Users can use Facebook and Google regardless of which algorithms the user data supports. Who filters the site or prioritizes its use. The bill joins a similar bill proposed in the Senate, and together the bill shows that the legislature's hostility to social media companies won't go away. p>
“Facebook and other dominant platforms are “gaming with opaque algorithms that prioritize growth and profit over everything else.” A Cislin representative said in a statement. “Given the monopoly and dominance of these platforms, users have little to no Alternatives to this exploitative business model, whether in social media feeds, paid ads, or search results.">
But the algorithms themselves have also been criticized because social media companies make content decisions that make them look less like neutral platforms and more like publishers.< /p>
Blast from the past
In appearance, the proposed bill looks attractive and deals with a certain nostalgia for a simpler period of time. Who wouldn't want to experience the Internet before Facebook applies algorithms to its news feed or does Google b Customize search results? p>
For Google, this result may satisfy users and is likely an improvement away from results that inflate filter bubbles. But for social networks like Facebook and Twitter, where people have amassed hundreds of “friends” and followers who collectively post thousands of pieces of content every day, the results of these sites are almost unusable. Maybe that was the idea? This may lead people to retreat to friends and family, but it may also lead them to dig the rabbit holes they used to have. p>
For the first time, the bill calls on social media to send notifications to a person. It interacts with the "mother" algorithm. This notice allows users to turn off the algorithm. The bill defines an opaque algorithm as "the determination of the order in which information is presented to a user... based, in whole or in part, on user-specific data that the user does not explicitly provide to the platform." "Such a goal." Social media companies are also required to provide settings so that users can change the use of these algorithms. There's no doubt that social media companies put forth words about settings that discourage people from using them, but for savvy users, the bill can open up a whole new way of using social media.
One more step< p> This bill could easily be seen as a misguided attempt to tame Big Tech and its content rating algorithms. But it also ignores the point that such small steps can take in the legislative process.
Cecilline, in his statement, described the bill as an "important step." The bill is sure to make some users happy, while at the same time continuing to build trust among lawmakers from across parties. Buck and Cecilline helped draft a series of antitrust bills from the House Judiciary Committee this summer. Not every single bill has been a huge threat to big tech companies, because it's unlikely to end Facebook. However, each successive bill paves the way for the next bill, the ability to understand history. Together, those bills might not be that big. But it could also be the beginning of something that will improve technical regulations for future generations. p>
Bill suggests non-algorithmic options on big tech platforms that might illustrate bigger strides
'Don't be evil' fired. p>...
CEO of 13 major European telecom companies t...