r/UpliftingNews • u/No-Lifeguard-8173 • 3h ago
Australia to force social media platforms to allow users to opt out of algorithms
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/sep/08/australia-social-media-algorithm-switch-off-opt-out-digital-duty-of-care•
u/stainless5 3h ago
I'm pretty sure this is what the original underage ban was meant to do. People who are underage were still allowed to access the sites just not personalised algorithmic content, it's just no one complied by removing the algorithm, instead going the most disruptive approach of blocking the whole thing to try and make people hate the regulations, like what they did with Europe's cookie banners. So now they're making a separate law. With these two laws together it'll force companies to allow young people back onto social media just without the algorithm.
•
u/Edward_TH 3h ago
Without an algorithm that extract the maximum value from you and with a much lower economic value (since they usually have little to no say in personal spending), minors would probably be either not allowed on the platforms anymore by the platforms themselves or illegally spied on even more deeply and aggressively. Those companies won't let users on their platforms if they won't be absolutely sure that they'd turn a profit on them.
•
u/RegularReaction2984 3h ago
Yes? That’s exactly the situation we have right now. Hence the second law that they have to allow every user to opt out of the algorithm, not just young people.
•
u/GeorgeTheNerd 1h ago
Any visitor that opts out is likely to lose access to most of the features of the website. Why would a website provide the service if they can't make money off you? If they allow you on at all, it will be the most bare minimum experience and probably designed to make you leave. They will see it as getting rid of the dead weight. The game is far from done here.
•
u/LovecraftInDC 1h ago
Oh no! People won’t be able to use social media?! Oh no!
•
u/GeorgeTheNerd 57m ago
It is an actual problem to not be on facebook. I hate we got to this point, I hate logging into it, but it is a necessary. When the local town had a gas leak and closed down a major road, the only notification sent out was facebook. They put up signs on the road, but knowing before you drove into town that you need to go around to get your kids to school required facebook. Same with a wildfire. Same with power outages. Slightly less serious are relatives who think internet=facebook and is the only avenue to communicate with them. And businesses that only notify you of days closed or changes in service via facebook. I hate that company and have to work with them daily.
Ultimately, they provide a service. I am going to pay for that service one way or another. I would prefer that payment be straight forward and transparent. This bill does not get us there.
•
•
u/twangbanging 49m ago
Similarly, I run a business. I have to be on social media. If you have a service industry business and you don't have an instagram or a facebook, it drastically impacts your business. I hate it. I wish I didn't have to do it, but it is an important part of every brand now. If someone recommends a place to you and they have no online presence, most people don't trust it anymore.
•
u/Koru03 27m ago
It is an actual problem to not be on facebook.
No it's not. For you maybe it is, especially if your town doesn't communicate to you any other way, but this is far from the case for a lot of people.
There are reasons to be on there but none of what you posted has to do with the algorithm facebook uses to keep you engaged. In fact I'd be far more inclined to use facebook if it wasn't using an algorithm to try and keep me on it and only showed me content from people I've friended/followed.
•
u/GeorgeTheNerd 15m ago
none of what you posted has to do with the algorithm facebook uses to keep you engage
Except its why they won. Its why its facebook and not myspace or google plus. Its why the town and so many others think it is a avenue for important communication. Because to much of the audience spends so much time on it, it becomes the tool effective enough that most citizens are ok getting the message that way and the noisy citizens are happy they don't have to pay for another tool out of the town's taxes.
I'd be far more inclined to use facebook if it wasn't using an algorithm to try and keep me on it
Me too. And I have tried using other tools. The issue is not convincing me or my closest friends. Its the convincing everyone else to give up on something that is "free" and pay upfront for something else. Having the option to convince them to opt out of the algorithm is easier, but if functions are impacted (which I fully expect), it will not work.
•
u/LazyLizzy 1m ago
Is it a problem to not be on facebook? I've not been on facebook for 15 years and I've never thought, "Dang I need Facebook for this task."
Facebook only has value if you give it value, and unfortunately lots of people give it value cause they use Facebook marketplace for its convenience.
•
u/SvOak18 32m ago
Why would a website provide the service if they can't make money off you?
Because of regulations that legally require them to if they want to continue to make money off of everyone else.
They don't get to cause a problem and then say "Oh we can't address the problem we caused because we won't make any money if we do". That's literally why regulations exist.
•
u/Edward_TH 3h ago
Adults have much more direct spending power that could be leveraged though...
•
•
u/C_Hawk14 2h ago
News flash, those teenagers become adults and as a social media platform they're offering their interests up for free. Useful for selling the data to marketing companies targeted towards teenagers rn and otherwise they'll have a profile on you once you become of age
•
•
•
u/stainless5 3h ago
This is probably one of those things where as long as it doesn't spread, just having a user is more valuable then the lost profits; especially if it encourages people from other regions where they can make profit to join.
I don't remember what country it is but there's one where ads on sites like Youtube are illegal but they don't block the country because having the people use Youtube is more valuable than forcing them onto something else that could then grow.
•
u/Edward_TH 2h ago
The YT situation is different because users are also creators whose contents can get directly monetized in other countries. On most social media that's not the case because monetized content is what the algorithm is there to push for primarily and most users are just passively get monetized.
On Facebook or reddit the algorithm pushes to you content you didn't subscribe for created by someone that paid to publish. Without it user won't get those content unless previously subscribed for so users that do not use it are worthless economically, unless data gets harvested...
•
u/SasparillaTango 2h ago
minors would probably be either not allowed on the platforms anymore by the platforms themselves or illegally spied on even more deeply and aggressively. Those companies won't let users on their platforms if they won't be absolutely sure that they'd turn a profit on them.
From their perspective, if they took the long route, baking them into the platform until they become adults that can be monetized should still be preferential to having them not care about it at all.
•
•
u/MinusBear 2h ago
The day you turn 18 the algorithm will be coming for your head with years of data on you. If you ever accidentally click the algorithm feed button, you will simply never escape the hypnosis.
•
u/redyellowblue5031 2h ago
Just because they aren’t (theoretically) shown algorithmic content doesn’t mean platforms won’t track their activity unless that’s expressly regulated and enforced.
•
u/CarlJohnson__ 2h ago
Source on this being "what the original underage ban was meant to do"?
Cannot find any articles about that.
•
u/stainless5 1h ago edited 1h ago
From what I have seen most of them will start out with "social media ban" and then go into what the tech companies are actually doing And not about what the law was actually meant to do.
The easiest way to see what a law actually does is to look up the actual law. Here's the actual line about what the law bans "a service is legally classified as an "age-restricted social media platform" if it utilizes an account-based recommender feature (an algorithm)" This is part of the reason why Youtube was caught up in this, it has an account based recommender feature.
Of course there's more to it but one of the core pillars to the law has always been personalised algorithmic content It's just all the companies twist the law into its worst possible version in order to get them overturned, by banning everyone and scrubbing their hands.
•
u/TalespinnerEU 2h ago
That'd be good. Taking away anonymous third spaces from vulnerable populations is an extremely scary dynamic (and youth are extremely vulnerable, since their rights are so often negotiated by adults who hold authority over them).
Opting out of algorithms instead of requiring ID (so that these corpos can collect your data and sell it to the local tyrant) is a much safer approach. And yes, I do believe ID should not be necessary for access. Regulate Powers, not people.
•
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 26m ago
Age verification doesn’t do anything to a users anonymity. Besides the fact we already have completely anonymous verification platform option, the data harvesters already know and it’s still up to the user what they post.
Kids were never banned from browsing, just from having an account. You might be confusing our reform with other countries. Anyway if you actually care at all, especially about vulnerable children, maybe look into why this law is being passed.
•
u/The_Shracc 2h ago
Or you know, just leaving the market, like cookies did for a third of the internet for Europe.
•
u/fake_user_34 1h ago
Shit, can I also get social media without the algorithm. I am tired of watching criticism videos of a movie or show then being bombarded with right wing idiots.
Go from one video explaining how the show ignores the lore to an ocean of videos explaining the show is bad because of woke and women.
•
u/favorite_time_of_day 1h ago
There's a big difference between opting out and opting in. I'm not sure that what we're getting here is quite what they intended originally.
•
u/cageslutjoanna 34m ago
If you're a bloodsucking social media company, then you can't offer a complete opt-out for the simple reason that it reveals to all the difference between a Feed that the social media company overtly wants you to see / thinks you will enjoy via a recommendation algorithm, and a Feed that comes from more organic sources. Seeing this flip when you turn 18 would be absolutely wild and would ironically, blow up on tiktok and other social media.
Being forced to reveal to everyone just how manipulative their algorithms are is itself a huge damage that these companies would face. They are aware of this.
•
u/Seerix 3h ago
God I hope this goes global. *Fuck* their algorithms.
•
u/jug6ernaut 4m ago
I wish they straight banned algorithmic feeds. Opt-out is great, but the ppl who need it most never will.
•
u/alinroc 2m ago
On Facebook you can still flip over to the Friends feed and get just your friends' posts (well, interspersed with ads) in chronological order.
I want the same for Instagram. Just show me the posts, in order, of the people/accounts I follow. That's all. Give me another tab where I can doomscrolling all the "recommended" things.
•
u/jonbristow 1h ago
this is already implemented. I dont get what everyone is talking about
on IG you can filter to watch following friends only
•
u/resurrectus 37m ago
And there is no way to set it to see just friends as a default, you have to take an extra step every time you open the app to see that. I would bet most users dont even know that function exists. Oh, and viewing just what you follow is still full of algo generated adds! Thats what everyone is talking about.
•
•
u/Trump_Russia 1h ago
I do not believe Meta let's you opt out of their engagement loops with just simple setting...
•
•
u/Swipecat 1h ago edited 1h ago
Isn't that the same vibe as "fuck pronouns"? The Guardian article has a very valid point, but did they have to base it around ignorance of the meaning of a word?
Edit: Uh huh. A bunch of downvotes. So I guess there's a bunch of people here that don't know the actual meaning of the word "algorithm" and thus the absurdity of using it in this way.
•
u/Seerix 58m ago
Fuck pronouns?? I dunno how you got that from what I said
•
u/Swipecat 55m ago
You don't see the absurdity of the article talking about "opting out of algorithms" on a social media site? Do I really have to explain to death why that should be, and hence my comment?
•
•
u/mfunebre 49m ago
Uh, no? We didn't used to have algorithms dictating the content we were shown, back in the olden days. You saw content from your friends, and pages or channels or content creators you specifically asked to follow. Why would it be absurd to go back? I mean, obviously it would be "absurd" for the clickfarmers or the ad slingers, but for users? Not so much.
→ More replies (7)•
•
u/anto2554 3h ago
This is a much better approach than whatever the fuck the ID laws are
•
u/stainless5 3h ago edited 3h ago
This is kind of what the ID laws were meant to be 'cause it was never a ban on social media, it was a ban on algorithmic content: If your account was underage they said you weren't allowed to be exposed to the algorithm, no site made underage accounts without the algorithms so instead the companies just had to ban all the young people in the most disruptive way possible and hope to get the law changed back.
I can't wait to see how the company is twist this law into its worst possible version
•
u/DanfordThePom 3h ago
What about porn
GIVE ME PORNHUB BACK
•
•
u/fake_user_34 1h ago
lol in florida, there are so many blocks on porn sites, but one vpn and those blocks are gone.
•
u/nauett 2h ago
If your life was that affected by not being able to access pornhub then it might be best for you that it was blocked
•
u/Long-Division-7760 2h ago
If they don't have enough brain power to get around the ban then they definitely shouldn't be using any of it on porn.
•
u/Roflkopt3r 42m ago edited 23m ago
I doubt it's going to be used much. Social media is kind of unusable without the algorithms, because there is so much complete trash on it, or things that simply aren't relevant to a user.
Keep in mind that this only forces the platforms to provide a voluntary opt-out for users. It's probably only going to be used by people who didn't care about the algo recommendations to begin with.
Youtube rolled out a 'discover new things'-feature that specifically shows things outside of your usual algorithm. I tried it a couple times and it has been a consistently awful experience. The only way that I found recommendations to be of any use is if I remain careful about sticking with good and relevant contents, and use the tools to tell the algo whenever its heading the wrong way. Otherwise it quickly drifts off into slop and weirdness.
•
u/sebjapon 2h ago
It’s kinda weird anyway that social media pretend they are not editorializing (which would put them responsible of all contents posted) despite having those algorithms that editorialize automatically.
“It’s not me, it’s the algorithm that we created” should not be a valid defense for pushing disinformation and extremism around the world.
•
u/awry_lynx 2h ago
it is also bizarre that they make it impossible to just look at things in a feed by how recently they were posted. that's all i want. let us sort by new. stop showing me things from people i'm not already following. that's it.
•
u/sebjapon 1h ago
I was using xcancel just for that to check some local shop news but they got ceased and desisted now…
•
•
u/Jax72 3h ago
But then how will YouTube be able to keep recommending the same exact guitar video to me over and over and over again for years on end no matter how many times I say I'm not interested?
•
u/Lord0fHats 3h ago
It's ironic in my head that I feel like if these companies actually made it a choice and the default was no algorithm, almost no human being on earth would ever opt into it. Because the algorithms are all horse shit nonsense beggaring the question of 'what is this even good for.' The answer to which we know but it's like excessive advertising. It obvious achieves the aim it aims for, but literally no one likes it.
•
u/kireotick 1h ago
You say that but when you are served kids kontent, screaming youtubers, countless videos of what you are not interested in, you may change your mind. We need some personalization, but maybe that could be up to us more somehow and not in the hands of the algorithm.
•
u/Lord0fHats 1h ago
You say that like that isn't exactly the crap the algorithm throws at us XD
Or is this a /s and it's going over my head?
•
u/kireotick 1h ago
Works well enough for me. Try opening YouTube without an account and without cookies or whatever. I see none of my interests. I am not saying it works well, but it does filter out a huge amount of crap I am not interested in.
But maybe it is different for you somehow. I have no idea. Just wanted to say that there is a middle ground in personalization algorithms
•
u/Lord0fHats 1h ago
For me it's one video I don't care about just autoplays while I'm on another screen and the entire feed is more of that crap for a week.
•
u/ExcellentAgent6539 36m ago
I'm guessing all the people that think these dickheads are going for anything positive are not from Australia. Why don't we just ban everything already? Get it over with.
Start with the gambling and loan ads everywhere... and maybe make housing and food affordable again
•
u/ARTIFICIAL_ARGUMENT 24m ago
Social media ban has popular support here, guess you’re the one that’s not Australian
•
u/creatingKing113 2h ago
Seriously. They can’t program that if I’m refreshing the home page, then I want to see new videos.
•
u/Any_Show_5160 1h ago
My favourite is when I see 2 vids, completely different subject matter, watch one and when I go back to watch the other it's nowhere to be seen.
Next fav is when I clicked Aussie guy blurting out Russian talking points due to a misleading title, back to home and now I'm blocking nutjobs for a week or two.•
u/FarCardiologist196 1h ago
Somthing I've learnt recently, is to sometimes just trust Youtube. Youtube understands it frustrates and annoys you by recommending the same video to you 10 times, and its taking up precious shelff space a different video could be shown to you. If Youtube is trying so hard to suggest a video to you, more often than not it's because the video is just so damn good/perfect for you specifically.
•
u/-Clem-Fandango- 2h ago
Topics and creators I frequently search for? Nothing. That video I accidentally clicked on and then hit back within 2 seconds? 20 suggested videos on the topic for you!
•
u/Husbandosan 1h ago
I get videos for 11 year old phone models sometimes. They’re not even retrospectives, they’re just the videos from when the phone was new. Then I keep getting recommended videos I’ve already watched, whether it was the other day or years ago. Don’t get me started on watching one thing and then it recommends a bunch of those videos. I watched one video on the Pawpaw fruit (I’m not even interested in gardening, just curious) and it recommends me all these gardening channels and a bunch of Pawpaw videos. Like you should be able to know that this isn’t my normal viewing habits and act accordingly. YT also keeps recommending me conservative content even though I’m not religious and I’m a socialist.
•
u/Purple_monkfish 1h ago
what i've noticed is that despite having completely separate accounts, my family's algorithms all merge suggesting they're actually using our IP, not our account data. It's actually really annoying because I don't give a shit about "star wars lore deep dives" (husband), or "how this computer system works" (eldest) or "all about chernobl" (youngest) or "sonic lore deep dive" (middle kid) and yet my algorithm is FULL of this. WHYY!????
The thing is, the "if you liked this, you might like this" style of the original algorithms worked fine. But they're now so over sensitive that you look at a photo of a cute cat once and forever you are going to be recommended animal videos, and not just cute cats, you'll get donkey sanctuaries and sad animals and people being attacked by bears and all sorts of shit because the computer saw "animal" and went "yep, they like animals, they looked at an animal picture one time and liked it!"
You buy ONE vacuum cleaner and now the algorithm is convinced you need 100 of the damn things.
It's ridiculous.•
•
•
u/Herr--Doktor 2h ago
You know how this could be better? Allowing users to Opt In because algorithms need to NOT be attached to the person by default.
•
u/Yonutz33 3h ago
It's a step in the right direction but if fines are only a couple of hundred milion AUD then its just spare change for these tech companies
•
u/TheFriendOfCats 2h ago
Yep. They'll just lay off a couple hundred employees to pay it and move on. The fines need to be big and they need to hurt.
•
u/ohheyisayokay 42m ago
Fines in this day and age need to be a percent of gross revenue, not a flat fee.
•
•
u/codacoda74 2h ago
VPN to Australia about to be very popular! Curious if it applies when AU accounts travel outside of country.
•
u/al3phz3r0 2h ago
I doubt using Australian VPN endpoints to access social media sites would be too popular because here in Australia we also have a law that requires age verification for many social media sites, which involves handing over biometrics or ID (or having to deceive the verification process). As far as I know, this new legislation does not replace that existing law.
•
u/trikster2 1h ago
I just set my VPN to australia and had no problems going to FB while virtually australian.
Maybe they are taking the location from the account info instead of the IP address?
•
u/Ithikari 51m ago
That's because a VPN doesn't over-ride cookies. If cookies conclude you're above 25+ years old they will let you through.
It's like getting IDed for buying alcohol or cigarettes.
•
u/Son_of_Atreus 2h ago
Cool, now they need to ban gambling ads like they said they would before lots of donations from corpo scum came in.
•
u/Equivalent_Net 3h ago
Doesn't make up for for trailblazing the horrifying invasion of privacy that is BS age verification but it's a step in the right direction at least.
•
u/PhiStudios_ 3h ago
Yeah, not gonna pretend that was a good idea.
•
u/agiantdog33 2h ago edited 1h ago
Oi, you got a loicense for that fap session, mate? Oi bloddy hell; I just noticed we forgot to cut off the Google images. It's open season on there right now!
•
u/UnacceptableUse 3h ago
I think it was a good idea but poorly executed
•
u/stainless5 3h ago edited 3h ago
It's kind of hard to get age out of an online user, Apple devices have an estimated age that they give to websites but Windows and Android phones don't have that system so it's a bit of a crapshoot. some places in the US are making laws that the operating systems need to verify the person's age instead of the specific websites.
The original draft of the Age verification laws required sites to use their advertising algorithm to estimate the age of the user before asking them for verification (using a government issued ID wasn't allowed in the original draft) but Reddit was one of the companies that lobbied to have the advertising age removed and have the option of using ID as they said it would be too hard to run a verification system on the user base.
•
u/fake_user_34 1h ago
It was always a bad idea. You can't ID check on the net without invading privacy. And any ID check system is just ripe for exploitation, just look at all the ID's that got leaked on the net.
•
u/UnacceptableUse 1h ago
I think you could. Government run service which has no knowledge of the site you are verifying with and gives no information other than pass/fail to the site you're using. The government already stores information about you so the risk of data breach isn't much higher. In the UK we actually already have almost this exact system and have done for years, but it's used for verifying if you have a driving license for jobs instead of for age verification.
•
u/fake_user_34 52m ago
he government already stores information about you so the risk of data breach isn't much higher.
That already is a problem, I don't know about you, but the government uses third party companies. This is why ID's got leaked in the first place. Government do not have some super secret organization that keeps your data safe. The UK also got hacked.
Why the fuck would you think this will work? It already failed.
•
u/TightlyWhitey 46m ago
Possible emphasis on "was". We're entering the era of AI where knowing you're interacting with a real human is about to become exceptionally important. And difficult, without the obvious.
•
u/fake_user_34 41m ago
Mate, they need to reintroduce the net security attitude we had back in the 90's.
Never give out your information about anything, always believe the person on the other end is FBI, an old smelly dude or just a robot.
When people got their identity tied to the internet, it became clear how easy it is to manipulate people with personalized ads or videos targeted at them. Cambridge analytical proved this to be true. They couldn't go after the anonymous accounts because they didn't have any data on them.
They went after real people, who showed they were fence sitters. Those were the targets.
A.I. on the net shouldn't change anything because people shouldn't believe everything on the internet in the first place, like the 90's internet security attitude taught us. That is the mindset that needs to come back.
The internet isn't real, it can be manipulated. Hard copies are the things you need, actual real connection that is tangible. If you can't smell it, touch it or see it with your own eyes, be prepared to think it is fake, because now it most likely is.
•
u/encarta99 3h ago
Nearly every electronic device is listening and watching you for profit. Every screen you look at is watching you. Yet you still believe a few regulations to try and limit the reach of these companies into children’s lives is the horrific act.
•
u/that0neBl1p 3h ago
“Your phone already listens to you so might as well hand your government ID over to any app that asks for it For The Children” do you read what you type?
Not only did Australia and the UK prove that kids can and will get around bans, and therefore all bans serve to do is inconvenience people and weaken the online security of adults, it’s been proven that giving your ID to whatever 3rd party site that “promises” to keep your identity safe is a shit idea (massive Discord ID leak last year, the U.S. demanding websites to hand over info on anti-ICE users, etc). Have some common sense.
•
u/The_Gump_AU 2h ago
The current Australian Government actually wants to introduce a ID system that stops you having to provide any ID to any business.
It works by the Government sending a "token" to whatever business is asking for ID verification, saying "this person is who they say they are, and the Australian Government vouches for them"
Trouble is, the same people who sign up for dozens of online services a year and have no problem letting business's have a bunch their information, are all up in arms about the government proposal.
•
u/that0neBl1p 2h ago
I think verification by any means is shady, and fully think it will be used to de-anonymize the internet, but I can also say that a token is leagues better than the fucking “give any and all social media conglomerates even more of your data” strat.
•
u/WrastorDaddy 2h ago
Some kids find ways to buy alcohol so we should just sell alcohol to kids.
See how stupid that sounds? Have some common sense.
•
u/that0neBl1p 1h ago
It’s hilarious that you equate showing your ID to a single random clerk with sticking it in some online database where it will live forever and likely get leaked if not used to track you. It’s also hilarious that you think this is common sense.
•
u/WrastorDaddy 1h ago
Never been to a club? They scan that shit. Ever had a passport and travelled? They scan that shit. You have the option of not giving your ID and staying off adults only websites. Just like you have the option of not handing over your licence at the club by not going to the club.
•
u/Parking-Entrance-617 17m ago
"You already have microplastics in your balls, you may as well inject your balls with more plastic so it's squishy and fun to play with"
•
u/WrastorDaddy 2h ago
Is it an invasion of privacy to require ID to drink alcohol? To drive a car? Theres hundreds of things that require 100 points worth of ID (passport, birth certificate, driver's licence etc.) I find it fascinating that people can see the damage that we know social media causes to a growing mind but complain that they can't access it without proving they are an adult.
•
u/Convict4815162342 2h ago
Does this mean we get r/all back?
•
u/Mist_Rising 1h ago
r/all used algorithms
•
u/ccAbstraction 22m ago
I hope people realize that chronological sorting is still an algorithm with biases towards things.
•
•
u/stray_r 2h ago
I would like to opt out of all sorting algorithms except the bogosort please. /s
The reporting on this is so bad, and likely so is the technical understanding of legislators. It's been a while since I studied content recommendation so I might have missed something, but twenty-something years ago when it was new hot stuff I think we categorising it like this:
content the user did not ask to see
content that users in this users demographic might find relevant, useful and enjoyable
content that is specifically targeted at the user because they interacted with it previously and positively
content that the user previously interacted with negatively
content that is harmful
The last two on this list are a problem.
I like reddit because it has a downvote button and an option to mute a subreddit. There's a toggle to "show recommendations in my home feed". We can also opt out of various types of advertising that might be unwelcome. This is how to do it right. Mostly.
I'd really like an option to block specific adverts and advertisers, I've told spez and other senior reddit staff this, there was a series of adverts that a large part of the LGBT community found really offensive. Do advertisers really want to pay to seen seen by a user that really hates them?
I've found new open source communities to participate in and new bands i really love through recommendation algorithms done right. I've seen my mum, now in her 70s, who never really liked mainstream pop music growing up and sang and played a lot of church music because it was her job suddenly find a load of stuff because i showed her how to use Spotify to get music playing on a modern car.
But what if all engagement was seen as "positive" by the algorithm, or it saw an angry face and ragetyping as more engaging than anything else? Well then the last two items on the list become your business model. Then we have the harms meta and X does.
Weirdly android auto crashed out on me the other day and i suddenly had content i did not ask to hear courtesy of radio 4 (I concede that I probably fit the R4 demographic now). Specifically, an article about the UK's OSA and specifically the interviewee talking about the kindness and candidness of anonymous strangers on the internet and how support subs on Reddit were a valuable mental health and chronic illness resource.
tl;dr: algorithm bad harmful and unwanted content bad
but also why does anyone have to put up with harmful and unwanted content?
•
u/True_Heart_6 48m ago
Very well said. The algo simply pushes things that excite, arouse, and get your attention.
It doesn’t care whether that thing is an elderly man getting pushed down the stairs, or a Mom in another country complaining about her child’s teacher, or an AI skateboarding kitten. If you watch then the algorithm thinks you like it.. even if it’s upsetting or uninteresting.
Unfortunately the only way to opt out of this is to simply not use these apps or their features.
I specifically notice that if I haven’t opened FB in a while, it’ll show me some insane thing as the first post. Today it was a woman from another countrytalking about her son who was murdered and lashing out at his alleged killer. I don’t know this woman, this isn’t something I signed up for or agreed to, and respectfully I don’t open FB to see random heartbreaking stories first thing in the morning- I’d seek out true crime news if I wanted this.
We need more options because the ones they provide do next to nothing. Probably on purpose.
•
u/Immediate-Bag2445 33m ago
I share some of your concerns because the average person can't even define "algorithm" and most of the reporting on content reporting algorithms is trash, but I don't think perfect needs to be the enemy of good here, and content filtering features came far before personalized content recommendation systems came along.
Bottom line, I want to be able to opt for chronologically sorted content from creators I chose to follow. Why is this so hard for social media companies to do when it is the default for every other basic app?
•
u/mouse_8b 2h ago
I'm concerned that people don't know what "algorithm" means. At its core, it just means the steps you go through to solve a problem.
Technically, it's impossible to show any social media content without any algorithm. Even if the algorithm is just "show posts by friends sorted chronologically", that's still an algorithm.
If the law doesn't define any specific practices or prescribe its own algorithm, then it seems like a prime spot for the law to be skirted over a technicality.
•
u/Catsrules 22m ago
I was concerned as well but it is just the headline, the story goes into more details.
Yes you are correct, "show posts by friends sorted chronologically", is still an algorithm. But I would argue that isn't what the average person thinks when they hear algorithm.
It is kind of like when people say "do you have WiFi?" They are talking about internet access not local WiFi networking. But it is possible for me to have WiFi and not have internet access.
•
u/mouse_8b 11m ago
Second reply,
that isn't what the average person thinks when they hear algorithm.
I agree that's not what the average person thinks. But courts and laws don't go on what the average person thinks. Elections do get influenced by what the average person thinks. It's not too difficult to write laws that play these against each other.
•
u/mouse_8b 13m ago
That's a good example. My main concern is malicious compliance from tech companies. That they might make the "my feed, my way" feed unusable to the point that people feel they need to opt-in.
•
u/Specific-Secret665 2h ago
This is a meaningless comment by you. Obviously the specific article defining the law mentioned in this post wouldn't be a single sentence saying "Social media platforms must allow users to opt-out of the algorithms used by them.".
If you actually look at law articles, they are usually various paragraphs and pages long, detailing exactly what is and isn't subject of that specific article.
•
u/mouse_8b 48m ago
Legal documents can use a lot of words to not say much of anything. Here in the US, lobbyists often write the text of the law, and they absolutely use little tricks to make a law sound good but actually be meaningless.
•
u/cwright017 1h ago
That is still meaningless. Opt out of algorithms used by them, everything is an algorithm.
Oh so opt out of a feed curated by what we think you will like? Ok so here’s a new algorithm to show a feed based on latest friend updates, chronological order, cat pics…
The OPs statement still stands, and you have reinforced it, that people don’t understand what an algorithm is.
•
u/fake_user_34 1h ago
I am really starting to hate these "well actually" comments. Everyone knows what an algorithm is, we aren't fucking dumb. We use the term algorithm for a specific point of coding that pushes content that manipulates emotions for more clicks. Mostly right wing stuff.
Going all "well actually" or "technically" is fucking meaningless.
•
u/mouse_8b 52m ago
Everyone knows what an algorithm is
That's pretty obviously false
Going all "well actually" or "technically" is fucking meaningless.
That's what they're gonna do in court
•
u/fake_user_34 51m ago
That's pretty obviously false
No it isn't
That's what they're gonna do in court
Good thing this is reddit and not a court. That is up to the lawyers to fight but any court of law or govenrment alone doesn't understand shit about tech. But they legit look like they are going for the more general code than just the one used for things based on stuff you want to see instead of the system feeding things that aren't related to what you want.
•
u/mouse_8b 44m ago
govenrment alone doesn't understand shit about tech
That reinforces my point that not everyone knows what an algorithm is.
The last sentence doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm too dumb to parse it.
•
u/fake_user_34 39m ago
That reinforces my point that not everyone knows what an algorithm is.
No, everyone does. Not everyone knows which specific math they are using to feed into what.
And the last sentence makes sense, maybe you just are.
•
u/mouse_8b 29m ago
Ok. Everyone from high schoolers to boomers knows what an algorithm is, and the law is definitely written competently and in good faith. Good to hear.
•
u/stainless5 1h ago
I'm assuming that this law will use the same definition as the last law which was simply "account-based recommender feature (an algorithm)" as they don't want to ban the actual algorithm they just want to ban personalised algorithmic content.
•
•
u/AutisticSuperpower 1h ago
I'm transgender and I'm so fucking over anti-trans content being pushed on me every time I try to connect with my friends and family. Enough is enough. I want to turn it off.
•
u/Ya-Dikobraz 1h ago
I listened to this on ABC radio yesterday and what I got out of it was - people actually want their algorithms. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
•
u/fake_user_34 1h ago
ABC is bought and paid for by the billionaire class, of course they will say people want algorithms, they don't report the truth. They report ads.
•
•
•
u/aldorn 2h ago
Give us the button to scrub our data you cowards. All data brokers need to be open about where it is and we need to be able to opt to delete it.
•
u/Mist_Rising 1h ago
Lol, social media doesn't keep the data, it sells it and doesn't know what happened to it.
•
•
u/falcrist2 2h ago
Most of my time spent setting up and optimizing my internet experience has been spent AVOIDING algorithmic and manipulated ranking systems.
I used to prefer browsing All with a heavy dose of filtered subreddits. My landing page on youtube was subscriptions. My facebook used to be a "list" of all my friends which created a feed where I only saw their posts in chronological order (without ads lol).
Hell, I used to have a beautiful homepage on google with a bunch of RSS feeds.
It made those platforms bearable.
•
u/stoyicker 1h ago
While I appreciate the intent, reading this while having some sort of above mid-level technical expertise is quite cringe-inducing. You're not going to solve any problems just technical problems by using words people want to hear, that's just demagogy
•
u/MrMegaPhoenix 1h ago
Imagine having the same account where one has it opted out and one doesn’t
Would be extremely interesting
•
u/Purple_monkfish 1h ago
Please can we have this? Can we also have a blacklist so we can block certain topics or terms like tumblr has? It's such a good feature.
•
u/Cormophyte 1h ago edited 1h ago
Laws like this are often pretty misguided or aimed at the wrong thing but this seems useful to a point. It won't fix the problem, though. A lot of people are going to opt into the broader feed because they use the platforms explicitly to have content fed to them. Boiling it down to a binary choice leaves little room for people to do what they want in a more controlled manner. This tries to solve the issue from the perspective that the existence of an algorithm is the issue rather than the actual issue of ulterior motives yanking the feed in one direction or the other.
•
•
u/hibbel 1h ago
I often watch what I found on stremio because it has no algorythm behind its "most popular". That's all I want, thankyouverymuch.
Whenever Netflix starts to propose shit on my vewing history, I delete the user and create a new one.
Piracy is a service problem. Just show me your full catalogue, include Rottentomatoes / IMDB ratings, give me a "most popular" list and I'm a happy camper. But stop plastering my start screen with japanese / korean stuff just because I watched one anime (I didn't hate but didn't love, either(.
•
•
u/YallRedditForThis 1h ago
Can we opt out of gambling ads???
•
u/stainless5 1h ago
No, because for some reason every time someone tries to touch gambling half the people on Facebook get angry and then a bunch of money appears for comedians to make ads about how great horse racing and other things are appear.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
u/Tremenda-Carucha 39m ago
Took long enough, these platforms had to take responsibility for what they push, especially with the eSafety commissioner now being able to force them to document how they handle harmful content, it's a win for kids and adults finally having some real control.
•
u/baconboner69xD 25m ago
Won’t matter to literally anyone in globally relevant countries.
•
u/LittleLui 18m ago
People in globally relevant countries are more than welcome to pass similar laws via whatever way their countries' respective political systems provide.
•
•
u/slowcheetah91 4m ago
This is also the same government that enforced digital ID which requires us to now upload a scan of our face or official ID to do anything online… so I’ll hold the applause
•
•
u/OkTrick8490 3m ago
Can we choose our own algorithms? Bubble Sort is cute but slow. Bloom Filters are clever and quick, as long as you can tolerate the (very controllable) false positives.
•
u/karyslav 3h ago edited 2h ago
I think people do not realize what they really want.
You can try it on Mastodon. Asbence of alg is not the benefit. But, whatevere, if there is an option, why not.
EDIT: I did not realize it is second part of law that helps younger users to use net safely. That is absolutely ok. But non existence of alg comes with a lot of complications they arise at the moment, you try to use content network without alg.
•
u/polygonsaresorude 3h ago
Tumblr can still be used (mostly) without an algorithm. The posts are just the people you follow all in chronological order (or backwards in time at least). I absolutely love that. The site has struggled for other reasons, but the chronological order was great.
If Facebook had a feed like that, I would legitimately start using it again.
•
u/linerva 2h ago
Facebook used to be like that back in the day.
•
u/karyslav 2h ago
and then they changed it.. because it was not able to cope with all that content (and also they wanted money)
•
u/linerva 2h ago
I don't see why it couldn't cope with it? Many people only have a couple hundred followers. I expect the cause was financial, can sell people more things when you push content at them.
•
u/karyslav 2h ago
try mastodon and you will find out, there are several problems that elevates when you try it if you have more than 10 people followed
•
u/Dr_thri11 2h ago
I had hundreds followed before facebook forced their algorithm, it was fine and way more functional than what facebook is today.
•
u/karyslav 2h ago
This is more than decade ago. Situation changed very much. At that time facebook had much less users than it has now.
The same technology would not work for following the content nowdays. For "regular" people I mena. Of course there are people who will be OK with that.
But based on (non)adoption of Mastodon and reality that Bsky was forced also use some kind of alg. delivery I really think that 12+ years old solution is not possible today for avereage user, for several reasons.
•
u/Dr_thri11 2h ago
Horseshit I got 10 pages I don't follow showing me bullshit I'm not interested in for every one useful post I see. No this is just pure enshitification of a once useful product.
•
u/karyslav 2h ago
Well.. yeah there are also a lot of users of Mastodon who finds it ok.
I am not saying that one solution is for everybody.
•
u/stainless5 3h ago
The whole point of this law is it's meant to work with another law that was passed earlier this year that said that anyone who is underage is not allowed to be exposed to personalised algorithmic content, but instead of modifying the websites so underage accounts couldn't get access to the algorithm, they just banned everyone under this age.
This law is meant to encourage the websites make an algorithm free option and to get young people back onto them by locking underage accounts into the algorithm free version.
•
•
u/DaaaahWhoosh 3h ago
As a programmer it's always wild to me how demonized 'algorithm' has become. If you open Youtube and it just shows you videos from channels you've subscribed to in order of release, that's an algorithm. Same for facebook showing you your friends' posts, there's got to be some algorithm to determine the order things are shown in. Reddit uses a few different algorithms to show different posts and comments. "no algorithms" means what, you open the site and are served no content whatsoever?
•
u/linerva 2h ago
Tumblr serves people a chronological feed based on who they follow. There's a separate feed for suggestions "for you" based on tags you follow or things you've interacted with. As a result it's got a fairly faithful user base.
Facebook et al. all used to work this way.
No algorithms in this case would mean being served explicitly what you have chosen to follow. Rather than the app deciding what it thinks you want to see - which has been widely criticised and if you really are a programmer I assume the criticisms have not passed you by.
You know that the algorithms aren't being used benignly. You know that these companies are expanding considerable effort to serve people increasingly polarising sometimes even radicalising content and keep people engaged for as long as possible.
Be for real now.
•
u/DaaaahWhoosh 2h ago
Do you think I'm trying to defend the social media companies? I'm not, I'm just saying, even "show the stuff you chose to follow" is an algorithm. It probably runs a query to pull content connected to the user's preferences sorted by create date. And for something like reddit or youtube, it's gonna be really hard for the platform to work for new users if their first view of the homepage shows nothing.
•
u/bulliralamar 2h ago
"The algorithm" is just shorthand for algorithms that personalize content for each user using opaque criteria. That is what the law bans. You can still get posts from people you follow, they will just be in chronological order, or ordered by likes or whatever.
•
u/fake_user_34 1h ago
You know what people mean when they say algorithm, stop being obtuse.
When people say algorithm, they're not talking about the coding that gives you your subscribed content to you. They're talking about watching one video about supergirl and then getting fed all these right wing chuds who say how woke supergirl is and why it deserved to fail. That is the algorithm people are hating, the one that pushes ragebait shit for more clicks.
•
u/tinfoil_powers 34m ago
How would this even work? Even the most basic feed population method will still be technically an algorithm
•
•
u/AutoModerator 3h ago
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
Important: If this post is hidden behind a paywall, please assign it the "Paywall" flair and include a comment with a relevant part of the article.
Please report this post if it is hidden behind a paywall and not flaired corrently. We suggest using "Reader" mode to bypass most paywalls.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.