28
Australia to force social media platforms to allow users to opt out of algorithms (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"Users over 16 years of age will be given new tools to turn off algorithm-driven content, with platforms facing fines of more than A$100m for non-compliance.

Under the plan – dubbed “my feed, my way” – users opting out of the algorithm will see content only from individuals and groups they have actively chosen to follow...

New laws designed to provide a digital duty of care for social media users under 18 will also require services such as online games, apps and AI chatbots to protect children from specific harms.

They will include pornography; content that promotes, encourages or accelerates eating disorders; misogynistic content; content that glorifies crime or life-endangering stunts; and content that causes serious mental health distress, including abuse and bullying...

The Labor government will require the support of the Greens to advance the laws through parliament. The main opposition parties, the Liberals and Nationals, have flagged opposition, warning the government against efforts to censor the internet.

The legislation is expected to be introduced to parliament before Christmas, but will likely face a lengthy public inquiry and negotiations.

The Greens communications spokesperson, Sarah Hanson-Young, warned the draft legislation should have a lower threshold for harm, and penalties for platforms should be a percentage of their global revenue...

“Opt out is a recipe for big tech to manipulate and to get around it."

all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

Have we seen the birth of No Algo Albo?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    The threshold for harm on facebook in particular is already basically non-existent.

    I've reported all kinds of posts, including subtle threats. They're never against community standards.

    This should be pushed, and, later enhanced to be even tougher

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    5 comments in c/technology@beehaw.org view that post
    [–] 12 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    So then there's gonna be an option for a strictly chronological timeline?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    No. That’s an algorithm.

    So is filtering to only friends and hiding blocked users.

    So no algo, no feed at all really.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    you just get posts in precisely whateverthefuck order the server ends up pulling them from its database, which isn't an algorithm because obviously that means the Lord himself is deciding the order of your feed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [+] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago

    because these politicians know extremely little about the Internet

    I started participating in online communities in the 2000s. The "social media" we had back then was web forums, organized by topics and sorted chronologically. I was young enough at the time that it is now permanently stored in my brain that that is the normal way the Internet should be like, and everything popularized since then (recommendation algorithms, the idea that we should follow people instead of topics, even the idea that websites shouldn't be specific to certain topics) is a deviation from normalcy.

    I know, rationally, that those deviations from normalcy are now the new normal (even the fediverse is "only" an attempt to improve further on that, not a move toward the Internet of the 2000s), but there is still a part of my brain that doesn't accept this.

    But I very strongly suspect that those politicians, in Australia and elsewhere, who are now trying to regulate the Internet, never posted anything to a traditional web forum, or edited a wiki, or anything like that. To them, "social media" became a thing (at all!) in around 2008 to 2010 when they created Twitter and Facebook accounts in order to communicate with their voters. (Reality check: social media has been a thing since, at the latest, the 1980s, when Usenet was invented.)

    If they don't know that the Internet is not Facebook, then it's unsurprising when they regulate the internet as if it’s all just Facebook, so that all that will be left is Facebook. Sad times we are living in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • 2 comments in c/antisocialmedia@piefed.social view that post
    [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    Engagement algorithms should be opt-in, if they have to exist at all, but this is a good step in the right direction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    I look forward to this law being weak as shit after it goes through the both houses and the barrier to the fine being stupidly high and any actual fines issued will be appealed to pocket change. Oh wait, 100m is pocket change them when they are making billions a quarter.

    Meta made 60 billion

    Google made 119 billion

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •