Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Social Networks

Proposed Law In Minnesota Would Ban Algorithms To Protect the Children (arstechnica.com) 112

Posted by BeauHD from the using-children-as-props dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: 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 (PDF). "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. TechDirt's Mike Masnick slammed the bill in an article titled, "Minnesota pushing bill that says websites can no longer be useful for teenagers."

"I get that for computer illiterate people the word 'algorithm' is scary," Masnick wrote. "And that there's some ridiculous belief among people who don't know any better that recommendation algorithms are like mind control, but the point of an algorithm is... to recommend content. That is, to make a social media (or other kind of service) useful. Without it, you just get an undifferentiated mass of content, and that's not very useful."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Proposed Law In Minnesota Would Ban Algorithms To Protect the Children More

Proposed Law In Minnesota Would Ban Algorithms To Protect the Children

Comments Filter:

  • be careful what you wish for (Score:3)

    by redback ( 15527 ) on Friday March 18, 2022 @05:06PM (#62370267)

    just do it randomly, and they will complain about what is recommended.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Anonymous Coward

      just do it randomly, and they will complain about what is recommended.

      Picking randomly is still an algorithm.

      • How the hell is parent sitting at zero? It was a completely true, and to the grandparent, informative statement!

        Who says moderated content is best? This is garbage!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by redback ( 15527 )

        not to the people who write bullshit laws.

      • Is serving web content itself kind of an algorithm? Ban apache/etc! Protect the children!! (Lol.)

      • In this context, you are incorrect. The bill states:

        "Social media algorithm" means the software used by social media platforms to (1) prioritize content, and (2) direct the prioritized content to the account holder.

        So, choosing randomly or by timestamp (which is not related to the actual content) would be fine and not considered prioritizing content. The spirit of the bill suggests an algorithm is more along the lines of classifying you and your friends into interest groups and prioritizing content it thinks you would find more interesting, or likely to interact with, based on prior observed behavior, etc.

    • Could Be User-Configurable Instead of Random (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Friday March 18, 2022 @05:27PM (#62370327)

      "I get that for computer illiterate people the word 'algorithm' is scary," Masnick wrote. "And that there's some ridiculous belief among people who don't know any better that recommendation algorithms are like mind control

      No, but it's often a cover for when Big Tech wants to put their thumb on the scale and pick winners, but pretend it's being objective rather than a partisan censor.

      but the point of an algorithm is... to recommend content. That is, to make a social media (or other kind of service) useful. Without it, you just get an undifferentiated mass of content, and that's not very useful."

      Then why do people want chronological timelines [slashdot.org] instead of "Featured" or "Trending" bullshit that they know is being manipulated or outright bought? If "undifferentiated" is bad, why is Big Tech so desperate to remove dislikes [slashdot.org]?

      It turns out that most people do in fact know better, and find that those things are much more useful than malicious, biased algorithms working to push a narrative on them (or in this case, kids).

      • "Sort by publish date descending" is still an algorithm, in fact there's a whole sub-science dedicated to sorting algorithms.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Except that no sort is required to spit out a chronological list.

          • Except that no sort is required to spit out a chronological list.

            No, sort by posting date is still a sort and still an algorithm.

            This bill is like saying "breakfast cereals marketed at children cannot use shapes.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by suutar ( 1860506 )

      Yep, that's about it, and even that depends on being able to show that picking randomly is not a form of prioritizing. (The bill defines "Social media algorithm" as "the software used by social media platforms to (1) prioritize content, and (2) direct the prioritized content to the account holder")

      • Good luck proving that your randomizing algorithm results in be user showing truly random content, from all of he content available world-wide. That includes porn and other "objectionable" content.

        Most of the content be in an unreadable language to most users. Unless, of course, you prioritized content only in a certain language and/or relevant to the user's country or area. All of the sudden, it's not so random anymore, eh?

  • It's easier to block users by IP and also make a statement at the same time rather than try and implement this.
    • They'll just implement it badly such that the implementation fits the regulation. The outcome will, however, be utterly nasty and unexpected. Once the first 8 years olds start seeing beastiality and beheadings the pitchforks come out and the companies say "don't blame us, we just turned off the algorithms like they told us to". We saw the same thing with GDPR and those incessant consent dialogs.
  • "like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, WhatsApp, TikTok, and others"

    • And Slashdot. This could be considered a social media site with over a million subscribers. Not that Slashdot tailors content to individuals (perhaps some ads) but would Slashdot have to prove that they DON'T target anyone in Minnesota under 18 with recommended content?

      What about Yahoo? If you have an account on Yahoo and have turned off content for celebrity or sport related articles, does that imply an algorithm that targets the user? What if the user is under 18?

      I think this is a bad idea and overly

  • The legislators have demonstrated they know nothing about algorithms, without saying they knew nothing about them.

    Any ranking is an algorithm. Any filter is an algorithm. Any search comes from an algorithm.

    Do they expect all teens to see "latest" feed on Twitter? Altavista level results on Bing? No content filtering on Facebook against vulgar/violent/racy content?

    Actually scratch that. Even ranking by latest will require a sorting algorithm.

    Do they really understand what they are asking for?

    • Just showing any content requires an algorithm even if it’s just one that displays random content on the site. So not only would the landing page be blank, but searches are algorithms too. On the face of it, this bans all social media for those under 18.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by PPH ( 736903 )

        this bans all social media for those under 18

        I'm OK with this.

        • Said nobody who actually remembers being a teenager.

        • Because keeping young people from learning, connecting, and being creative is how we build our drone army! Yes, master, let's stop youth expression now!

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by PPH ( 736903 )

            keeping young people from learning, connecting, and being creative

            What does social media have to do with all this? Meet kids at school. Go outside. Do stuff together.

            I guess if you don't mind your daughter twerking on TikTok, it's not that bad.

            • Because kids my age never "twerked' under our "smoking tree?" Whatever, even-older dude.

              Let people gather and share where they do. Even if it's Slashdot.

              Which, granted, is less creepy than the Catholic church, if you're a kid. But we're not legally banning that, are we?

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by PPH ( 736903 )

                Let people gather and share where they do. Even if it's Slashdot.

                With the caveat that we don't know if Slashdot people are real. They might be Russian disinformation 'bots or left wing news curators. A dozen different UIDs might be all the same person. Or a bunch of FBI agents sniffing around for people dealing drugs.

                Kids don't understand this. Heck, a lot of adults don't. And finally, I wouldn't let my kid wander into a Catholic church on his own*. Ban the church? Nope. But they have to develop a keen sense for bullshit before I'd let them walk in there alone.

                *The gir

      • On the face of it, this bans all social media for those under 18.

        It's worse than that. It bans all websites with a million users or more (the bill is irreconcilable with other laws prohibiting the display of certain content). It most certainly violates the 1st Amendment; and probably the 4th and 5th. It's a stupid concept on its face, and unimplementable.

        It's not much of a stretch to rewrite the headline as, "Minnesota Bill Would Ban The 'if' Statement For Large Communication Systems."

        • "Social media platform" means an electronic medium, including a browser-based or application-based interactive computer service, telephone network, or data network, that allows users to create, share, and view user-created content.

          From a legal perspective it requires all three, create share and view. So this would not ban search engines, like google as one does not create or share content, just view. It may ban Wikipedia like sites depending on what the definition of share is, which they left off in the bill.

          It’s still monumentally stupid and likely unenforceable though.

        • Define a user. Are we counting bots? Only MN voters? Are children under 18 even counted as legal entities under the law?

          Only then can we say what would have a million of those.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by suutar ( 1860506 )

        If they concede that random selection is not a form of prioritizing, it works; the bill defines "Social media algorithm" as "the software used by social media platforms to (1) prioritize content, and (2) direct the prioritized content to the account holder".
        But sorting by date, yeah, that's gone.

      • It's not just social media, it's any "electronic medium, including a browser-based or
        application-based interactive computer service, telephone network, or data network, that
        allows users to create, share, and view ... data created by an account holder that is ... stored by the ... platform in the account
        holder's account". It applies so long as the "platform" has at least 1 million users.

        GMail stores sent mail and allows emails to be sent, it also sorts messages by date descending, has search functionality, a
      • There's a good comp sci argument to be made that a neural networked, machine-learning approach would be non-algorithmic. Or then there's the heisenberg uncertainty approach "we'll give you the least predictable, most non-algorithmic content results quantum science can provide."
      • Not at all. The bill defines the terms:

        (d) "Social media algorithm" means the software used by social media platforms to (1) prioritize content, and (2) direct the prioritized content to the account holder.

        (f) "User-created content" means data created by an account holder that is displayed on the account holder's social media page or stored by the social media platform in the account holder's account. User-created content includes personal identifiable information, educational experience or institution, volunteer or employment experience, written posts, photographs, video recordings, or audio recordings.

        Subd. 2. Prohibitions; social media algorithm. (a) A social media platform with more than 1,000,000 account holders operating in Minnesota is prohibited from using a social media algorithm to target user-created content at an account holder under the age of 18.

      • To be more specific, the bill is against using algorithms to boost some content over others. Showing randomly, or by most recent date, etc, or even search for general relivance would be considered normal, but applying an algorithm on top of those results to personalize/boost content based, for example, on observed behavior of the user, would be banned.
        • Read the actual bill, that’s not what it says at all and the bill is the legal basis. It just says algorithm so even latest or random results are banned. Unless you can fit all the content on a single page without scrolling it bans all because they don’t know what words mean.

    • Any ranking is an algorithm.

      Not if it's random, and I mean genuinely random. No PRNG or even CSPRNG. I'm talking about thermal noise level stuff.

      Not saying it's useful, but mathematically speaking it's not algorithmic.

      • Uhh, huh? I have a list of 50 items, I pick a random number to index into those 50 items. That's.. an algorithm, it's just not a deterministic one.

      • If you use random noise to rank something, it's still an algorithm.

        • Well not exactly, no because you can't generate the noise algorithmically, so the overall decision prices is not an algorithm. It's not something you can execute on a turing machine.

      • You are conflating how a number is being used with the generation of a number (which may be deterministic or naturally random)

        HOW we decide WHICH page to rank IS the algorithm. It doesn't matter WHAT number is generated; which itself in turn may (or may not) be an algorithm.

        For example, if we have 3 pages, a, b, and c, we have 3^3 = 27 permutations these pages could be ranked:

        aaa, aab, aac, aba, abb, abc, aca, acb, acc
        baa, bab, bac, bba, bbb, bbc, bca, bcb, bcc
        caa, cab, cac, cba, cbb, cbc, cca, ccb, ccc

        I

    • There are algorithms in the TCP stacks used to get the packets from one computer to another.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      I advocate that we ban all filtering and prioritizing algorithms. If a kid is doing supposed to stare one fact and provide on visual aid for his 5th grade, and searches Melania Knavs naked, no fascist government or corporate fake media should censor it.

  • Ignorance at its finest (Score:3)

    by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Friday March 18, 2022 @05:18PM (#62370301)

    I don't understand what I'm talking about but I will plough on and make it law regardless.

  • Aw, let's look at it from the bright side. At least the algorithms are thinking of the children, since their parents are too busy working or themselves social networking.

    Just a thought: how hard would it be to introduce some critical (no, not that one) thinking in the schools so the kids can learn you can't just trust some random Tuber or potato on the 'Net?

  • Others will do it for you.

    No surprise that tech companies are being targeted by the legislature they have been incredibly irresponsible and arrogant about it. This makes them an easy target. While it would be nice if the legislature would actually act in the interest of the people they are in office to represent, I am sure what will happen is the legislature will just hold out their hands to be greased, then pass an incomprehensible law that doesn't actually do much of anything except allow random and arbit

  • Sorry haters, but I think itâ(TM)s a good idea. Yeah, sure, they have to define algorithm, but itâ(TM)s a technicality. If they made it so they only see things from people they follow in reverse chronology, it would be much better than now.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by suutar ( 1860506 )

      Reverse chronology is not an allowed algorithm. The bill says ""Social media algorithm" means the software used by social media platforms to (1)
      prioritize content, and (2) direct the prioritized content to the account holder" and chronology is a form of prioritization.

  • Sloppy Definition? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    >Without it, you just get an undifferentiated mass of content, and that's not very useful.
    For a narrow definition of social media. But you can recommend content producers that the user subscribes to because that doesn't use a clever ML algorithm which incorporates an account's interaction history and other private data.
    But: the wording in the bill is too broad because even the simplest query technically uses an algorithm.
    >"Social media algorithm" means the software used by social media platforms to (1

  • > Without it, you just get an undifferentiated mass of content, and that's not very useful.

    I respectfully disagree.

    - I remember when Twitter started using AI to recommend content instead of the chronological feed. Many people prefered the simple feed.
    - Define "useful". Not having social media unduly influence people sounds pretty "useful" to me.

    • Not having social media unduly influence people sounds pretty "useful" to me.

      The whole point of human communication is to influence people. It's impossible for two or more people to communicate without some form of influence happening. At this very moment, you are considering whether or not you agree with me. I have therefore influenced you. Whether I've changed your mind or not doesn't matter.

      What you consider to be "undue" influence may in fact be what I consider to be essential education, and vice-versa. It forms the backbone of essential speech. What you are proposing is to make

  • I take it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Friday March 18, 2022 @05:44PM (#62370377) Homepage Journal

    ...the guy never used USENET. It was an extraordinarily useful service, and it didn't have a single algorithm in it for recommending content. Rather, users chose the content they wanted to see.

    The difference between having a menu versus only being able to listen to the waiter make recommendations that will profit the waiter.

    This doesn't mean that algorithms are bad, but it does mean that the argument being used in their favour is incredibly naive and childish. If that's the best argument that anyone can offer, then maybe ban algorithms until those coding them are capable of explaining them better. Would Linus accept a patch on the grounds that the developer told him "oh, it's useful"? Or would he expect something a bit more enlightening? If we wouldn't accept algorithms for our own stuff on such a limited argument then why should we expect anyone else to?

    I'm all in favour of algorithms. Open ones, that we can inspect, yes. Properly documented ones, preferably. And ones where the person recommending them can actually say why they're recommending them, definitely. Here, none of these three requirements is met. Im in a generous mood, I'll even skimp on the open source requirement, if Zuckerberg can meet the other two.

    Not that he can. His understanding of the code and, indeed, of ethics, ended with an attempt to grab the girls or at least the illicitly traded pictures of them.

    • Exactly!

  • Thankfully all kids are truthful about their date of birth when signing up for social media accounts.

  • Algorithm: a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.

    So showing any content or allowing searches are also banned. In fact this is makes it illegal for any social media company with over 1 million users to serve any content to those under 18 living in Minnesota period. This is monumentally stupid.

    What they probably meant was social media can not retain any information about those under 18 past a single login session or 24 hour

  • So, they will add a line to EULAs saying that anyone under the age of 18 can't use their service in Minnesota.

    Fixed it!

  • Yeah, this is a catch-22. A program that chooses to not do targeting is still, well, an algorithm. As is a program that is supposed to prioritize government/school materials.

  • The bill is really damn short (Score:4, Informative)

    by Orgasmatron ( 8103 ) on Friday March 18, 2022 @06:52PM (#62370535)

    If you are going to comment here, you have no excuses for not reading it [mn.gov].

    It doesn't outlaw algorithms. It doesn't mean that a service can't remove age-inappropriate content from pages that it serves to minors.

    It says that they can't use an algorithm to target content at minors.

    That may or may not be good policy, but it is certainly not even close to the strawman that most of the comments here are talking about.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by splutty ( 43475 )

      You must be new here. Reading original sources? Hahaha!

    • The quickest solution to that would just be to change the social media's policy to restrict access to minors, once they reach 1m users.
    • specifically, they cannot target *user created* content. In other words, they can't use any mysterious algorithms to suppress or boost things your friends post. So, now you'll just see everything from all your friends, probably by most recent, or most popular (whatever is easy to understand and user selectable).

  • Nuclear
    Chemical
    Genetically modified
    Algorithm

  • Useful to whom, for what purpose? Filtered/prioritized/"this may interest you" results have one single purpose: advertising. Do you seriously think Google or Facebook would put all that effort into something for *your* benefit? And then give it to you for free? *snerk*

  • "And that there's some ridiculous belief among people who don't know any better that recommendation algorithms are like mind control, but the point of an algorithm is... to recommend content. That is, to make a social media (or other kind of service) useful. Without it, you just get an undifferentiated mass of content, and that's not very useful."

    Actually, reverse chronological posts from only those I'm connected to would be very useful. To me, not advertisers, sure.

    (I suppose that's still an "algorithm", if we also include ORDER BY in such things ...)

  • Should it be "Proposed Law In Minnesota Would Ban [Algorithms To Protect the Children]"? Meaning they don't want algorithms that protect children?

    Or should it be "Proposed Law In Minnesota Would Ban [Algorithms] To Protect the Children"? Meaning they want to ban algorithms for the sake of protecting children?

    • It works both ways, since some of these companies use those evil algorithms to not show adult content to accounts flagged as minors, and this bill would ban that too.
  • That is just as enforceable as trying to keep anyone under 18 off the internet.
  • Meanwhile, television is rife with ads for products aimed at children that include sugary cereals, clothing that makes them feel uncool if they're not wearing it, and more.
    • Commercials (ads) are not considered user created content, so you are comparing apples and pineapples.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • "Without it, you just get an undifferentiated mass of content, and that's not very useful."

    Why does a teen need curated content at all? How are they making it "useful"?

  • These algorithms aren't useful, they're harmful. Just look at Qanon. Recommended content just keeps people in a feedback bubble of their own opinions. They never see different viewpoints in their social media feed, and therefore refuse to listen to different viewpoints in real life. We need a balance in order to make informed decisions. The algorithm should be banned altogether. It's not just harmful, it's also annoying.

  • I really wish the editors had better command of English. As I first read the headline I thought it was about banning algorithms which protect children, not about banning algorithms in order to protect children.

  • I've got a friend who has an 8 year old child with ADHD. Seeing the manipulative crap that comes up in that kid's 'recommended' feed disgusts me. I know what an algorithm is, and this gaslighting jackass is probably just hoping that all tech-literate people hate the idea of any kind of regulation. If fighting to prevent regulation in technology got us where we are today, i don't want to be on that side anymore.

  • But really this story seemed ripe for a bit of low-hanging fruit humor.

  • Proposed Law ... Ban Algorithms That Will Protect Children (former editor here) reads like there are algorithms that protect children and the law will ban them. Maybe instead of 'protect' use 'target' or something similar.
  • This is great news.

    If widely implemented, the children of today could be the first generation since X to grow up without being manipulated into neurotic narcissists by SillyCon Valley.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close