Josh Hayley’s bill targeting internet giants.

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,834
Visit site
✟867,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'll give an example of what I mean. Suppose there happens to be significantly more videos on YouTube disparaging Trump than there are praising him. The AI may see that videos of Trump have a strong connection to other left-wing topics, and start connecting people who watch videos of Trump start getting suggestions of left-wing videos.

That would be a bias, but due to how the AI interprets the data it receives.

I am a bit unclear on the scenario. Largely the AI have seen is good enough to figure out whether you want left or right over time. though it also will connect you to other political content generally.

Of greater concern is limited state, removal of videos, and banning based on points of view. That would be pretty clear.
 
Upvote 0

PeachyKeane

M.I.A.
Mar 11, 2006
5,853
3,579
✟91,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
That is not bias, people getting what they want is how it is designed. And as long as the consumer is the one choosing, and they are not pushing content against that, that is fine.

But that's not what my model suggests. Those who praise Trump are getting more left-wing content than they want because the AI associates Trump videos in general with the left-wing. They're not getting what they want.

The issue is artificially basing it on something other than consumer demand.

Which is why we have to question if that's what's happening. There is a strong connection between video game videos (particularly Call Of Duty type games) and both sets of the alt-right, Neo-Nazis and other white nationalism videos, and products for teenage boys. As a result there are a lot of videos aimed at white supremacists that are suggested to teenage boys.

It is assumed that this is because white nationalists tend to be isolated, single men with social problems, that tend to play a lot of X-Box. Who else tends to watch videos on Call Of Duty? Teenage boys.

It's generally assumed we don't want white nationalist propaganda being suggested to people because they're watching skateboarding videos.
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There are things I do like in this bill, but if it's just more whining about how Google are """""censoring""""" ""conservatives"" (read: Nazis who preach hate on Youtube), then Hawley should remember that the First Amendment does not protect you from the consequences of your speech.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,316
59
Australia
✟277,286.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But what is neutral? Define.

Well I think it would mean they would be required to allow stuff like Jihad "kill all the Christians" and Neo Nazi "Kill all the Jews" because otherwise it could be argued they are not being politically neutral.

Well done Josh, what a well thought out bill.
 
Upvote 0

Haramis

Dancing on Rainbows
Supporter
Feb 11, 2012
300
221
✟35,466.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Wondering if maybe entities/businesses such as Google, Facebook other search engines, public content platforms should be required to provide two platforms allowing the user to select what type of algorithm they want to run/use.

ie - algorithm based on true/actual trending user searches (open platform) not being filtered

or

algorithm based on filtered content as the provider chooses (closed platform)
That assumes Google actually honors their stated policy(which they would not).
They deny they in any way directly manipulate any algorithm to any end whatsoever.

They also say that if you select the no history option that they honor it(plenty of internal exposures demonstrated that was a lie and they continue to tie activity to users and any device they use, logged into Google services or not).

Google's honesty track record is basically the Left wing version of Trump. If Google says something - it's a lie.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,834
Visit site
✟867,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But that's not what my model suggests. Those who praise Trump are getting more left-wing content than they want because the AI associates Trump videos in general with the left-wing. They're not getting what they want.



Which is why we have to question if that's what's happening. There is a strong connection between video game videos (particularly Call Of Duty type games) and both sets of the alt-right, Neo-Nazis and other white nationalism videos, and products for teenage boys. As a result there are a lot of videos aimed at white supremacists that are suggested to teenage boys.

It is assumed that this is because white nationalists tend to be isolated, single men with social problems, that tend to play a lot of X-Box. Who else tends to watch videos on Call Of Duty? Teenage boys.

It's generally assumed we don't want white nationalist propaganda being suggested to people because they're watching skateboarding videos.

I realized right after posting that was not the scenario and edited. But I think you had already replied.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,834
Visit site
✟867,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That is already in place. And this bill is aimed at enforcing it by review. The issue comes down to whether they want to operate as a platform or an editorial publisher.

They have stated in Senate hearings that they are a platform. Then they must demonstrate they are not censoring various political views.

Based on new information I wanted to clarify that some of the information in my earlier posts is not correct.

In the Senate hearings Ted Cruz and others have been asking Google if they are a neutral publisher under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. They indicated they are.

Cruz, etc. have indicated that Google is abusing the liability protection given to it, and is not neutral. Whether they are neutral or not doesn't matter in recent court cases, and the actual text of 230 doesn't seem to require it.

This blog in particular goes through various cases and shows that courts are basically uniformly siding with social media companies in cases involving removal of content, banning, etc. even if there is an argument the company violated its own user agreement.

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

So it seems the courts are interpreting the good samaritan rights to remove offending content quite broadly. And even if these companies are removing accounts, removing content, etc. they enjoy liability under the provision.

Now a bill like Hawley's legislation could change that. But under the current bill it would seem the companies may still remove who they want.
 
Upvote 0