> Due Process means that you should be able to know the rules a system will follow if you participate in that system.
That seems to me like an overly restrictive definition.
What if the rules of the system are that a single individual gets to make all final decisions, such as in a monarchy? Is that due process?
The definition of due process I've always operated on is much broader and includes mechanisms such as the ability to appeal decisions and present your case. I would argue that an adversarial process is also part of due process. I don't think you have have due process in a system that is one-sided with no advocacy for all sides on equal footing.
I'm uncertain about the distinction that due process needs to be public. If two parties behind closed doors go through a process whose rules they believe to be fair beforehand, is that due process?
I completely agree. I believe that social media algorithms should be declared illegal human psychological experimentation. Anything other than supplying a dumb pipe or obvious and simple mathematical explanations (for instance, a calendar) should be outlawed as such.
No more 'showing you this based on your preferences' black holes of addiction. No more conspiracy trails of nonsense.
Of course Zuck is the problem, but not for any fact checking lapse. He is the architect of Facebook and therefore responsible for the business model and the Algorithm. It's been clear for years now that the business model is paving a road to disaster. The outrage/dopamine factory and closed loop reinforcement combined with making personas available to the highest bidder should be criminal. Maybe Zuck didn't know in 2015, but by 2017-2018 it was clear what was happening on FB/Twitter/YouTube. The Cambridge Analytica scandal could have provided an excuse and cover to pull the reigns in, but if he did, I am unaware (except for losing the exact way CA was able to get it's data).
> Due Process means that you should be able to know the rules a system will follow if you participate in that system.
I don't understand why we are changing the meaning of words. Due Process means a particular thing, and that is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.
Why are we now changing that to mean the rights of a person and their social network?
If a corporation chooses to filter your speech on its property, then it should be subject to the wraith of public opinion and vice versa, whether that is via algorithm or via CEO Decree. The effect is the same. People need to start making the distinction that they are using Facebook's property and their first amendment rights are limited on another person's property.
I feel like when we muddy the waters by making Facebook seem like a quasi-state, then we get into problems.
Presumably the idea is that people value due process on its own merits, not just as a legal mechanism. We feel very keenly that we should not be punished merely for going against the spirit of the rules.
> To be a real alternative to Facebook at the core, the social network’s algorithm has to be public and not arbitrary, transparent and not faceless. It has to have Due Process.
You know what else is public and not arbitrary, transparent and not faceless? Most of the republican institutions of the world!
The solution to our problems with social media is very simple: Make it as foundational as the rest of the public infrastructure that doles out Due Process in our societies. Are our public courts enforcing private and public wrongs without fault? Of course not, but imagine what private courts would be like.
Bonus in the US: If the federal or state governments build their own many-to-many digital distribution networks, well guess what? The 1st Amendment now applies.
This whole blockchain governance approach is a lost cause. The problems with social media are inherently political in nature and it will take the general will of the people to support any solutions. Again, most of us already live in a democratic republic that was explicitly designed to, you know, build republican infrastructure the reflects the general will of the people.
Or you know, we could just LARP around as statesman on Twitter while trading alt-coins. It is certainly much more fun to play dress up than to actually do something. I guess as long as everyone is just aware that they're engaged in some frivolous role playing then there is no harm, but don't for a second think that we're actually going to achieve anything related to politics without many years of hard work actively engaging with our existing systems of government.
Actually, you cannot seriously separate the algorithm from the man. The algorithm is a reflection of Mark Zuckerberg. Anyone who argues otherwise ignores years of widely known precedents of how Mark Zuckerberg (along with a few others) drove Facebook and its algorithms to be this way. The algorithm is what’s made him so rich and continues to allow him to have so much shareholding control on the company.
Three problems with the post. First off I'm a little bit annoyed by contrasting systemic problems of misinformation on these platforms with anecdotes about long lost friends. Yes, that some person from Japan could message the author is nice, but it's not really relevant given the levels of the threat we're talking about here. It's just an emotional appeal, sort of a reverse "but think of the children". (it also doesn't really require Facebook)
Secondly, the algorithm isn't to be blamed for anything. Algorithms don't have agency (as of yet at least), they're tools and humans are responsible for deploying them or turning them off if they misbehave. We cannot offload responsibility on them, they're just machines.
Last point is the argument about due process. Due process is important within the context of the law, but not everything on the world runs on formalistic processes. That's not possible given how many micro-decisions we have to deal with that are ambiguous. Zuckerberg is not required to uphold any due process in any strong sense of the term when managing his platform. Norms might be a better term, or maybe guidelines. But at a company level, there is significant need for case-by-case decision making. Zuckerberg is not the state.
The algorithm doesn't prevent me from sharing posts on my private Facebook page from a professional ethics blog because they aren't PC enough for the Facebook stasi. Imagine if the phone company or your email host prevented you from communicating.
12 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 40.6 ms ] threadThat seems to me like an overly restrictive definition.
What if the rules of the system are that a single individual gets to make all final decisions, such as in a monarchy? Is that due process?
The definition of due process I've always operated on is much broader and includes mechanisms such as the ability to appeal decisions and present your case. I would argue that an adversarial process is also part of due process. I don't think you have have due process in a system that is one-sided with no advocacy for all sides on equal footing.
I'm uncertain about the distinction that due process needs to be public. If two parties behind closed doors go through a process whose rules they believe to be fair beforehand, is that due process?
No more 'showing you this based on your preferences' black holes of addiction. No more conspiracy trails of nonsense.
[The Cambridge Analytica scandal changed the world – but it didn't change Facebook] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-cambr...
I don't understand why we are changing the meaning of words. Due Process means a particular thing, and that is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.
Why are we now changing that to mean the rights of a person and their social network?
If a corporation chooses to filter your speech on its property, then it should be subject to the wraith of public opinion and vice versa, whether that is via algorithm or via CEO Decree. The effect is the same. People need to start making the distinction that they are using Facebook's property and their first amendment rights are limited on another person's property.
I feel like when we muddy the waters by making Facebook seem like a quasi-state, then we get into problems.
You know what else is public and not arbitrary, transparent and not faceless? Most of the republican institutions of the world!
The solution to our problems with social media is very simple: Make it as foundational as the rest of the public infrastructure that doles out Due Process in our societies. Are our public courts enforcing private and public wrongs without fault? Of course not, but imagine what private courts would be like.
Bonus in the US: If the federal or state governments build their own many-to-many digital distribution networks, well guess what? The 1st Amendment now applies.
This whole blockchain governance approach is a lost cause. The problems with social media are inherently political in nature and it will take the general will of the people to support any solutions. Again, most of us already live in a democratic republic that was explicitly designed to, you know, build republican infrastructure the reflects the general will of the people.
Or you know, we could just LARP around as statesman on Twitter while trading alt-coins. It is certainly much more fun to play dress up than to actually do something. I guess as long as everyone is just aware that they're engaged in some frivolous role playing then there is no harm, but don't for a second think that we're actually going to achieve anything related to politics without many years of hard work actively engaging with our existing systems of government.
Secondly, the algorithm isn't to be blamed for anything. Algorithms don't have agency (as of yet at least), they're tools and humans are responsible for deploying them or turning them off if they misbehave. We cannot offload responsibility on them, they're just machines.
Last point is the argument about due process. Due process is important within the context of the law, but not everything on the world runs on formalistic processes. That's not possible given how many micro-decisions we have to deal with that are ambiguous. Zuckerberg is not required to uphold any due process in any strong sense of the term when managing his platform. Norms might be a better term, or maybe guidelines. But at a company level, there is significant need for case-by-case decision making. Zuckerberg is not the state.