this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2026
62 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

87897 readers
4348 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de 8 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I really really REALLY hope this is phrased well. Otherwise it is impossible to implement. People don't know what an algorithm is.

Sorting by date uses an algorithm. Filtering by tag uses an algorithm. Even counting out a number of posts uses an algorithm. An algorithm is not some magic oracle but just a list of instructions like a cooking recipe.

[–] micgerne@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 48 minutes ago

Knowing the Australian government and their long track record of not understanding technology I think it's a given that it will be phrased badly and be unworkable.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

Statistical models are not technically algorithms; they are a heuristic which "approximates" a solution probabilistically. They use algorithms to function and operate on data (like everything a computer does) but they are not algorithms themselves.

The main thing they have to do is clearly define that results derived by statistical modeling are opt-in, set limits on what personal data can be used to present content, and ensure there are significant penalties for crippling the experience of everyone who hasn't opted-in, which all are guaranteed to do to force users to opt-in.

They should define a bare minimum baseline of data points that should be made available to users to control the content they want to see using non-statistical algorithms (e.g. time, location, content type or popularity, friends/subs/followed only or ones they recommend themselves, etc). They should also define that opt-in/out (enabling and disabling statistical model results) should be a part of the main filter UI that uses the aforementioned data points; a simple toggle at the top of their page/feed, permanently visible and near-instantly applicable; otherwise they're guaranteed to hide it away and make opt-in/out a major friction point.

Basically you need to treat them like they're sociopathic criminals who will never act in good faith voluntarily, because all multinationals and large corporations are lead by criminally corrupt sociopaths.

[–] sealhaslupus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

it’s more likely that the government is going to fumble the legislation

[–] dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de 1 points 57 minutes ago

Statistical models are not technically algorithms

Which makes "opt out of algorithms" even more wrong.

They should define a bare minimum baseline of data points that should be made available to users to control the content they want to see

I'm not a fan of specifying too much here. Many platforms don't track location while other fields that we can't think of in advance might be useful. Finding a more general rule that still gets the intent across might be hard but I'd rather have it a bit under-specified than suddenly requiring a social media site to track my location every time I post because someone wasn't careful enough when writing the text of a law.

Other than that, I agree 100%.