But Stray pointed out that distinguishing between good and bad algorithms isn’t so easy.

One problem with engagement-based algorithms is their opacity: Users have little insight into how their personal data is being used to target them with content a platform predicts they’ll interact with. Malinowski’s bill, the Protecting Americans From Dangerous Algorithms Act, would take away Section 230 immunity for claims invoking certain civil rights and terrorism-related statutes if a platform “used an algorithm, model, or other computational process to rank, order, promote, recommend, amplify, or similarly alter the delivery or display of information.” It contains exceptions, however, for algorithms that are “obvious, understandable, and transparent to a reasonable user,” and it lists some examples that would fit the bill, including reverse chronological feeds and ranking by popularity or user reviews.

Even showing someone posts by people they follow arguably relies on information specific to that person. But, on its face, it would seem to say that any platform that doesn’t show everyone the exact same thing would lose Section 230 protections. But what counts as personalized? According to the bill, it’s using “information specific to an individual” to enhance the prominence of certain material over other material. New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone’s Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act, for example, would withdraw immunity when a platform “knew or should have known” that it was making a “personalized recommendation” to a user.

A system optimized for engagement rather than quality is one that supercharges the reach of plagiarists, trolls, and misleading, hyper-partisan outrage bait. Thanks in part to the testimony of Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower, even Congress understands that when it comes to massive social platforms like Facebook, Instagram, or YouTube, the root of many problems is the use of ranking algorithms designed to maximize engagement. The new bills would, in various ways, revise Section 230 so it doesn’t apply when algorithms are involved.Ĭontent moderation, on its own, is a sucker’s game. Currently, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally prevents online platforms from being sued over user-generated content. It wasn’t long ago that congressional hearings about Section 230 got bogged down in dismal exchanges about individual content moderation decisions: Why did you leave this up? Why did you take that down? A new crop of bills suggests that lawmakers have gotten a bit more sophisticated.Īt a hearing on Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee discussed several proposals to strip tech companies of legal immunity for algorithmically recommended content.

The definitive book of human design