algorithms run in O(n), even the ones currently O(1)! It's the only way to ensure equality".

      • "If elected, I promise to make all algorithms run in O(n), even the ones currently O(1)!"

        Wow! They have my CS vote!!

      • Any algorithm can be turned into O(1) with proper performance management. Just calculate the slowest execution speed possible for an O(n) algorithm and pad the process with NOOPs.

        Performance optimization for CS majors.

    • It means you can't use somebody's personal info to power those algorithms. So when I go to CNN.com they show me a mix of stories without me logging in or knowing anything about me. Facebook and Twitter would have to, on request, do that.

      It's basically a mandatory "Do Not Track" flag like what Apple just did with iOS. It would likely turn Facebook into a podunk company with only minor revenue. Twitter could survive. So could YouTube.

  • It's All Algorithms (Score:3)

    by ZipK ( 1051658 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @12:51PM (#61971543)
    How does a service operate without algorithms? Facebook showing you a strictly chronological feed of all (and only) items posted by those you follow and groups you've chosen to be a part is operating via an algorithm.

    • Re:It's All Algorithms (Score:5, Informative)

      by LKM ( 227954 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @01:15PM (#61971605)

      The actual bill defines its terms pretty well:

      The term ‘‘algorithmic ranking system’’ means a computational process, including one derived from algorithmic decision making, machine learning, statistical analysis, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, used to determine the order or manner that a set of information is provided to a user on a covered internet platform, including the ranking of search results, the provision of content recommendations, the display of social media posts, or any other method of automated content selection.

      So the bill doesn't aim to force a service to operate "without algorithms", which would be ludicrous. The bill is aimed at specific kinds of content recommendation algorithms that go further than just showing to user whichever things they've explicitly indicated they want to see.

      • Is not 'posted by friends' or even just 'most-recent' an 'algorithmic decision making' process?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by LKM ( 227954 )

          Further down in the text, the bill explicitly allows usage of data that the user has expressly and intentionally provided in order to influence what content he sees.

          I think the bill is really quite well-written, and isn't even that long.

      • How exactly would you display *any* content without an 'automated content selection'? Even 'sort by new' is an automated content selection. And what are you grabbing from? That's automated content selection even if it's random. How on earth is that 'pretty well' when it would seem to outlaw all search engines and social media just to start with?

    • Those aren't doing filtering based on internal algorithms. It's the filtering that is being discussed in the article, not the content presentation.

  • It's not that algorithms are bad (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @12:54PM (#61971549)
    It's what they put in them.

    Facebook's algorithms are pure condensed evil, as they do their best to end up radicalizing people, and will actively try to get you to choose a path toward your radicalization.

    Now some others like Pinterest, use their algorithms to hunt out things that you might not know about. I use it for woodworking and electronic information. I have no issues with what Pinterest does.

    The only thing odd is that my Pinterest feed seems to have an obsession with Maude Fealy, a 19th Century actress. My best guess is that I have clicked on some B&W photography, and there is a lot of her. But I don't click on her pictures.

    But that's no big deal compared to Facebook's evil.

    • It's what they put in them.

      Blah, blah, what do you mean ol’ Zukky can’t make a live working version of Snow Crash [wikipedia.org]? Look, he’s just using a human botnet to hijack a 200 year old democracy and make a little money, what could possibly go wrong?!?

  • Just goes to show how dumb elected politicians and the bureaucrats on their staffs are. And no one raised their hand and said "Do we really want to prove to the world we are complete idiots?"

  • Easy for google. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Petersko ( 564140 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @01:01PM (#61971565)

    Answer to every search:

    "Sorry, mate, not allowed to look. Dunno. Would you like everything ever, unsorted, on a single page?"

    • The reporter meant "Software designed to feed you things similar to what you have already liked". But that would not fit in a headline. Most people were smart enough to understand that.

  • algorithm free? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by youn ( 1516637 )

    Though I do understand the appeal of a transparent version of social networks where people have control over their feed/bubble, I am amused how would anyone code an app without using a single algorithm

    Somebody please write an app without using a single algorithm... I'll wait :p

    • Youre being pedantic. Algorithm is this setting isnt the same as a simple math algorithm. Youre doing the "its only a theory" argument. One word, multiple meanings.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by youn ( 1516637 )

        According to Oxford dictionary, an algorithm is "a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer." at least in practice... you may have a different theory on what an algorithm is, but in practice it's exactly what it is.

        Iterating through a feed in chronological order (or defining a "Feed bubble") qualifies as a set of rules and is exactly an algorithm. You may prefer one algorithm over another, preach for transparency. In a way, our very

        • The bill doesn't mention the word "algorithm". Instead, it explicitly describes the sort of ranking algorithms that Facebook, et al, currently use.

          So complaining about "algorithm" is complaining about a headline written with a colloquial usage so that it's short enough to be a headline.

    • I want an internet without any of those pesky web-type thingies... Will someone please dust once in a while!

  • This is unexpected. (Score:5, Funny)

    by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @01:06PM (#61971579)
    Look, just cause Vice President Al Gore invented the Internet, it’s not really fair for both sides to gang up on him like this. I mean, he brought it on himself a bit by conceitedly naming the ebb and flow of the tubes “Al Gore Rhythms”, but still...

  • Imagine Google Without An Algorithm (Score:3)

    by WankerWeasel ( 875277 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @01:07PM (#61971585)
    How does search work without such? Just craps out the raw index for every single search? You can't even rank a listing without an algorithm. Even something as simple as "Sort in alphabetical order." requires an algorithm or sort function.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by narcc ( 412956 )

      Read the summary. Google search is safe, though we'll get more options. This is a win for everyone except facebook's hate machine.

  • Instead of giving you only ads that might interest you, those companies can just flood you with all of them. No tracking means I can see ads for towing services 2000 miles away! Want to order pizza delivery from another country? Want to meet up with singles in a different timezone? There's nothing inherently wrong with using algorithms for more targeted advertisement. Blocking such algorithms doesn't necessarily make your user experience "better".

  • The Algorithms! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    All of these comments from people who can't be bothered to click two links and read the actual bill, but can be bothered to write comments about how dumb politicians are for not understanding what an algorithm is, make me think that Slashdot users have now surpassed Facebook users as both the laziest and dumbest people on the Internet. And Slashdot doesn't even use any recommendation algorithms!

    • Confirmation bias is very strong on /.

      We believe politicians are idiots and so we are primed to confirm our suspicions and stop any further investigation.

      If the article was about rational genius of a bill written by Congress, we'd all be clicking through to find evidence it was written by morons.

      It's not laziness.

  • I have literally no idea what an algorithm-free newsfeed or homepage would look like. Just blank? Something needs to decide what to show you. Even if you list every piece of content alphabetically by title, that's an algorithm.

    • You just remove memory checks and send them whatever your server has lying around in memory.

      Results may vary.

  • Congress has wanted for years (Score:3)

    by wakeboarder ( 2695839 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @01:40PM (#61971707)

    for tech to change their ways. And they haven't done it. So you'll get bills like this coming through the pipes. If an industry can't regulate itself, the government might just step in and regulate for you (not saying that's a good thing). Now we will get horrible laws to try and fix the problem.

    • It's not industry that needs to self-police; it's consumers. Facebook users are complicit in every social ill caused by the platform. FB is giving its users the click-rage and virtue-signalling those users so desperately crave.

      When it comes to social media, we don't need more regulations on how they do business. We need fewer regulations protecting them from liability. Facebook provides material support to terrorist groups and should be treated like it.

  • Ugh, politicians. First they clearly don't know what an algorithm is. Secondly, even if they didn't personalize it so they show everyone the same thing, they can still just show everyone stuff meant to be inflammatory and meant to evoke an emotional, rather than a thoughtful, reaction. At least we'd all be on the same page again, I guess. Some big organization telling us who to be mad at. I mean, can you legislate that journalists have to write without bias? And if you can't do that, what hope is ther

  • Let's blow past all the obviously impossible issues and say you have defined something as harmful and made some regulations to limit it. Now you gotta enforce it. Please have a look at the nicotine and alcohol industries for an example of how successful that's been.

    Honestly, shutting down social media as innately harmful is appealing to an old fart like me. But...people do business on these platforms. People socialize without getting drawn into a toxic relationship with the platform or the people therei

    • say you have defined something as harmful and made some regulations to limit it. Now you gotta enforce it. Please have a look at the nicotine and alcohol industries for an example of how successful that's been.

      The alcohol and nicotine industries have been regulated in a way to ensure revenue, not as a way to limit them.

    • Simpler to let FB be liable for the harm it causes. No need to regulate how they run things. But when a terrorist group uses FB to plan and execute violence or other harm, then FB should be covering the tab for the victims.

      Section 230 shouldn't apply to companies with a global reach of half the world's population.

  • ...that I can use a version of the stock market without high frequency trading bots using payment-for-order-flow that always finds a "market price" that just happens to favor wealth-owned positions and fucks retail investors?

    • Trading bot algorithms aren't managed by the trading platform. For FB, the equivalent would be requesting a version of the site where no one is using automated software to post messages. That's not really FB's fault; they would prefer real human eyes over bots posting.

  • ...that I can use a version of the stock market that doesn't have payment-for-order-flow front-running high frequency trading algorithms that always find a "market price" that favors wealthy funds and fucks retail investors?

  • Terrible Reporting (Score:3)

    by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @02:20PM (#61971885)

    Not to ruin the fun but it sounds like the lawmakers aren't remotely as stupid as the 'ban algorithms' reporting would suggest, FTA:

    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.

    So it's not about 'banning algorithms', but rather giving people a choice to see non-personalized content, which should be quite doable.

  • I'm pretty sure "algorithm" doesn't mean what you think it means.

  • Forgoing the bad reporting, the goal appears to be that social media companies not use your personal information to curate content for you. Okay, then either you are shown everything, which is unrealistic, or you see things you have specifically opted in, eg. friends, groups, pages, etc, but ONLY those you've subscribed to.

    I can see the appeal of a setup like this for me as an individual. I just don't see what's in it for social media giants if they can't track you and target you with ads. Case in point,

  • Why are all the top comments (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday November 09, 2021 @02:34PM (#61971949)
    "you can't do anything without algorithms!".

    No shit Sherlock. Context is a thing. In this context "algorithms" means the kind where they track your personal information at a minute detail and use that to serve up content that keeps you endlessly doom scrolling.

    It's basically, like I said elsewhere, a legal requirement to offer Apple's iOS "Do Not Track" option.

    Can we please try a little harder to have better discussions here on /.?

Slashdot Top Deals

Term, holidays, term, holidays, till we leave school, and then work, work, work till we die. -- C.S. Lewis

Close