Turns out there is something everyone may agree on in Congress: Let netizens use mostly algorithm-lite apps

A proposed bipartisan law that would force tech companies to let netizens view posts and search results free of meddling by mysterious algorithms has gained further support in Congress. On Tuesday, US House reps Ken Buck (R-CO), David Cicilline (D-RI), Lori Trahan (D-MA), and Burgess Owens (R-UT) introduced the Filter Bubble …

[FF22]

Algorithms

You could at least put the word "algorithm" or "algorithm-lite" in quotes, because that word obviously doesn't mean what all these clueless senators and representatives understand it to be, and which is similarly stupid as 'understanding' the internet to be "a series of tubes".

And this isn't just pedantry, because not understanding what some words and concepts actually mean is part of the problem, and is a major hindrance in reaching a solution. For ex. if we'd call those "algorithms" what they actually are, ie. "filtering and prioritizing content in a way to optimize and maximize engagement, ignoring the societal and mental cost of this", then it would be more obvious what the solution would be or how to word a law that bans such behavior by social media companies.

But if we (well, they) will just keep calling them "algorithms", the solution will also elude us, because you obviously can't ban "algorithms" per se, and that's the last thing you really want to ban anyway.

[Neil Barnes]

Re: Algorithms

The word algorithm is becoming something of a junk science phrase largely divorced from its technical meaning...

Though there was mention, at least, of 'opaque' and 'transparent' algorithms. Which is probably worthwhile - though I can see another layer of click-through 'we use algorithms to deliver you a superior experience' message boxes appearing shortly.

It's been a pet peeve of mine that when something is recommended to me I can't ask 'why these results in this order' although I suspect that the only real answer is along the lines of 'because we think we'll make more money this way'.

[pavel.petrman]

Looks like a step in the right direction...

... though one would suspect that there is going to be a catch somewhere, given the well documented level of corruption advisory activity towards politians by sentiment manipulating giants.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Looks like a step in the right direction...

they silently excluded anything that sounds like GDPR though... while trying to make it APPEAR that they are "doing something"

[deive]

"a search engine or recommendation system that requires a user to supply a specific input, such as a request for nearby coffee shops or songs by their favorite artist, would be exempt" - cos they would never use any other info to find and order those results, right? Right??

[Snake]

RE: Search engines exempt

Absolutely NOT! Google's Personalized Search is just as guilty as Facebook and YouTube in sending users 'down the rabbit hole' of biased content, sometimes leading to radicalization, thanks to being fed only viewpoints that match the viewer's singular viewpoints.

Facebook and Google's PS algorithms are BOTH toxic to the advancement of acquiring balanced knowledge through an open mind. They close the mind to alternatives by the expedient of simply eradicating the alternatives from view.

[bombastic bob]

Re: RE: Search engines exempt

you got MY up-vote

[ThatOne]

I Got Algorithm

Well, since it would cost money and those very "algorithms" are what makes the money, there is pretty little chance this law might change anything.

Besides, if you think about it, it's just another name for the already existing possibility to opt out of "targeted" advertising, and we all know how efficient that is. But you can't expect career politicians knowing stuff like that, they just latched on to a techy sounding buzzword they've heard somewhere.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: I Got Algorithm

/joke We've got the algorithm eliminated now - we're just storing the users data for processing. No algorithm at all. We're not going to be weevil ...

[nintendoeats]

This is all very nice and everything but...consider what happens when you look at youtube on a fresh computer, not logged into a Google account. It is revealed as one of the stupidest places on earth.

The internet needs heavy noise filters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't they learn from the cookie laws?

Tell corporations that they must by law offer a choice between two options, only one of which they really want their users to accept, and guess what: there will be more bugs and general bad experience with using the other option, thereby training users to automatically choose the option the company wanted them to choose. So here is my prediction: the "no filter bubble" button will give absolutely appalling search results, worse than those given to a new user with no history, probably sorted in order of disk address on their server or something. They will do the absolute minimum to fulfill the letter of the law but not its spirit, sometimes even breaking the letter as long as the infringement is too small to be enforced, and 99% of everybody will not bother with that apparently stupid legally required option, any more than they currently bother to risk saying "no" to cookies and breaking a website, or browsing in incognito mode and suffering endless popup after popup because no site remembers they've accepted before (I put up with this, but I'm not in the 99%).

[Anonymous Coward]

Close...

but wouldn't it be better to ban companies from harvesting user data from sites other than their own without the explicit and tacit permission of the user? Why do Facebook, Google, and Amazon know that I was browsing chicken feed on the Tractor Supply website? Why does somewebsite.com know I was looking at patio heaters on Amazon and show me ads for patio heaters? Why does Amazon know I was in Home Depot looking at kitchen faucets, and start suggesting faucets when I'm on amazon.com?

This whole "opaque algorithm" thing is just treating the symptoms, not the disease. They need to go after the advertising and data-gathering web itself. That's the evil part.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free Dopamine vs Dopamine Free

It won't make much if any difference because only those resistant to influence anyway will turn it off.

So it seems there isn't much Congressional appetite for leveling the field of journalism by revoking section 230 for companies that engage in ""filtering and prioritizing content in a way to optimize and maximize engagement" (thanks FF22), which is the bare minimum to make a perceptible difference.