I really really REALLY hope this is phrased well. Otherwise it is impossible to implement. People don’t know what an algorithm is.
Sorting by date uses an algorithm. Filtering by tag uses an algorithm. Even counting out a number of posts uses an algorithm. An algorithm is not some magic oracle but just a list of instructions like a cooking recipe.
The wording in the article body seems reasonable
Users can choose to opt in to having their default feed include personalised content recommended by the algorithm. Alternatively, users can opt out of personally recommended content in their default feed and see the friends and creators they choose to follow.
But then the actual quotes on the bottom don’t use this wording. I’m not sure what to expect.
Statistical models are not technically algorithms; they are a heuristic which “approximates” a solution probabilistically. They use algorithms to function and operate on data (like everything a computer does) but they are not algorithms themselves.
The main thing they have to do is clearly define that results derived by statistical modeling are opt-in, set limits on what personal data can be used to present content, and ensure there are significant penalties for crippling the experience of everyone who hasn’t opted-in, which all are guaranteed to do to force users to opt-in.
They should define a bare minimum baseline of data points that should be made available to users to control the content they want to see using non-statistical algorithms (e.g. time, location, content type or popularity, friends/subs/followed only or ones they recommend themselves, etc). They should also define that opt-in/out (enabling and disabling statistical model results) should be a part of the main filter UI that uses the aforementioned data points; a simple toggle at the top of their page/feed, permanently visible and near-instantly applicable; otherwise they’re guaranteed to hide it away and make opt-in/out a major friction point.
Basically you need to treat them like they’re sociopathic criminals who will never act in good faith voluntarily, because all multinationals and large corporations are lead by criminally corrupt sociopaths.
it’s more likely that the government is going to fumble the legislation
It’s more likely that the government is compromised by other for-profit interests, and most shit legislation is intentionally hamstrung or loop holed.
Statistical models are not technically algorithms
Which makes “opt out of algorithms” even more wrong.
They should define a bare minimum baseline of data points that should be made available to users to control the content they want to see
I’m not a fan of specifying too much here. Many platforms don’t track location while other fields that we can’t think of in advance might be useful. Finding a more general rule that still gets the intent across might be hard but I’d rather have it a bit under-specified than suddenly requiring a social media site to track my location every time I post because someone wasn’t careful enough when writing the text of a law.
Other than that, I agree 100%.
Knowing the Australian government and their long track record of not understanding technology I think it’s a given that it will be phrased badly and be unworkable.
I learned today that the game ‘Blue Prince’ has an R18+ rating in our land down under because it has one room with a ‘casino’ in it.
I have little hope that anything good will come of this.
